Browse content similar to 18/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
David Cameron says that too few Muslim women living in Britain speak
Is their isolation fuelling extremism?
After a difficult few weeks for the Labour leader,
Jeremy Corbyn sets out his policy stall, but will voters like the look
There are four well known Eurosceptics in the Cabinet,
but will any of them campaign for an British exit
Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown
of Muslims entering the United States.
After that statement last month and 500,000 signatures to an online
petition, MPs debate whether to ban Donald trump from the UK.
All that in the next hour and with us for the whole
of the programme today are the Conservative MP and former
Deputy Mayor of London, Kit Malthouse and the Labour MP
The Prime Minister says that too few Muslim women living in the UK speak
good English and that this is fuelling social isolation
He has announced ?20 million to fund English lessons and said that anyone
on a spousal visa who fails to master the language could be
It is essential that it does work because we want to build a more
integrated, cohesive, one nation society where everyone
You can't have a country of opportunity if some people can't
speak the language and in many cases, it's no fault of their own.
It's because they've been put into a situation where they have
been encouraged not to integrate and not to go out and not to learn
the language and that's not good enough.
That needs to change in our country and these proposals will make sure
We're joined now from Birmingham by Zymbeida Limbada
of the anti-extremism charity, Connect Justice.
Welcome to the Daily Politics. What do you think of David Cameron's
suggestion that there is or could be a link between low levels of English
amongst some Muslim women and the potential for extremism? There is
absolutely no evidence to suggest that for example if you look at the
700 cases of people who have gone to fight in Syria to join Isis that if
their mothers had actually spoken English, this would have stopped
them from going into Syria. So the evidence is very poor in this
particular case. If it is a security issue, the lack of evidence is very
different from something that I see framed within the context of
equalities. Social mobility and integration, those are two very
different matters and it is important that the Prime Minister
does not conflict two very separate issues. So when he says that if you
don't speak English, I mean, this is what I put to you initially, but in
a slightly different angle, you could be more susceptible to the
extremists message that comes from Daesh. Do you think that a sense of
isolation, if you don't speak English could make some people
susceptible to a radical message coming from outside the UK? The fact
that you don't speak a particular language and within if you look at
for example Chinese communities, Polish communities, it means that
everyone is susceptible. That women for example, that we engage with
from the Muslims communities, one of their concerns, when it comes to
practical measures when it comes to conversing with their children is
around the fact that they don't understand the internet. They don't
understand social media and that's something that concerns them on the
extremism aspect. There is a different matter when it comes to
learning, being engaged in the economy, getting jobs, and being
part of society. It is what David Cameron says about British values.
Two different matters. What about the issue of identity though? Does
that in anyway sort of transcend towards messages of extremism and
radicalisation for the very reasons you've said? If you are not having
any other engagement beyond the home or beyond the mosque and you don't
have access to the internet, in that sense, could you be radicalised in
any way? I mean, there is no end to, it could be this, or it could be
that. If you start to target a particular segment of the community
and then if you look at gender within that community and a few
saying that they are disempowered, by adding punitive measures and
adding in the lens of security, surely that makes them slightly more
susceptible to not listening to the message that the Prime Minister is
trying to give. Actually t could have the opposite effect. It is more
likely to radicalise by taking this language and these measures.
likely to radicalise by taking this agree the foundation of integration
is language acquisition, it sits at the base of every coherent society
that we have a common language that everybody can participate in and can
absorb through the various routes, the media and the influences that
they need to turn into a productive member of society. What the Prime
Minister wrote in the Times today, it was very balanced and measured
about this idea, there are particular segments of society, who
because of cultural or other practises are marginalised, maybe
because they are new arrivals to the country and don't have the language
acquisition and he wants to make it easier, it is that simple. As a
by-product, was it helpful to actually link the fact that there is
a potential for extremism with low levels of English amongst Muslim
women? One of the things that's women? One of the things that's
challenged everybody around counter extremism is the idea of certain
sections of the community, whoever they maybe, feeling as if they are
outside of the mainstream. If one of the barriers to that is language,
then surely we should do something to tackle it? If you look at a
message that the Government is giving of participation, I fully
embrace that. When a male Prime Minister tells me that he is
embraced equality, a positive message. When the Cabinet has 20
member and ten women, those are the bigger issues of ensuring equalities
is a standard message. That involves everyone, but it is heard by
everyone and not alienating certain segments of the community with
punitive measures. Let's look at the measures. Is it right to be looking
at not extending visas if somebody has been here for two-and-a-half
years and they still don't speak English? Again, I would like to ask
David Cameron how would you be measuring someone's level of English
in terms of the progress that they may have made in two, two-and-a-half
years? As a child of immigrant parents, it is almost implying that
integration over a longer term does not work. Investment has got to be
more sustained. We have had around 20% cuts in language classes and to
suddenly reintroduce ?20 million of investment for a particular targeted
minority community simply on the basis of gender is not a thought
through messure. It is almost like the Government are running out of
ideas around extremism and conflating this dangerously. How
would this work? People will be deported if very haven't reached a
certain level of English? They wouldn't be deported. They wouldn't
have their visa extended. It would be taken into account. How measure?
