26/01/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Europe reintroduces border controls as the winter weather fails to stem


But could refugees who gain citizenship soon


A ?130 million tax bill for Google, but has the internet giant been


asked to pay a derisory amount on the billions it makes in the UK?


EU leaders say they are bending over backwards to keep


Britain in the union, so how would they react if Britain


We will ask the also-ran of Labour's leadership contest.


But the truth is, you don't know me from Adam, or should I Saed say Eve?


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


of the programme today is the former Labour


leadership contender, and very good loser,


ever since Jeremy Corbyn got the better


of Liz and her colleagues in last summer's leadership contest,


the Labour leader and his allies have


been accused of conspiring to take over party institutions and mould


Well, this morning, one of the party's


decision-making bodies, the NEC, or National Executive Committee,


is reported to be voting on changes to


Our expert of arcane internal Labour Party procedures is Ross


I hope you like that title, Ross! What are they trying to do? I will


take it over good loser! I woke up this morning pretty stoked up the


prospect of the National executive committee discussing its own terms


of reference, so normally this is an annual affair that doesn't trouble


is particularly, but this year it is a complete battle ground, a proxy


battle for control of the party. There are a number of papers flying


around, one written by John Landsman, close to Jeremy Corbyn,


and as I understand it, the ones most likely to come up for


discussion are ones presented by the trade unions and another by the


general secretary. The suspicion amongst many was that there could be


an attempt to give the NEC, the bit of the Labour machine when Jeremy


Corbyn is closest to control, a say on staff appointments. What is very


much up for discussion is how the policy-making machinery works, and


that matters, because if the NEC can get control to a greater extent of


the decisions that labour makes about its policy in between party


conferences, that could give Jeremy Corbyn a hugely useful lever to try


and exert a bit more control over a party large swathes of which don't


seem to make much of him. And that would give the NEC more power over


for example the policy-making powers of MPs. How likely is it to happen?


There will be a big fight about it today, but there will be a fight


about other things, I am told. There is not universal happiness over the


fact that Jeremy Corbyn's party aid has been removed from the National


executive committee, and forget all the technicalities and the jargon


and the endless arguments, what really matters here is a balance of


Power fight, and what fundamentally will matter is who controls Labour's


NEC, because those who control this key committee get a very good say in


what gets debated at conference, would ultimately, however they


fiddle with terms of reference, has a crucial say in the Labour Party's


Wallasey, sit in between all the arcane intricacies, there is a real


fight over what Labour believes, but it is not a fight that will resolve


the fundamental problems of what happens for example on Trident. If


Jeremy Corbyn and a handful of colleagues think one thing and the


majority of the party thinks something else. Expect a lot of


sound and fury, but maybe not the clearest of conclusions today. Line


Ross Hawkins, thank you very much. Liz, do you approve of these


changes? What is important is that the women make decisions -- the way


we make decisions is as open as possible. I think we have had a


great improvement, we have representatives from different


regions of the country, and I would like to see the MPF go further and


involve members of the public, because we don't just need to be


talking to ourselves, we need to talk to the public to get the right


policies for the future. So all I care about is that policy-making is


as wide and open as possible and not too centralised.


as wide and open as possible and not wrong with Jeremy Corbyn wanting to


mould party institutions like wrong with Jeremy Corbyn wanting to


NEC in his own image so that they wrong with Jeremy Corbyn wanting to


mind he won that leadership contest so overwhelmingly? We have had the


reshuffle recently, and I have been really clear, it is absolutely his


mandate to appoint who he wants, but when we are making policy for the


mandate to appoint who he wants, but future, during the leadership


campaign, Jeremy Sloane she future, during the leadership


to involve members more, and we need to make sure that there are voices


from across the party and the country. And you don't think at the


moment that is the case? Teasing his wing of the party is trying to take


over the NEC? I haven't really been involved in what is happening on the


NEC, but I don't think all see making should be centralised. Let's


turn our face to the public, because that is who we have to convince.


Eight young member of the NEC, Becks Bailey, says none of the proposed


changes should happen. Anybody who knows Becks Bailey knows


changes should happen. Anybody who woman with a mind of her own, and


she has been a representative woman with a mind of her own, and


to see more young voices, regional voices,


to see more young voices, regional shouldn't be centralised, make it


wide and opened and inclusive, because we need the ideas and the


commitment of members because we need the ideas and the


country if we are going to win again.


