19/04/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Justice Secretary Michael Gove accuses his cabinet


"like children who can be frightened into obedience",


but are Leave campaigners waging their own campaign of fear?


The Chinese will do something about the over-production of steel,


so says the business secretary, but does the UK steel industry need


direct government intervention to survive?


It's an age-old technique used by MPs to wreck legislation


they don't like, but is full time about to be called


And if it does, will it be televised?


There is a tendency in the Labour Party to organise revolutionary


politics in the Labour Party and outside it.


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


of the programme today left-wing-activist-turned-journalist


and writer, former Channel Four News and Newsnight


Yesterday was George Osborne's turn, today Justice Secretary Michael Gove


takes centre stage in the EU referendum debate, setting out why


he believes quitting the EU would be an act of liberation


It follows Treasury forecasts an exit could cost


households ?4,300 a year - a figure that has been heavily


Michael Gove warned that a vote to stay in the EU is 'the real


danger', arguing that Eurozone countries have a permanent


and unstoppable majority allowing them to overrule British interests.


And that "Britain has lost control of a vital area of power


and the European Court will increasingly decide


Turning on his opponents, Mr Gove said the Remain campaign,


led by Prime Minister David Cameron, "treats people like mere children,


capable of being frightened into obedience by conjuring up


The Justice Secretary's speech comes the day


argued that Britain would be "permanently poorer" outside the EU.


But Michael Gove argued: "The report from the Treasury is an official


admission from the IN campaign that if we vote to stay in the EU then


immigration will to continue to increase by hundreds of thousands


One of the most striking things about the debate on Britain's future


relationship with Europe is that the case for staying


is couched, overwhelmingly, in negative and pessimistic terms.


While the case for leaving is positive and optimistic.


Those of us who want to leave, believe that Britain's


That our country has tremendous untapped potential,


which independence would unleash and our institutions,


values and people will make an even more positive


difference to the world, if we are unshackled from the past.


I'm joined now by the Justice Minister and leave Campaigner,


Dominic Raab and the Labour MP Chuka Umunna from


First of all, is the Remaining campaign treating people like me are


children capable of being frightened into obedience by conjuring up a new


bogeyman every night? No, and if everyone is conjuring up anything it


is the leave campaign. Me and Dominic have particular views, we


are not impartial and we want our side to win, but there is a bank of


independent people from the IMF and Unison and unite who argue that we


are better off in. The Leave campaign would have you believe that


the Unite and Unison are working together with a band of socialists,


all raucous rated by President Obama on George Osborne's behalf, to


oppose bricks it. It is pure fantasy. Are you indulging in


fantasy politics, accusing other team -- sides of conjuring up the


bogeyman? We have cross-party consensus and unions like the RMT


right the way through to economists like Nigel Lawson, the former


Chancellor, making the Case for going out. There is a risk reward


calculation on both sides. What Michael Gove wants to do is say,


hang on, you are talking about the risks of leaving the EU but what


about the risks of staying in with the Eurozone crisis. Also today,


critically, he set out the positive vision outside of the EU. What was


the positive vision? The majority of what Michael Gove said this morning,


hearing the interview this morning, saying it was all about the fear of


staying in. Take your time and have a read of the whole thing. It repays


it. First of all, there is no lottery ticket say that being in the


EU or outside is a win, it is a balance of risk and reward. But he


set out the brighter prospects outside the EU. The ability to


control regulation. You can take different views, but it has a huge


impact on small businesses. The EU commission concedes it hits small


businesses ten times as hard as normal businesses. In this country


small businesses create 85% of new jobs. Secondly he talked about the


brighter prospects if we are independent and more energetically


trading from Latin America to Asia. The EU has been a poor negotiator of


trade agreements and it doesn't have a single agreement with a big


economy. We can argue that there are a whole range of positive


opportunities outside the EU that people like Chuka Umunna completely


discard. Isn't that the problem for the remaining campaign? They can


talk about Project Fia, but the idea of a brighter future of change and


looking beyond what we have now does feel like an easier case to argue in


a more passion away than for the status quo which is more difficult


when you rely on establishment bodies and institutions like the


IMF. Lave McCluskey and Dave Prentice might have something to


say. I don't buy the idea that we get trampled over by our partners in


the European Union and we don't get our way. Nine out of ten times we


are on the majority side when there are votes on the European Council.