If you apply for a tier two visa, there is a test that establishes the
level you need to work here. We assess everybody's English in this
country in school anyway by making people take exams. Surely, it is a
good thing to have extra money, that is targeted, never mind it was cut
by the Government originally in this particular area, but it is targeted
to help people who could be marginalised and learn and improve
English. I grew up in an Irish family in this country in the 70s
and 80s, it wasn't fashionable to be Irish growing up at that time. And I
think that feeling of being made to feel other than being fully British
is really problematic. I think it is clumsy. I think it would be counter
productive for those communities. We need a much more... Do you think it
would actually marginalise them further? When you feel you are being
attacked for who you are, you know, people gather together, don't they?
You sense that you must look after yourselves and I think that's really
clumsy and unhelpful at this time. And as Kit said, people are required
to pass an English test to come through. I'm in the sure what the
detail is. I'm not sure this is being
characterised as an attack. This is ?20 million... Cuts from further
education colleges. Why are you targeting Muslim women in
particular? Is that the only segment in society that can't speak good
will you have English in the Government's mind? If you read the
article it talks about women generally. The Prime Minister said
it would be targeted at women and specifically again at Muslim women.
It maybe that he identifies a particular problem. This comes out
of a meeting that he held last week with leading Muslim women at Downing
Street where a number of them recouldn'ted to him the problems
that they felt there were within the community of marginalisation and
certain cultural practises which are not beneficial to the progress of
women, so naturally he is going to talk about that. When I was a
councillor, we had a problem in the Chinese society. That is something
that could be addressed too. On the cultural issue, there is a
disconnect if there are communities where women are kept at home by
their male partners, where they are not given access to the things that
other women are given. Do you see that that isn't in accord with the
British values that David Cameron believes? I think, I mean, even kind
of referring to Kit's point here about the Prime Minister meeting
women in Downing Street. I would start off by urging David Cameron to
come and speak to the women that we talk to on a daily basis. Some of
the issues are very different from what the Government seems to
constantly impose and continues to marginalise. There has been a lot of
again, disenchantment with the Government's way of messaging. It is
very paternalistic and it is constantly reinforcing this view
that the Muslim community have got a problem that they need to sort out.
There is no partnership element and that's complete lilacing as well.
The question for today is: what song does Jeremy Corbyn whistle
Is it, A, Only You by the Flying Pickets?
B, God Save the Queen by The Sex Pistols?
Or D, Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree
At the end of the show Karin and Kit will no doubt give us
It has not been an easy start to the year for Jeremy Corbyn,
but now the dust has settled on his Shadow Cabinet reshuffle,
the Labour leader seems keen to shift the focus onto policy.
On Friday, Labour launched their defence review,
including looking at their policy on Trident, and Mr Corbyn was out
at the weekend to set out his stall on a wide range of issues.
In an interview on The Andrew Marr Show, Mr Corbyn
reiterated his support for the junior doctors strikes said
he would repeal legislation outlawing "sympathy strikes".
He said that there has to be discussions with Argentina over
the future of the Falklands, but that the Islanders have
On Trident, he reiterated his anti-nuclear stance,
but he put forward the possibility of maintaining the submarines
without the nuclear warheads as a way of protecting jobs.
And he said that there needs to be a "route through" to talks
Dialogue is perhaps the wrong word to use.
I think there has to be some understanding of where their strong
points are, their weak points are, and how we can
So, I believe that the neighbouring governments in the region
Look at the way there has been to some degree,
at times, of prisoner, hostage exchange.
Look, we've got to bring about a political solution in Syria.
That's something I've been calling for all along.
So, Vienna has made a lot of progress, it has to go a lot
But war crimes have got to be addressed.
And we are joined now by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones
Welcome to you both of you. Dan Hodges, on its foreign policy stuff,
what was your overall impression? Well, a normal political context, it
would be another disaster for the Labour Party. This these are simply
not the issues that Labour wants to be discussing at the moment. Which
ones are you talking about? The Falklands, the opening door for
negotiation with Isil, Trident, obviously and if you remember when
Jeremy Corbyn was first elected within hours of his election, the
Conservatives sent out a series of adverts to frame Jeremy Corbyn as
weak on defence, weak on national security and to put this issue at
the top of the political agenda and indeed, if you saw it, there was an
poll in the Independent on Sunday yesterday which shows that national
security is at the top of people's concerns. So, on that level, it is
disastrous for Labour, but we have to understand this is not a normal
political context, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are not atelting to
frame a programme for Government. It is all about internal politics
within the Labour Party for Jeremy Corbyn at the moment. Right, well,
let's take two of those Owen Jones and talk about his comments on the
Falklands and some sort of talks, not dialogue, with Isil. I mean, is
he actually going to be able to change the terms of trade on
national security and defence or will he continue to be pigeon-holed
in the day that Dan Hodges said he is?