country if we are going to win will be a vote on Trident before the


Easter recess. That would be before Labour has completed its defence


review. If that happens, which is review. If that happens, which is


whipped? I position on this. It is a really


important issue position on this. It is a really


national-security. And I, like many Labour MPs


national-security. And I, like many to see a world that is free of


nuclear weapons, and I believe that we achieve that through


multilateralism. I do believe that unilaterally getting rid of our


nuclear weapons... But should the vote be whipped in favour of


renewing Trident or against? Our current party policy is to renew


Trident and the deterrent, and I think it is important that our party


does think it is important that our party


national-security. So at that point where they haven't completed their


defence review, should it be whipped by Jeremy Corbyn to the current


policy or against? I think it would always be


policy or against? I think it would issues as national security that we


have one clear position as The question for today


is all about Liz's former colleague, the one-time Shadow


Chancellor Ed Balls. He lost his seat at


last year's general election and this week he gave a TV


interview in which he said there is one job he


definitely does not want. At the end of the show


Liz will give us Now, the internet giant Google


is to pay ?130 million in back taxes here in the UK over


the next ten years. It had been hailed as a "major


success" for George Osborne But in the Commons yesterday,


with the Chancellor absent from the despatch box,


many MPs were less than impressed I am proud of the work this


Government has done to make our tax system internationally competitive,


but also to make sure that those Mr Speaker, the statement made


by Google at the end of last week is solid evidence that companies


are changing their models and reviewing their structures


because we have strengthened The Chancellor has managed to create


an unlikely alliance between myself, the Sun newspaper, the Mayor


of London and, according to reports, All of us think that this deal


is not the, in quotes, "major success" the Chancellor


claimed at the weekend. Does the Minister agree that


Google may be the symptom, but is probably not the cause,


of these problems? And that those lie with the immense


complexity of the tax system, rendered more problematic


by the globalisation of tax liability, and that therefore


fundamental reform of the corporate tax base probably now


needs to be considered? Last year, in the Budget before


the general election, the Chancellor said,


"We will not tolerate, let the message go out,


there will be an end to this Given there was ?24 billion of UK


revenues over this period, but that experts have said Google


should have paid tax of almost ?2 billion, does 130 million really


meet the test of no tolerance? Will the Minister agree with me that


in the mad world of corporation tax on international companies


that the sum of money is at once derisory, insubstantial, unlawful,


and completely unacceptable to the public, and will he therefore


agree with me that it is time for a complete overhaul


of the corporate tax system? I'm joined now by John Culliane from


the Chartered Institute of taxation. Google have agreed to pay this


amount, ?130 million, in backdated tax. Is that the best deal that


could have been reached? I do think anybody from the outside could


possibly say it is the best possible deal, but I do think some of the


comment is wrong and actually quite dangerous. I think the last thing we


need at the moment is a complete overhaul of corporate tax, and that


is because everybody agrees if we're to make the multinationals pay their


fair share, there has got to be a global consensus as to how you about


things. To change our tax system away from a global consensus


unilaterally, we do the reverse of any good, it would open up more


differences that the multinationals could exploit. Do you agree? I think


people who work hard pay their full taxes. They want to see a full tax


system and they don't believe that is what we have got at the moment.


It is all to no pagan secret. We don't know what Google earns, what


they own what profits they make, although Margaret Hodge, as you know


used to be chair of the Public Accounts Committee said they earned


?6.4 billion last year in advertising and sales in the UK, and


to end up paying what is the equivalent of ?13 million just seems


wrong. I gather the French government are pursuing them for ?1


billion of tax, so why can't we do that here? The one thing we feel


confident about is their global profits because they have been gone


into in great detail by the securities exchange commission. The


exchange they are regulated on in the States. And in the last full


year, 2014, that is reported, they paid about 20% tax globally. I'm


sure the vast majority of that was paid in the states. If you had a


whiskey producer in the UK, at 20% or whatever of its sales were in


Japan or 30% in the states, it could pay nothing in the states under


international rules, because most of the value is produced in the UK. So


we have to develop international rules, we have to put pressure on


those countries, Ireland, Luxembourg and so on, who open up that


multinationals can exploit, but that we have to build on the rules, and


not throw out the baby with the bath water. But you do accept that they


are making the most, quite legitimately of legal tax loopholes,


and where people will be surprised is that even if the UK tax


authorities cannot tell how much they made in terms of profits here,


they can look at sales and turnover, and they can look at those figures


and look at them and think, they just don't have any comparison. I


think to move taxes to sales and turnover, you have value added tax


and it is the customer who ends up paying those taxes by and large.


