26/01/2016 Daily Politics

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.