On domestic policy it is pretty united, that is where it needs to
focus. On foreign policy, what the Labour leadership needs to focus on
putting the Government on the defensive, like its alliance with
the Saudi dictatorship which beheads its own citizens, kills political
dissidents, treats women as having no rights. Crucially, exports
international extremism all over the world, a threat to the security of
the people watching this programme. A second issue dealing with Isis,
the role of Turkey, a British ally, where it allows Isis fighters to
cross into Syria, posing a threat to national-security. Lots of issues it
could be focusing on. My own view is there is consensus on domestic
policy where labour needs to put in an alternative.
You say there is consensus but not on defence, particularly Trident. On
issues like Saudi, Jeremy Corbyn has raised that issue and one could
argue David Cameron responded in terms of prisons being built, human
rights, delaying a visit, others the things Jeremy Corbyn has brought to
the table. They are not the things that need to
be brought to the table. Morally we can have a discussion about Saudi, I
would echo those sentiments, but people in the country will not be
voting in local, mayoral or general elections on our relationship with
Saudi Arabia. Jeremy Corbyn has fallen into a trap David Cameron has
set. David Cameron and the Tories wanted to frame Jeremy Corbyn as a
leader and the Labour Party as a party weak on national security, and
have succeeded spectacularly, primarily as a result of what Jeremy
Corbyn has said. The point about Saudi Arabia is it
poses a threat to national security in this country. There is a genuine
threat to families from extremists who believe in an ideology which is
hateful and a threat to the lives of people here. Saudi Arabia is at the
Centre. My point is, this is the point of the debate, it is easy, I
could get forced to talk about this and that with people saying you are
not sticking to parities of people around the country. I am saying the
lead -- I am saying the Labour leadership... If I go back home to
Stockport, in the pub, there won't be talking about Westminster or the
ticks, what are the priorities that affect them on a daily basis? That
is what we need to talk about. Let us talk about national security
and the issue of Trident, the future of Trident in terms of its renewal.
You say there is consensus but there is not. You know, on the issue of
Trident, there is a row brewing with the unions, why have Trident
submarines without missiles? It cannot be a deterrent if people know
there is nothing on board. The issue of nuclear weapons, we
should be mature on having a discussion on spending on that.
The idea you would have submarines without...
With all respect, I had to answer the question. Do we spend ?100
billion on nuclear bombs? Many former army generals have argued
that as having nuclear bombs which we can't use without the say-so of
the US isn't relevant to the security threats we face.
People watching world believe we should have nuclear bombs and others
who don't. We should be grown up enough as a democracy to have that
debate, do we spend that money on conventional Armed Forces? Social
care for elderly? Housing? Above all else, what Labour needs to focus on
our domestic policies, economy, housing, we aren't even having this
discussion now. Do you support the renewal of
Trident? I agree we need to focus on domestic
policies, the Stockport test also applies in Bristol.
What you think about the submarines without missiles?
I watched Jeremy, the first I have seen of that. We are undertaking a
defence review. I would much rather talk about domestic issues. I am one
of 12 Labour MPs out of 197 across the country outside London, someone
said there were more Labour MPs, more people have walked on the moon
than Labour MPs in the south of England. This is the real issue.
Danny is right, security and your family security, international
security, is an election issue. It's Jeremy Corbyn helpful to you
election campaign? He has been elected for his honesty
and straightforward attitude, to be commended. I wish we were rather
talking about other things. There is a debate to be had over
Trident. There is an issue about nuclear weapons in the world today.
There is any debate because Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to have that
debate. Everyone in the Labour Party says we need to take the fight to
the Tories on various issues but it is Jeremy Corbyn who specifically,
remember, there has been a settled consensus on nuclear defence policy
for decades. It is Jeremy Corbyn alone who has opened this up.
What about trade union laws, secondary picketing, sympathy
strikes, is that something to reopen?
We need to bring these laws into the 21st-century, we have some of the
most restrictive in the Western world, the words of Tony Blair. The
problem with existing trade union laws are they are so weighted in
favour of the employer. Even before the crash, employers were posting
record profits as workers's wagers were flat-lining or falling, because
they did not have strong enough trade unions.
Less demand in the economy, more people rely on tax credit is what it
meant. We can argue the biggest democratic movement in the country
represent the people who stack shelves in supermarkets, clean the
streets, should have more rights. That would be good for the economy.
They would have more sustainable wage rises.
On national-security and defence, you argue differently. On the
economy, on parts of society who feel they have been marginalised
young people, isn't it their way he could strike a chord?