They pay 20% of their profits in tax globally, which is pretty much the


rate we would apply if we had access to the entire global profits, so a


lot of the planning, you might ask how they get from a US headline rate


of around 30% down to 20%, and that is because the US tax system is even


more context was a blue than ours. And isn't that the point, that it is


complicated, and it is not the same as a multinational company. People


will be no doubt outraged by the small amount of tax that they are


paying. Rightly so. They also have these companies, armies of lawyers


and armies of people at their disposal to make the most of legal


tax avoidance schemes, so would it really be worth HMRC doing things


like court cases, trying to get more tax out of people. The basic issue


is we need more openness and transparency if we are going to get


anywhere near this fairer tax system, and it can't be beyond the


wit of man. We can put a man, if not a woman, on the moon, we can find


cures for cancer, but we can't make Google pay tax? That does seem to be


the problem. Yesterday minute is one unable to say what tax rate Google


were paying. As soon as you start aggregating down company by company,


it does become very difficult, and UK revenue have gone and got


something, if the French are asking for more, and I don't believe they


have settled yet,... Our government isn't asking for more. They should


collaborate, and international collaboration between tax


authorities is the way to get this situation under control.


Do you think Labour should have done more? At the way the economy has


changed even since we were in government, it is moving very fast,


and the whole issue of the global economy and how we can make it work


in terms of tax and in different parts of the country, is a really


big issue for Labour in the future. But what if the war gaming


was about re-negotiating the UK's Yesterday grandees of British


and European politics spent the day And our Ellie had a thrilling


time watching it all. They call it War Games. Simulation


of how Britain's EU discussions might go. I think it will be a good


discussion for other countries. Their one never be a United States


of Europe. It is confusing, illegal and not effective. This is David


Cameron, OK it is the former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, but


he is playing the part of the British PM trying to get a deal in


Europe. It was very interesting in that sense I can remember when I was


Foreign Secretary being involved in discussions around the table and it


was not that different. The key sticking point is not the same as


saying no surrender. It means I have priorities and I will not budge on


my priorities, but if there are different ways of reaching the


solution, I am open to alternatives. The cabinet proposals that he wants


to have an independent decision, how he can support his own population.


This is common sense amongst European heads of state and


government. On the other hand, what is not a consensus is to


discriminate people who work within the EU. There are some red lines and


we will have to find possibly alternative action to come to what


the Europeans are seeking and the British are wanting. The delegates


are back around the table and they are talking about what would happen


if Britain voted to leave the EU. They are talking about Brexit as if


it was a divorce. I appreciate many people in this room will be


disappointed, but we all, including ministers of the British Government,


have to respect the decision. After the divorce there will be a lot of


irrationality and the consequences will be very negative because of


this irrational attitude and reactions, years and years of


negotiating legal consequences. It will be a big problem for


competitiveness for both the UK and Europe because we will waste a lot


of time and money just for the legacy of the Brexit. As far as


Ireland is concerned I want to make it clear this is an absolutely


devastating decision Britain has taken. We regard it as an unfriendly


act. Peace in Ireland would be set back considerably if as a result of


Britain leading the European Union we had to reintroduce border posts


along the border in Ireland to collect tariffs on EU exports to the


UK and vice versa, and also if we had to possibly even prevent EU


immigrants entering Britain. We would have to have passed for


controlled on the border. The effect that would have on the life of


people in the northern half of Ireland and the atmosphere of peace


we have created through years and years of hard work would be very bad


indeed. It was a day of gaming. The real-life negotiations will take


much longer and if Britain does vote out, the talking and the shouting


could go on for years. And Conservative peer Norman Lamont


who was at that event joins us now. What was it like? It was a simulated


negotiation and what I thought was interesting was it highlighted some


of the trade office. My session was done on the assumption there had


been a vote to leave. What then was going to happen in the negotiations?


Of course Britain wants access for manufactured goods. It was access


for financial services. The EU was in a position to refuse the latter,


but not the former, so that is a difficult situation. Then you have


agriculture where we import a lot from them with a big deficit, so it


is a question of putting the deficit against the surplus and seeing if


one could come out with a solution. A lot of them were making speeches


knowing that this was before in the real world a vote, so with they were


trying to chill the blood. Do you think for effect, but also to be


realistic about what might happen in the event of Britain voting to come


out in terms of negotiations with former EU partners? Observers


described the negotiations in the morning as a debate and the


discussions after Britain voted for exit as a lynch mob. Is that fair? I


did not feel like I was lynched. But a lot of it was done for effect. I


had not made up my mind how I am going to vote. Which way? I am not


saying. I can see pluses and minuses. I was interested to do this


negotiation in order to highlight it. I do not think there would be a


big disaster to leave, I do not think it will be the end of the


world. I do believe financial services, a key issue, I think it is


solvable. What were the terms you proposed in those negotiations in


terms of Britain having left, what were the terms you put forward? I


put forward a comprehensive free trade agreement, similar to that


that Britain has with Canada which would include manufacturers,


services and agriculture. I also offered to pay something into the EU


budget. Is that very different from what is currently the situation?