And it is suggested that some how things are imposed on high and we


don't have a role to play in the rules and regulations that come out


from it. But I see this in bigger terms. I think we are dealing with a


lot of cross-border issues, whether it is terror, the environmental


contrast Rafiq unfolding with climate change. Those things do not


know borders. -- catastrophe. When you are looking at these things, and


Paul has written a lot about it, the power of multinational companies


which seek to play different jurisdictions against each other


saying if you don't adopt a lower level of labour protection in that


country we will take business elsewhere. And what actually the


European Union enables us to do is set minimum standards and prevent


that race to the bottom. We will come back to security in a moment


because one of the big problems for Leave is what does it look like.


That question is repeatedly posed because you don't have a document to


actually answer this. We can't negotiate with the EU before the


referendum. That is an aunt Sally. You can provide an alternative. We


have. I'm not saying it's a criticism but there was no document


are put through so in certain terms you are doing something that may


happen but you don't know for sure. That is the same as the Remain


campaign. We know what it looks like. Look at the Eurozone crisis on


the way it unfolded. The EU feels like it is on a permanent state of


crisis. The truth is there is far greater uncertainty around the


prospect of the EU than there are in making, modestly, but in clear ways,


the very concrete areas where we can actually change things. Like border


controls. You couldn't anticipate the migration crisis in the way it


unfolded and the EU has not been able to deal with it. That migration


crisis would be there, notwithstanding whether the EU would


be there or not. But one might say if the EU cannot deal with a


migration crisis... So it has no pull on a migration crisis? Let me


finish my sentence. If you look at what is driving the migration


crisis, we had growing jihad is in Africa and more coming into the EU


zone from Africa and also the problems in the Middle East. Those


things would subsist whether we were in or out of the European Union. I


am by no means saying the European Union is perfect and it needs


reform, and you can only reform it if you are at the table, not outside


the room. What about the Eurozone crisis? You couldn't have predicted


that? We are not in the Eurozone but George Osborne said we did feel


buffeted by the crisis. This goes to the heart of one of the Leave


campaign's biggest weaknesses. They say if we leave we will be part of


the single market so we have all the benefits but we will not have to pay


a fee and we won't be subject to any of the rules that come with being


part of the single market. No country outside of the EU has that


kind of arrangement, and why would members that we leave in the EU, why


would they give us a deal that they have not given themselves? That is


the problem with the Michael Gove speech. Many German and French


menaces have articulated that argument. Dominic Raab, I'm going to


put this to you, the French economy minister suggested that Britain


would be completely killed in trade talks if the country chose to leave


the EU. I'm not saying he is right, but this is the response we get, and


maybe they would say that at the moment because they don't want


Britain to leave the EU. But you have to ask yourself, if you want a


trade deal with all the pluses and advantages and none of the tariffs


and quid pro quo freedom of movement is, why would they give it? First of


all, I hope the French economic minister keeps talking. The idea


that Britain would be apocalyptically off the cliff edge


if we left the EU is silly. Neither the head of the CBI, the British


ambassador to the EU, nor the Prime Minister takes that position.


Thereau risk and reward ratios with in or out. The reason I think we


would have a strong trading relationship is that we are the


fifth biggest economy in the world and the EU firms sell 60 billion


more than we sell them. There is a strong mutual interest. The only


reason we would be in trouble is if the EU was going to behave in an


utterly vindictive, spiteful way. And that would run against its own


interests. I would say this, is that the kind of club you want to be part


of? I'm not saying, because it is a bit of a strawman argument, that we


would not be able to trade with our European partners. But there would


be a deal to be done. It is a question of the terms. In terms of


the risk and reward we are talking about, 44% of exports go to the EU.


On average, if you look at the other 27 member states, just 5% goes. But


the point is, for hours, we have far more to lose on imports and exports.


Let him finish his point. On world trade, I led a delegation, trade


delegation to Beijing in 2013 and you know what the Chinese said to


make and I went to the International Department of the Chinese Communist


Party, as you do, and they said to me, we don't understand why are


there some people who want to leave the European Union in your country?


When you negotiate with us, whatever it may be, intellectual property, a


concern of small businesses in China, you are sitting on one half


of the table with half a billion other people negotiating with 1.3


billion, why do you want to sit in the corner on your own? Can I ask


about China? So why does the EU not have a trade deal with China but


Switzerland does? But Switzerland has a deal that Michael Gove doesn't


want to emulate my got the impression. We have surely got


bigger economic clout than Switzerland. Paul Mason, on the


figures, one with talk about the Leave campaign quoting ?350 million


but has been argued against, that we pay, they say, to the EU, and we


hear that households would be worse off, maybe not individually, but the


June ?4300 per year, does it resonate the public? -- to the June.