No, we know how it ended with Ed Miliband. You can make the argument
but actually you can't, this is the problem. The slogan, we want a
return to secondary picketing, give the Falklands back to Argentina
negotiate with Isis, get rid of Britain's nuclear... That won't
work. If Jeremy Corbin wants to make those arguments, he is entitled. You
cannot on one hand say you have to pass the Stockport pub test, and on
the other hand have Jeremy Corbyn going... Asks to pass the Jolly
sailor test at the same time as having him go on Sunday Politics and
setting out that programme of what he is offering.
These were the questions directly posed to him. You can argue...
He said he wanted to change Labour's policy on secondary picketing... In
the leadership election, you are telling people that is why we should
vote for Jeremy Corbyn. They have voted for him. Now you can't say,
how do you ask him this? The point above all else is that
what they should be asking is what are his alternative ideas to what
the Government is doing. Universal Credit which will leave millions of
working families worse off. The housing crisis. The fact at the
moment we have a crisis in terms of the unions on the brink of
disintegrating. All I would say, the Labour leadership it is incumbent
upon them to pass that Jolly sailor test. Focus on housing, falling home
ownership, lack of council housing, jobs, social security, issues people
care about. BBC journalists will ask about issues more peripheral. The
Labour leadership needs to focus on those.
Is secondary picketing a crucial priority?
It is not a dull time to be a new Labour MP.
It is not a priority. How people are involved in their workplace,
workplace democracy, the rise of self-employment, how people work
today, is what we should be talking about. Bristol has a proud
industrial past which is changing, with new jobs. My constituents are
disbarred from those. This is the issue.
Thank you. Now the steel producer Tata has
announced it is cutting around 1,000 jobs today at plants including
Port Talbot and Llanwern in South The cuts deal a huge blow
to the industry and the Welsh economy, and come on top of almost
3,500 job losses in the UK steel The local MP for Port Talbot,
Stephen Kinnock, joins us now. The local MP for Port Talbot,
question mark yes, this crisis has been brewing for many years and
unfortunately we have a Government sitting on its hands, they have not
taken the action they needed on the dumping of Chinese steel.
There is a strategy for public procurement to maximise local
content. There isn't any imagination on business rates.
Crippling energy costs. This is not something which has come out in the
last month but has been brewing for years.
The garment has been asleep at the wheel. What will the impact be on
steel working communities? It will be huge, the Port Tolbert steel is
the beating heart of our economy will stop we need to look closely at
the package for redundancies, to help people to transition to other
jobs. A very challenging time for the community and our thoughts are
with the people directly affected and their families.
There are echoes of the 1980s, the closing of minds. We have the demise
of the steel industry. The Chinese steel perch and is more
competitive, should we accept that? There was an a level playing field,
Chinese steel is subsidised to the helps, it percent of Chinese steel
industry is state owned which has enabled them to dump their steel at
ridiculously low prices. We're not asking for special treatment but a
level playing field. Means using international trading rules to
Mitchell we get that fairness and level playing field. Steel is a
foundation industry, the homes we live in, cars we drive, this
Government has to decide, should the UK produce steel or not?
Should it be? I think it should, I have every
sympathy. A dreadful blow for Port Tolbert. We have a statement in the
House. Was the Government on -- asleep on
the job? The Prime Minister took it to the EU too late.
Not necessarily asleep on a job but the point about enforcing WTO rules,
the Government will push hard to make sure the rules are enforced and
the Chinese are not dumping steel. It is not too late, there are
negotiations. They had a steel summit when the plant in the Redcar
was closed down. ?18 million going into retraining to
see if we can move people away from overall reliance on these large
heavy industries which are sadly becoming more mobile across the
world. An awful lot of stuff is being done.
We live in a global market. We benefit from free trade. The idea we
can isolate ourselves from these changes is difficult.
The key as a Government is how to pluralise and diversify the economy
so not reliant on these leviathan industries.
In a way that is the Government's fault. In the years of coalition,
there was talk of diversifying, not being reliant on financial services.
Here we are in 2016, again, reliant on financial services and we have a
bubbling housing market. The garment failed its own test.
That is not fair. Give me a manufacturing industry which has
been balanced. Look at life sciences whether
Government has maintained funding in research, and the world it is
revered in a way it wasn't ten years ago. Look at Wales, Cardiff, a new
bioscience hub built there. Using that as a powerhouse for life
sciences in Wales, south Wales. Part of the new industrial strategy. What
has happened to manufacturing output?
These are intellectual poverty based businesses.
Has manufacturing output in the UK contracted or grown?
It has been flat. Last figures show it has contracted. It hasn't been a
rebalancing of the economy. I would dispute that. In my work,
Deputy Mayor for business and enterprise in London. One issue was
to make sure we won't reliant on financial services and we worked
hard with the south-east and the Welsh and Scots and in the north, to
make sure science was the area we concentrated on. That may take time
to build. There are more people employed in life sciences in the UK
than financial services. You are giving a partial picture.