Some might argue that if you are wanting to pull out, you should pull


out and make a much bigger break and that negotiations with Canada took


years. Given that much of our regulations are already harmonised


with the EU, and will remain so, it is much easier for Britain to


be accommodated in a free-trade agreement than it is with Canada.


But we would not be subject to the lawmaking of the EU in future unless


we wanted to do so. Are you tempted by his terms of trade? No, I am not.


So many people think we can have access to the single market without


paying a price and we can pick and choose which regulations we want


without any consequences. One week it is Turkey, one week we can be


like Canada, the next week like Norway, and there will be


consequences if we leave and I do not think the British people are


stupid. They know there is no such thing as a free lunch and I do not


want to be a rule maker now and go to that to be ruled taken. I to have


our say over the European Union as well as the benefits.


You were prepared to pay something. How much with the UK pay under your


terms? Given we would be proud of common agricultural policy, we could


have a large reduction in our budget contribution. But there might be


areas where we wish to incorporate where it might be to our advantage,


like science and universities. You admit it would not be free? It would


be a tiny amount compared to the 20 billion now. But let me say this, in


response to Liz, trade is not determined by politics. What you


need to trade is a willing buyer and a willing seller. But the terms


could take a long time? Indeed. How America trades with Europe, how


Australia trades with Europe... But the world of the WTO ruled on car


imports and manufacturing imply 10% tariffs which would have a terrible


effect. There is no evidence it would be 10%. There is no way they


would impose 10% tariffs on cars. After wrenching as a way... Britain


is the biggest customer for German cars. There is no clear evidence


they would be tariffs at that sort of rate, but there is a point about


how much goodwill they would be. Liz's point and the point raised in


the war-gaming, they would be furious. These EU partners who had


done their utmost to keep Britain in, why would they want to do any


deal at the beginning? Frankly, that is a terrible argument. Is it? The


idea we should be blackmailed to be staying into it because people would


be angry. No argument about the length to get agreement? It would


take two years. Everything remains the same, the world does not


collapse. This is an organisation that was founded to promote peace,


friendship, good neighbourliness. We are a big neighbour of the EU, it


does not do for them to say we are going to be angry with you because


you have democratically chosen to lead our club. That is pretty poor.


Based on your experience, do you think Britain could get better terms


if we voted to come out, and the associated, and had a second


referendum? That is a possibility. I believe that were Brexit to happen,


and it is possible the EU would be so shocked they would make an even


better offer. That would be a prize worth chasing. I want to ask whether


you think in the current circumstances in the global economy


where there are risks with what is happening in China and with oil,


whether you think it is worth Britain to go through all of this


when our economy needs the ability in the future? It is important to


have a vote on it and it is important it is changed since we


joined originally. I made my maiden speech on joining the EU. It was not


called the EU. It has changed dramatically. The whole idea that


trade would stop with the EU is absurd. It depends on who buys and


took the selling. The government is not doing any contingency planning


for a British vote to leave the EU. Should there be? We need to know the


risks on exports for our financial services, for workers' right and


what companies would do if we left Europe in terms of those rights.


People have the right to know what the alternative is and it is


important that happens. The government has tabled a motion in


the Commons setting out some of the rules for the EU referendum because


our Parliamentary process has to be gone through. That will fuel


speculation that David Cameron is preparing for a referendum in June.


Does that indicate that is happening? I think they would like


to have it in June and it is possible. They may have to cut a few


corners with the process. It will be a tight squeeze, I think July is


more likely. But they want to avoid being pushed into next year when


there are French and German elections which would complicate the


whole thing. Now, immigration is set to play


a central role in the forthcoming There is reported to be anxiety


in Number 10 that the referendum could coincide with a fresh wave


of migrants crossing At the weekend Jeremy Corbyn visited


the migrants' camp in Calais and called for Britain to take


thousands more migrants. "Everyone who wants to come


to Britain and has a connection should be free to submit


an application for processing And added that, "We're


talking 3,000 people. Meanwhile out campaigners have been


arguing that some of the hundreds of thousands of migrants already


in mainland Europe could gain access to Britain under free movement rules


if they were able But just how quickly


could that happen? Germany, Hungary, Sweden and Italy


have taken in the highest number of refugees over the course


of the EU's migrant crisis. In Germany, citizenship


is conditional on eight Applicants also need to demonstrate


they can speak the language, respect the German constitution


and have a clean criminal record. In Hungary people applying to become


citizens can apply after eight years But for refugees this process


is speeded up and they need to be there for three years


in order to qualify. Refugees need to have lived


in Sweden for four years before And in Italy, where there


were nearly 60,000 asylum applications last year,


refugees need to wait five years However, gaining citizenship


within the EU is determined by individual nations,


so while these rules are currently correct there is nothing


to stop member states changing their citizenship rules


in order to make it harder for refugees to become


citizens or to speed Let's talk to our European


Correspondent Damian Grammaticus Tell us about the latest ideas being


put forward to deal with the migrant crisis, particularly this idea that


Greece could be kept out of Schengen. Various things have been


floated and discussed. The one concrete thing that we have had


which the commission here have been discussing today was an approval by


European countries yesterday, by Ministers meeting yesterday, to ask


the commission to ready the powers to extend the temporary border


controls that we have in some places in Europe, so let me just mention


that first. Those are the checks we have seen put in place on some


borders between Sweden and Denmark, Germany and Austria. Six companies


have asked for the right to put those controls in place for a


further up to two years. At the moment they will expire in May. That


is one thing commission is looking at. There is potentially more


temporary controls, but on the question of Greece, this has been


raised by several countries frustrated at what they see as the


lack of ability by Greece to stop the flow of people in. What the


commission has said is that there is no process to suspend or remove


someone from Schengen. What there is is a process to tighten up controls


at some borders if there is a risk and a threat to stability into the


from the flow of people, and that is a process that they may go down to


look at. Greece's position in Schengen is a different issue. I


look at. Greece's position in badly to any idea to suspend them


from Schengen. Is the European Commission in general in panic mode?


They have reacted very badly. What they said was, first of all that


that would do nothing to change the situation, to stop people getting on


boats and heading to Greece, because Greece is the unique, it doesn't


share a land border with any other Schengen country, so even if you get


into Greece, you still have to leave either by aeroplane or crossing a


land border out of the Schengen area to get back in somewhere else, so


what practical difference it would make is unclear, and what the Greeks


have said is it is simply trying to isolate Greece, will worsen the


situation and have dramatic humanitarian consequences in Greece


if you try to corral people, and there has been a plan put forward by


the Belgians to create huge processing camps in Greeks, which


the Greeks are very much against. So that is strongly resisted by Greece,


and hard to see how that can happen. The commission feeling very much


under pressure from both sides, because it has countries that are


very concerned about the numbers who potentially may still come this


year. At the same time, it has a plan that it has had in place for


several months, agreed with country to try to tackle the flow and limit


the flow, and that hasn't been delivering. And what the spokesman


said to me today, we are trying to save Schengen by implementing


Schengen. They want that plan followed through on.


Damian Grammaticas, thank you very much.


We're joined now by Ukip's immigration spokesman,


He's been making a speech this morning arguing that Britain's


ethnic minorities could play a decisive role


Also here is the Labour MP David Lammy.


Why are you trying to bring race into the EU debated referendum? I'm


not trying to bring race into it, and just saying that there is a


group of people who have been ignored for many years, and we also


see that there is a concern by the ethnic community that likes


immigration, wants it, but is equally concerned about large-scale


migration, and they should have their voice as part of this debate.


You say they have been ignored. Who has been ignoring them? You don't


hear about it. This is the first time we have raised issues about the


lack of ethnic communities such as my own that would want to hear. But


most BME voters want to stay in. Absolutely, and you see that from


the research they did for their booklet, but the research also said,


very clearly, the one of the reasons they have been concerned about


Europe and the debate is that we have had this noise and anger in the


debate, which I have been trying over the years to dissipate and talk


about more factually, but 60% of them want to have something like an


Australian points -based system, 60% are concerned about the inequality


in the system that treats European citizens more favourably than those


from outside, and as David will know in his community, there are those


people who have come from African states who can't get jobs here


because of our highly skilled Visa network. Grannies can't come over as


easily through visas in Pakistan because of the system this


Government has put in place to try to deal with EU migration. A bit


manic, Ukip are within their rights to appeal for the votes of BME


people in Britain, and to back their case to come out. They can do that,


they did it at the general election, and just 3% of getting minorities


voted for them. They did it in the old by-election, everyone said they


would win and they lost because all of the evidence is that Britain's


ethnic minorities, as diverse as they are, and it is very patronising


to talk about Indian grannies coming over, and to put all black people


together as if they are all Paul when there are doctors and lawyers


and teachers, the overwhelming majority of Britain's ethnic


minorities want to stay because they are recognising the benefits and


nervous about the risks. That is not what I get when I'm talking to


people. I'm trying to make the very clear point that there are people in


the community that I have spoken to have have said why is it I get every


guilty to get my grandmother to come to a wedding, but if someone has a


Spanish or German grandmother, they can come over easily. Why could my


Irish grandmother come here easily, but my black American grandfather or


Jewish grandmother faced difficulties in the Visa system?