Kit Malthouse has a point. Growth in some areas, but not necessarily
where you are. We have to look at diversifying our economy where we
can, but in order to do that, you need a Government that's prepared to
work in premiership with business and to have a proper industrial
strategy that looks at infrastructure, investment, energy,
skills, unfortunately we have a Secretary of State for Business who
is not even prepared to let the words industrial strategy has his
lips. He doesn't believe in it. He is looking at the banking sector as
a sector that he thinks is the future of the British economy as you
rightly say, Jo, we have got the biggest trade deficit since records
began in 1830, we have got a productivity crisis and a massive
unbalancing of the British economy with all the wealth and activity
being sucked into London and we've got a Government that's not prepared
to do anything about it. The time for warm words and excuses are over
and we need to see action. The idea of prioritising, after the crash,
the Government put up taxpayers money, hundreds of billions of
pounds to prop up that industry. Why won't they do something similar for
steel? Well, they are. They are putting ?80 million in to recognise
that some of these communities need to reskill for some of the new
industries that are coming along. Based in the same area? It is
interesting the previous conversation. We can do back what we
did in the 1970s and 1980s, isolate ourselves from the world and
industries over time will move overseas or we can make ourselves
more nimble and agile and give people the skills to access the new
jobs and the new industries. Spread them out as far and as wide as we
can. I want the jobs in my part of the world as well. Before we go,
Stephen kin OK on Jeremy Corbyn, but related to our discussion on
manufacturing. I mean his policy of unilateral disarmament would deprive
the defence industry of thousands of jobs, do you agree with him? No, I
don't. I'm committed to the UK keeping a arms deterrent. I think
we, but it is based on my experience having lived and worked in Russia
for three years and we've got to, this is not the time to be dropping
our guard. I will continue to argue forcefully for the renewal of tri
didn't and for the UK to keep a nuclear deterrent. What's your view
of Jeremy support of secondary picketing action, what will that do
to encourage investment? The risk we have is this can stir up a hornets
nest without a fully thought out strategy for how we're going to
demonstrate that Labour is actually a party of business. We are
pro-business. We're not pro business as usual. We want to mend capitalism
and not end it at all. This has got to be about a broader reform
package. We need to engage with the business community. I'd like to see
us working much more closely with business to set out our new
strategy, our industrial policy, our strategies for growth. And I think
that clearly, what we are talking about here with workplace
consultation, secondary picketing, that should be part of a broader
conversation. The risk is if you only talk about that, you're
isolating yourself from the business community and that's something
Labour can't afford to do and should not be doing. Stephen kin OK, thank
you. Thank you.
Now, in a moment, we'll be talking to two of Fleet Street's finest.
But, first, let's take a look at some of the other stories that
will be making the news in Westminster this week.
This afternoon, MPs will debate a petition calling for Donald Trump
to be banned from the UK, and another saying he should
On Tuesday, December's inflation figures will be published.
And Bank Of England Governor Mark Carney will be making a speech
Also on Tuesday, a report into how polling companies got the outcome
of last year's general election so wrong, will be published.
David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn will face each other
in the their weekly clash at PMQs on Wednesday.
And Kate Hoey MP launches the Labour campaign to leave the EU,
And, on Thursday, David Cameron makes speech to World Economic Forum
We're joined now by Emily Ashton from Buzzfeed UK, that's an online
Welcome to both of you. No wonder they're looking bemused. Emily,
let's talk about the economy. Because we had conflicting reports
from George Osborne before Christmas, in the Autumn Statement,
it looked as if everything was rosy. More recently, he warned about a
dangerous cocktail that needs to be carefully avoided to ensure the
British economy stays on track. Is it looking more dangerous now with
the job losses? It is all a bit confusing to people, isn't it? In
the Autumn Statement, you know, you have suddenly, he has got money to
give away to various things and it looked very rosy and suddenly, happy
New Year, the year is going to be very gloomy indeed. Interest rates
are probably going to go up. The Middle East is looking a bit dodgy
and oil prices are plummeting and suddenly, yes, you see the job
losses and it is not looking good at all. It is confusing and the economy
is not looking as rosy as it was at the end of last year. Sam Coates,
was he wrong in the Autumn Statement and has he only just realised? Has
the Treasury sat him down and said, "Look, all the things that Emily
mentioned and tax receipts aren't going to be as strong as first
thought." I don't think he was wrong when he made the Autumn Statement,
but he took a risk and the risk was to spend the ?27 billion extra that
the independent office for responsibility said was available to
him because of a change in forecast, because of lower inflation and those
three things meant he did have this pot of money available, what they
can give in one Autumn Statement they can take away in a Budget. The
big worry for George Osborne is that when it comes round to the next big
fiscal event, this year's Budget, which will probably come before the
EU referendum and be critical in determining the mood of the country,
is that suddenly he finds that forecasts are a bit weaker partly
because of Middle East turmoil and partly because manufacturing is
showing signs of being in the doll droms, he has the weaker forecasts
and they mean there is less money to spend and all of a sudden, he faced
with a bill and payments that he has got to make rather than savings he
can distribute to the British public. In the last Parliament, he
didn't really spend any money. He was committed to spending money if
growth forecasts improved and using the cash to pay down the deficit,
but he hasn't done that in this Parliament, he is choosing to spend
the proceeds of growth. Emily, the EU referendum, an open
letter from the Conservative Paul Goodman to the Business Secretary to
come out for breaks it. Is this the first of many attempts we will see
to out Euro-sceptic Cabinet Ministers? There does seem to be a
real divide, isn't there? Between the Cabinet and the backbenchers.
There was a poll recently saying two-thirds of Tory backbenchers are
for a breaks it. That will change as we come up to the referendum. The
kAnt seem to be toeing the line at the moment. Cameron hasn't said he
is not against breaks it, but he is likely to do so once he gets his
deal possibly next month and only Chris Grayling so far has come out
for breaks it. So you can see why the Tory grass-roots are saying to
the Cabinet Ministers, please come on, back the party that put you into
this position and go for brexit and don't just toe the party line. Will
they resist bearing in mind the conditions put down by David
Cameron? It is seeming like some of them will. There are two things that
the fore most of Tory MPs minds. They got to work out what side they
are with this referendum and there is a leadership election probably
not that long afterwards and pick the wrong side and you might not get
favourable result when the new leader comes along and reshuffles
and you could potentially harm your political future because although
Cabinet Ministers are being allowed to campaign on either side of this
referendum, they're not being encouraged to do so. It is fair to
say that David Cameron and George Osborne are prepared to tolerate a
few decenters and they are not keen on it and there is a bit of
unofficial pressure. I'm speaking to Tory MPs, some of whom are
long-standing opponents of the European Union, who are starting to
go, "Maybe I should stay inside and vote in and go for the safe option
as David Cameron's renegotiation starts to come together and we get
to find out the elements of it." So I think the message is never over
estimate the spine of a Tory MP or a Labour MP! There is preferment and
promotion potentially ahead if they do the right thing. Right, I will
take your advice on that. Sam and Emily, thank you very much.
The various in and out groups revving up to campaign,
in a referendum that could come as soon as June.
Now, add to that list, Conservatives For Reform In Europe,
a group that will campaign to stay in, and is led by former
In a moment, I'll be talking to Mr Herbert,
a veteran of the campaign to keep Britain out of the euro.
But, yesterday, Ukip leader Nigel Farage questioned
Nick Herbert's eurosceptic credentials.
I've never regarded Nick Herbert as a staunch Euro-sceptic.
He briefly, in the 1990s, worked for an organisation that
campaigned to keep the pound. He was paid to do it.
I don't know, lawyers take on briefs, whether they believe
When he was a minister and since, he's never once advocated Britain
He's doing a job bolstering the Prime Minister.
Look, there's been lots of regulation, will Boris Johnson
I suspect that most senior politicians inside the Conservative
Party will put their careers before their conscience,
and will back the Prime Minister's position.
I mean you led the national No Campaign against adopting the euro
currency, were you ever really a Euro-sceptic? As Nigel Farage
questions. I was Euro-sceptic in the sense we were saying it was damaging
to join the euro at a time when a lot of the pro-EU people were saying
that was the only choice and some of those are saying we should stay in
the European Union now. I don't have much time for them or that argument,
but our slogan was Europe yes, euro no. I think Nigel, I understand, he
was put on-the-spot, looked to me like he was playing the man, but he
should be careful before he makes sweeping allegations. He said I'd
never advocated since then leaving the EU. I'm sure he didn't read my
book Why Vote Conservative last year. In it, I was clear that we
need to weigh up the costs and the benefits and if we didn't get
sufficient reform in the EU that we should be prepared to leave. I said
that. So it was wrong for him to suggest otherwise. I was attacked
yesterday from some people saying why is somebody who is a sceptic
joining this side of the argument? And others who are pro-European
saying this person suddenly appears to be pro-European. Or you're facing
both ways, let me put it like that. Are you going to campaign to stay
in? We need to Are you going to campaign to stay
the Prime Minister is saying that he needs to wait to see the outcome of
the renegotiations. We are supporting the Prime Minister's
position which is to say there needs to be substantial reform in Europe
to address key public concerns over issues like migration and ever
closer union provided there is that reform. The Prime Minister said he
wants to campaign to stay in, but he made clear that if there is not
reform and he said this in his Chatham House speech, he said we
will have to reconsider our option and that's certainly my view. Who do
you think should set this group up? I have been talking to
colleaguesment there are a lot of us who feel there needed to be a voice
in this debate and that I have, of course, had discussions with a lot
of people about that including the Prime Minister. Did Downing
of people about that including the ask you to set up this group? No,
they didn't ask me to set up this group. Of course, I talked to the
Prime Minister about this. To echo what the Prime Minister is doing? We
are supporting the Prime Minister's position. And the Chancellor? Did
you speak to the chancellor? I haven't spoken to the chancellor
about this. But, you know, there is a group of Conservatives who are
very strongly proEU and that's, I think, a completely respectable
position and they always have been and there is a group who want to
leave the European Union and that's, you know, they are entitled to that