That is needs to be made more equal. I can't stand the caricature about


the people in this country from the Indian subcontinent, many of whom


are doctors, accountants, lawyers, you are suggesting that they would


vote on Europe purely on the basis of whether granny can come over for


a wedding. 25% of businesses in London are run by ethnic minorities.


Why is there this caricature coming from Ukip? Why are you trying to


divide one group of those who commit the country from another group? Why


did you recognise that many who are here who have a darker skin are


second, third, fourth generation immigrants who of course recognise


the benefits of Europe. The work we have done an anti-discrimination,


agency workers, minimum paid leave, paternity and maternity, all of that


is why I expect they will be voting to stay in Europe. Is it you are in


favour of one sort of immigration because it helps you further your


case to have Britain come out of Europe rather than a different form


of migration which is from the EU? I want to see a more ethical and equal


migration system. Whether David leaves that that is part of what I


was looking at, I was looking at the culture of the B Blaugrana with,


where I was born, I think that is the fairest and most... But you are


dividing the community by using two different types of immigration. I am


listening to people's concerns, and this is what people are saying about


the Visa system in place. They are saying that the Visa system has been


put in place to restrict those from non-EU countries because it cannot


deal with the immigration issues. And I don't just talk about


immigration in relation to that, I talk about the freedom aspects, the


communities that have come here from the Commonwealth, fully understood


about freedom, we had over 2 million Indians fought for us in the Second


World War and then they had a fight to get their own independence after


that. Nelson Mandela made it clear that he believes that Britain was


the best democracy in the world, and the UK Parliament was the best


democratic institution. You said it, and million Indians died fighting


for us, they fought for the European project and they are not now going


to vote on the basis of whether granny can come over for a wedding!


They fought for Britain to get rid of a European dictator who was


killing and murdering people, they didn't fight for the European Union


or the European economic community. That is a perversion of history. Is


there a point that non-EU immigrants are discriminated against because of


the system or the Government's attempt to bring down net migration,


because that is the only area of immigration can tackle, and in that


sense, there is a disco nation against people from the


Commonwealth. I don't like this business of one person is


discriminated against. Sadly discrimination exists in society,


and it affects many people from all sorts of backgrounds, and we all


fight against it. And Europe has been engaged in that fight, and


many, many of written's ethnic minorities recognise that, and I


suspect in London in May we will see lots of people from Europe able to


vote in that election and voting for Progressive parties precisely


because of that anti-racist, anti-discrimination fight. Liz, in


your constituency and uric spears of campaigning, ethnic minority


communities do have concerns as well about immigration and what some


people would say is uncontrolled immigration. People have concerns


about immigration, but I don't like the way that Ukip tries to set your


fringe groups against one another and create fear of the other. That


is exactly what happened when immigration happened in the 1950s


and 1960s, and that is what Ukip are trying to do now. I represent a very


diverse constituency, Leicester West, and I know that people are


going to be voting on what it is going to do, what will this


referendum mean for their jobs, their businesses, what will it mean


to people's rights at work, and a bigger issue, which is what kind of


country are we? Are we a country that is confident and proud and open


and can engage with the rest of the world? Or are we going to turn our


back on that and go back to a narrow nationalism or nostalgia? I think


the British people have a more positive and optimistic outlook, and


that is what will win it. That is the reaction


that is what will win it. That is Of course, and they have often use


the line that we are trying to divide, but I am trying to make it a


whole equal affair, to recognise we are in a modern world. I'm English


by birth, British by nationality and a global citizen, and we should be


outwardly looking and globally trading, and what we have is and


easier Larry T about the trading, and what we have is and


Union, looking at something that was a project at a time we didn't have


the Internet... Half a project at a time we didn't have


goes there, half our imports come from there. We should be looking at


ideas of our future. What about China and Brazil and other emerging


economies if we are outside of the EU. That is deeply patronising. The


Labour Party talks about taxation but


Labour Party talks about taxation things like Oldman sacks and Morgan


Stanley who are funding the leave campaign, and


Stanley who are funding the leave ideas about looking after the


poorest in this country when you are in an argument that is supported by


the big corporate is? Just before we move


the big corporate is? Just before we said about the country we are, is


Jeremy Corbyn in the right place, saying we


Jeremy Corbyn in the right place, migrants from Calais, and we should


be terms of taking more of the main? I


certainly think that we should be doing


certainly think that we should be children, we have seen some terrible


examples, and we should... Should we taking anybody who has a connection?