view and I respect that view too, but in the body of the party, and I
think this is true in the country as well, there are people who think
there are things that are really wrong with the European Union. That
need to be reformed. They're worried about the drift to ever closer union
and they're worried about the competitiveness and they are worried
about migration and they want to see those changes and if they do see the
changes they will want to stay in. That was the voice we wanted to
give. You support the Prime Minister's stance come what may,
that's what you said in your opening remarks? We support the Prime
Minister's stance to secure a substantial renegotiation in the
European Union and it is very important that he does get that. I
think just as he has not ruled anything out, nor do we. Have you
been promised another ministerial job? Of course, I haven't been
promised another ministerial job. Just asking. I was the one who
resigned from the Government, for various reasons that we talked about
lots of times before. But this... You could become a minister after
the referendum? That depends. It is never my decision entirely. It is a
question of being asked. That's nothing to do with this. The point
is that all of us are going to have to decide because the public are
being given a say. A say that lots of people said the Prime Minister
would never deliver on and he did and now we've legislated for it and
there will be a referendum by the end of next year. So everyone will
have to decide as the public will be given that say, but what it means is
that Conservative members of Parliament will have to decide and
some people very clearly make up their minds on one side or the
other, but others like me, feel very strongly that this is a question of
weighing up the costs and the benefits and for me, provided that
we get reform, we can have the best of both worlds in the European
Union. The reformed European Union and there are dangers in leaving,
risks in leaving, that I think it is very important that we look at.
Do you like the sound of this particular group?
Nick is a smart guy, I welcome more information. Referendums are not the
moderate's friend. Anything that can give a rational, saying exposition
of one side or particular issues is to be welcomed.
Do you think Eurosceptic cabinet ministers and we know who they are,
including Michael Gove, Theresa May, should they come out with their
views? Not yet, no. The negotiations
haven't finished. The Prime Minister is batting at the crease in Europe.
The idea we should be undermining him if, and there are some people
with fundamental views. That is fine. But those people who are in
the middle and want the Prime Minister to win in Europe and then
take a view, for me, it is about ever closer union. Brussels seems
like an imperial capital. If the Prime Minister can pull us out, then
I start to feel comfortable. I would vote to leave today, if there was a
vote. If Boris Johnson leads the ad
campaign, he would add two points. Do you think he will vote to leave?
I have no idea, you must ask. We would if he would come on.
He has made some suggestions to the Prime Minister.
Would he be a good campaigner, heading up...
He is a formidable campaigner. You all view? I have always been in
favour. There is an appetite for more information and a proper
debate. Do you welcome Kate Hoey, her stance
and group? She has been there for many years.
Amongst Labour MPs, we are very united. 215 out of 232 on the
inside. But I do recognise, I visited Brussels with my
13-year-old, explaining to a new generation why I am so pro-European,
white our future is better there, is a good thing. I hope we get beyond
this dancing on a pimp within the Conservative Party, to have some
good debates. Thank you.
Now, this afternoon, MPs will debate whether to ban
Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump from Britain.
More than half-a-million people clicked on an online petition,
after Mr Trump called for Muslims to be banned from the US.
MPs will also debate an opposing petition which calls for him
It's not first parliamentary debate of its kind -
since they were first debated in Parliament,
hundreds of public petitions have been heard.
But how could you get your petition discussed by MPs?
Here's Ellie with her cut-out-and-keep Daily Politics
Every now and then, the House of Commons has to deal
with a petition on some subject or another and,
this time, it is on the rising cost of living.
It is a strong tradition, the mighty British petition.
75 Irish civil rights campaigners march from Trafalgar Square
to Downing Street, to hand in a petition demanding an inquiry
into the conduct of Londonderry police.
A chance for ordinary people to stand up and be counted
for the important things they care about.
Like being allowed to ride a Segway on the road.
They may look like slightly aggrieved Lottery winners,
but these people were petitioning to save the cheque.
And then, of course, there were a couple
about Jeremy Clarkson becoming Prime Minister,
keeping his job at the BBC, that sort of thing.
Successive governments have acknowledged the power of them.
Downing Street launched an e-petition site in Novemenber
2006, and it got beefed up last year.
Now, if a petition on the government website gets more than 100,000
signatures, a committee of MPs decides whether to give
Since 2011, there have been 32 petitions that started here that
ended up being debated in some way in Westminster.
This morning, there were well over 5,000 petitions on this site.
Of course, they have mixed amounts of support.