We should hold the taking anybody who has a connection?


the commitment he made earlier in the year. There are some who believe


the commitment he made earlier in that if we pull out of Europe,


somehow we will not be affected by what is happening, and


somehow we will not be affected by the case. The only


somehow we will not be affected by this migration crisis is if we work


with others. up the drawbridge and hope the rest


of the world goes away. up the drawbridge and hope the rest


Stephen Woolfe and David Lammy, thank you.


Now, our guest of the gay was a Shadow Minister


Then she stood for the Leadership of the Labour Party and won a mighty


But the truth is you don't know me from


We have to convince people who voted Conservative and Liberal Democrat


Now, I think I am going to be the Labour leader that the Tories


Were you spending too much before the Lehman Brothers


Yes, I think we should have reigned spending in before the crash,


but that didn't cause the crash which was global.


Do you really have to have him in your


He said things in this contest that are important.


I have a long way to go, I know that,


but I am going to continue to make the case that we must be a modern,


relevant party that can win elections, regain people's trust


and change the country for the better.


If Jeremy Corbyn does become the leader, at what point does


the Labour Party stop becoming your Labour Party?


The party you feel you could be part of?


I could no longer leave the Labour Party than I could leave


How does it feel that you are the person they least


Why, when you set out with the messages that


You know what, I don't do this because I want to be loved.


I do it because I want to change the world


and because I want to kick the Tories out.


I hope you enjoyed that, Liz Kendall. Happy days. It feels such a


long time ago because so much has happened. How are you adjusting to


life as a backbencher? I am loving it, I am proud to be the MP for


Leicester West and I want to help my party in any way I can to get us


back into government. Obviously things have been easier personally


over the last couple of months, not being on the front line, but I am


determined to play my full role in future because I still believe we


are a party that is best placed be in government and to improve the


lives of people in this country. Will you do it without being a


rebel? I am not a rebel. You have voted against the Labour whip and we


know your views on Trident and you voted against the air strikes in


Syria. That was a free vote. Yes, it was, but you are seen as voting


against the Labour leadership. That is not who I am, I want to serve my


party and get us back into government. There are big issues we


have to address if we are to do that. On the economy, skills and


opportunity and a whole bunch of other issues. On the economy how do


you feel as the party being the anti-austerity party? Let's take a


step back. We have seen through the various reports that came out about


why Labour lost the election, that trust on the economy is one of the


biggest issues. If you are not trusted on the economy, you will not


win an election. Will they be trusted with John McDonnell? I hope


so. What is a credible centre-left position after the crash? How will


we create the high skill, high-tech jobs of the future? How will we make


sure that everybody sees the benefits of the growth and it does


not just go to a few? Those arguments and the ones you made


during the campaign failed to inspire the Labour electorate. You


said Labour needed to listen to the electorate and reassure them about


issues they cared about before the party will get a hearing. When it


came to the Labour Party electorate, did you not listen? There are two


reasons why I think I lost. Firstly, people did not agree with my


analysis about why we lost the general election and they did not


feel I set out an inspiring enough reason for the future. I became a


little bit of the eat your Greens candidate. Although I stick by what


I said in terms of why we lost, that was not the best way to win an


internal party election. There were issues like defending these schools,


if it was a good school it did not matter how big would be set up,


spending 2% on GDP for defence. We are now doing that. But that did not


chime with the Labour Party electorate which you are super far


away from. It would be offensive to the Labour Party electorate... Yes,


we know. Where I am now is where we are focused on having a positive


message for the future. There was a big question on labour and the


economy and on skills and opportunity. I joined the Labour


Party because I think everybody should have the chance to fulfil


their potential and the changes in the economy means it is difficult


for people to get skills and to get on. Thirdly, there is support


amongst older voters. Our message for people who are over 65 has got


to be about decent pensions and health and social care, but people


who are 65 have much more different lives than in the past. Some are


still working... Is anyone still listening to this in your party? You


said you will stay in the Labour Party. You will stand again in 2020?


Yes, definitely, I hope the people in Leicester will give me the


chance. But you were the only person not to support the Welfare Bill? Was


that a mistake because of where your party is then? She was right to say


people did not trust us on welfare. I said if we were going to make


changes to what the government proposed, we would have to show how


we pay for them. But it was not distinctive enough from what the


Tories were saying and that was your problem. Ultimately I care about


winning over the public. I had some things I want to say. More important


than the party? I wanted to have that debate with Labour Party


members, but we have to turn our face to the public. All of this has


not been able to say this to constituents who are struggling, and


we have a Tory government for another five years. Unless Labour


has a positive, optimistic vision for the future of this country, that


is what we have to focus on. Do you think you and your colleagues, some


of whom described themselves as moderates, really have something to


offer the Labour Party? The mood and the tone of the Labour Party is not


in the same place as you. There have been moderate Labour MPs who have


criticised endlessly Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. You have


compared his politics to those of the 1980s and harking back to the


past. I have turned down many interviews because I do not intend


to be a commentator on a critique of what is happening. That is not what


I want. I want to see a Labour government and the real place where


I believe moderates and myself need to focus on is coming up with


inspirational ideas for the future. We cannot just provide a critique.


That is what people will ask. Let's talk about energy. You said people


did not believe Ed Miliband's pledge to freeze prices. Do you agree? He


is still holding those views. Going through a rerun of that will not


work. There are big issues for us as a party. We did badly amongst older


voters and I think we can have positive things and inspirational


things to say. My great passion has always been the early years of life.


Kids in my constituency start school on average 15 months behind where


they should be in terms of development and I want to put my


effort and focus on how we transformed those early years.


You've got to get out of bed, put on a pair of shoes


to visit your local school or church hall.


Alternatively, you will have to put a cross on a piece of paper sent


to you through the post and then return it in a pre-paid envelope.


And we're asking to do it as often as once a year!


No wonder so few of us bother to vote.


How much easier it would be if we just voted online?


And that's exactly what they do in Estonia.


It turns out elections in Estonia mostly look exactly the same


as ours, but almost a third of Estonians, including


the Prime Minister, vote at home on a computer rather than using such


old-fashioned things as pencils, paper and boxes.


You write the number of the candidate you are voting


for here, and pop it in the ballot box, and that's it.


But with e-voting, you're allowed to vote as many times as you like,


so you can change your mind, and the only one that matters


The theory is that reduces the incentive to coerce someone


the results to prevent tampering, but cyber security experts have


claimed the system is not secure, and is vulnerable to cyber attack.


Some of the Estonian opposition are suspicious too,


but the authorities say there has never been a problem


during the decade that the system has been in place.


And there are some big differences between Estonia and the UK.


And crucially, Estonians trust the state with their private data,


even something as private as their vote.


I'm joined by Areeq Chowdhury who runs a youth-led pressure group


called WebRoots Democracy which is campaigning


for the introduction of an online voting option for UK elections,


and by Jason Kitcat from Open Rights Group who has


serious concerns about the use of electronic voting.


What are you asking for? Online voting in UK elections. One of the


main issues we are trying to combat is incredibly poor voter turnout. We


have launched a report that shows that 95% of the UK's politicians are


elected on turnouts of less than 50%, so we are looking at solutions


to combat that. Is it realistic to do anything radical before the next


election? Today is the one-year anniversary of the speaker's


commission which looks at this. You look at very similar projects which


could be done in 3-4 years, but it could take up to five years. It is


the political will behind it. The government could get it done for


2020. It does not look like there is enough political will. What are your


fears about it? It is well intentioned to increase


participation, but we have had trials in the UK and turnout dropped


in those trials. Experience in Norway, Finland, Ireland,


Netherlands, France and Italy all tried it and participation dropped.


It was quite a long time ago. It was, and in Estonia participation


has not changed. If we are saying the problem is participation, this


is not the solution. We studied the Estonian system and we were able to


change the results. Is it because you do not agree with Jason that the


participation went down? We had a look at the pilots and some of the


numbers went up and some went down. In Estonia it has gone up by five


points. The problem with these elections were turnout has not


increased is you can be sceptical about it and point at the Estonian


election. At the Labour leadership election they used online voting and


they had 81%. Are you a fan? When the state falls behind how people


live their lives it is a problem. I like doing my cross with the pencil


and the box, but the state has to keep up. The evidence is not there?


On security this is a completely different problem to banking. You


cannot show people how you voted. We have shown in the Estonian system


that you can steal the election and no one would know about it. We were


able to bypass ID cards. A smart card is given to every citizen and


we could bypass that. Security will be more important in the end and


convenience. I have read the report that they have done and the


Estonians have described it as incompetent and there would be a


very small chance of committing these things. The people campaigning


against online voting in the US and Canada and in Europe are online


scientists. They say, we love technology, but in politically


binding election the risks are not worth the benefits. Security


concerns are quite valid. It is really important. We cannot get


electronic voting in the House of commons. People need to wake up and


find a way past it and I am sure it is possible. It would help and


increased turnout and it is the way people live their lives. We have to


move with the times. We will talk more about this no doubt in the


We will talk more about this no doubt in the coming years.


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was about former shadow chancellor Ed Balls.


He's said there's one job he doesn't want after losing his seat


Liz, what is it? I do not know. Go for one. What does he not want to


be? Politician? Think counterintuitively, think


politician. Thank you for being our guest of the day. I will be back


tomorrow with Andrew for Prime Minister's questions.


Let your New Year start with a bang and visit an explosive new China.


Download Subtitles