The one about Theresa May going on a night shift with a police
officer, allowing Armed Forces personnel to have a neatly trimmed
Or making antifreeze less tasty for cats,
The big one coming up is the one about him being allowed in the UK
Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown
of Muslims entering the United States, until our
country's representatives can figure out what the hell
More than 574,000 people signed the petition against Donald Trump
The MP introducing the debate doesn't agree with him,
but does think today is a crucial exercise in democracy.
It is extremely unlikely we'd have a vote.
But the whole point is we use Parliament, like many other debates
If there is an impassioned view that comes
from this debate, that it is in the national interest to ban Trump,
NEWSREEL: Mrs Hilda Davis is first in the ring
She aims to get 10,000 signatures on her Hands Off Our Food petition.
The top five most popular petitions on the Government's
website have two million signatures between them.
The idea of petitions isn't a new one, but modern technology
may have made the voice of the people a little louder.
We're joined now by the Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett,
who supports banning Donald Trump from the UK.
And by Ukip MEP David Coburn, who does not.
Welcome to both of you, why should he be banned?
We have seen under the provisions of the Home Secretary to not give a
visa to someone whose presence is not conducive to the public good,
about 200 people have been banned, it is reasonable to say Donald Trump
with the kind of word we have been hearing fits that, he would not be
in terms of the early day motion signed, this would not be good for
community cohesion and it is reasonable not to give him a visa.
He could win nomination for the Republicans and a possibility he
might become president. We are talking about the situation
at the moment and his track record. It is unlikely but were it to happen
he would have two backpedal on some odd things he has said.
If someone later said they have said the wrong thing, people can change
their mind. Would it be good for community
cohesion? What he said was ridiculous. It is
not based on race, it is a religion, a grouping. Utterly ludicrous.
Why not ban him? I am a great believer in freedom of speech, we
are a libertarian party. I would rather defeat the man in the public
arena in discussion. Like Nick Griffin who was taken apart. They
kept him off TV for years, and finally he was destroyed on TV.
He also highlights things now and again which are not entirely being
ignored by the public. Like what? The problem is generally
politically, with the Middle East, he is willing to talk about it.
Other people want to hide it. The thing about Donald Trump is the
makes Doctor Strangelove seem like a documentary rather than fiction. It
is terrifying thought he could be president. He makes a lot of money
in business. But in terms of running the world, that is worrying. But we
cannot ignore him. Why not take him on in the way David
was saying, defeat him if you don't agree?
We are in a different situation to the BNP, which was part of British
society. This is a question of allowing someone in. We have made
the decision in 200 previous cases, the guy who built himself as a --
billed himself as a seduction expert but who was fired against women.
There is something different. The trunk is in a different
category? He is not advocating the sort of
stuff Islamic State are. A wholly different situation. If he
had been anybody else, you would be screaming about other things.
I love the way there is a problem as far as I am concerned, this is a
women's issue. I am not happy about what is happening. You don't scream
about that. Let us pick up on freedom of speech.
People are allowed to say what they think.
The great principle of freedom of speech, 6000 British people have
signed a petition. 40,000 signed on the other side. MPs
are debating what the public has told them they are concerned about.
A small step forward for democracy. With a pond that doesn't represent
the people. Is this a waste of time?
I agree with Natalie, the new position system does allow people to
have some kind of debate and say. There does need to be some kind of
look at what comes in. But that is a forward step.
Should he be banned? I don't think so. You should use the
banning order very sparingly. I will be interested to see what people
say. Do you agree he does say things that
need to be discussed on issues like the Middle East?
A broken clock is right twice a day. He will happen randomly on issues
which may be present. The truth is he is a clown. His words were foul
and detestable and we should acknowledge that.
He is doing well in the polls. The debate today is a good idea. If
we can bring home to Americans their decision about who they elect and
select as candidate has international implications, then we
should. I don't think we should ban him, if
he becomes president, but he hasn't made many friends in Scotland where
he has an awful lot of money invested.
I disagree with almost everything he says. What he said about the former
First Minister... Substitute other ethnic minorities
in his face and what reaction with there have been?
He is not the only leader talking about Muslims. The Czech president
has said it is impossible to integrate Muslims into communities,
post an instance like Cologne. Is that equally offensive?
There is a problem that has to be discussed, there is a problem
integrating people with too many people coming. That is the problem
in Outer Paris, far too many have arrived. They are not being
integrated into French society which is why we have jihadi is.
In Scotland, we don't have bad race relations because we don't have too
many people. I have to stop you...
There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
The question was: What song does Jeremy Corbyn sing to his cat?
God Save The Queen, by the Sex Pistols.
Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree,
Karin and Kit, what's the correct answer?
The answer is Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree.
You have thought about this, well done. Jeremy Corbyn does not have a
name for the cat. Ours go missing regularly.
That's all for today. Thanks to our guests.
The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.
I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories
Do join me then. Bye-bye.