It doesn't resonate with me because I've been on the end of so many Bank


of England reports where you cannot see the inner workings and I never


trust them. The idea you can put a figure on it per family is


ridiculous. The Brexit debate will be about principle. I am convinced


of the principle that Michael Gove outlined there, that the European


Union is not democratic and is incapable of becoming democratic.


That is why, philosophically, I would support Brexit. My problem is


that what we have gone on to is what is the proposal? Michael Gove says


we are like a hostage in the back of the EU car. I don't want to be a


hostage in the back of the car of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.


Given the choice on the 23rd of June, I think Brexit will happen


anyway for the reasons David Cameron suggest because we got a deal in


Brussels that we are already half out. In ten years, we will be out. I


just don't want to come out with an ultra right wing Tory government and


no chance for the left or social democracy to have its say within


that framework. Is that the problem for attracting voters to your side?


The co-chairman of the Leave is there and Stuart Digby Jones. I take


Paul's point. The reality is that the anyway the British people have a


choice is between those two models is if we are outside of the EU, so I


understand that people feel different way on the left in


relation to things like the working Time directive. They don't get a say


at all if they are outside. Isn't it true that this is less about the


merits or not remaining in the EU but more than the viewers have


become spectators of the war in the Conservative Party? You could say


the same on the left? It's not the same as the blue on blue attacks.


Jeremy Corbyn is being attacked left right and centre for being


passionate about it. That is a good deflection, but it has been, as a


result of a split in the Conservative Party, you must accept


it? There are different views in the Labour Party on both sides and


different views on the Tory party, and the average person watching


probably thinks that's healthy. The overwhelming majority of the labour


movement is absolutely behind continuing with membership of the EU


because we think it is best for security, prosperity and jobs. One


thing I would ask you to consider, Michael Gove, kind of weird seeing


them next to each other like that, doing this speech from the position


of being a champion of democracy, and one of the things that is


curious is he has a lot to say about democracy with the EU but very


little to say about democracy here where you can get into government


with less than 25% of the support of registered electors. It illustrates,


does this by care about democracy or is there something else. Before I


let these two go, Paul Mason, Jeremy Corbyn's conversion, is it credible?


I think it is. Does he believe He is attempting to lead a party. You


cannot criticise him for not trying to build consensus in his party.


Like me, there are many people in the Labour moment who are sceptical


of Europe. I'm sceptical mainly on dome crass sane free movement but,


you know, the choice will be, on 23rd, whether or not to hand over to


Boris and Michael Gove and they could have come and said - let's do


something, let's create the debate about the future Britain outside


Europe beforehand, but they didn't. That's been their choice. It is


clearer and clearer this week, that that is not their choice. I will


have to stop it there. I promised I would do security, and I did not. I


will come back. When you are invited.


The question for today is which leading politicians has


spent ?10,0000 on their official parliamentary


Was it a) The Home Secretary Theresa May?


c) The Lords Speaker, Baroness D'Souza?


or d) Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon?


At the end of the show, Paul Mason will give us


Now, the Business Minister, Sajid Javid, was meeting with other


steel-producing nations yesterday, trying to persuade the Chinese,


The Chinese deny that they're dumping steel on the world market,


leading to huge losses at steel plants like Port Talbot,


which is threatened with imminent closure.


This is what Sajid Javid had to say after that meeting.


Well overproduction is the number one issue to tackle.


I don't think anyone expected an overnight solution to that


but the discussion today, with all of these countries coming


together, something we pushed for and pushed for China's


participation, will help make the difference.


With regard to Tata, the sales' process, the formal


We are starting to be approached by interested parties.


It is too early to say much about them at this stage


but the important thing is, as we said all along,


we will do everything we can to help with that sales' process.


The steelworkers of Britain deserve nothing less.


And we're joined now by the Conservative MP, John Redwood.


Does the outcome of the talks mentally change anything? I hope


it'll lead on to a resolution. We know the Chinese have said they will


take out a lot of capacity in their own domestic market which would be


extremely good news but we also know, of course, the big export


threat to the UK steel industry has come from the continent of Europe,


not from China and the rest of the EU exports about six times as much


into the UK as the Chinese do. So we still have a problem, even if the


Chinese take out enough capacity. Do you agree that will make a ditches,


even if they lower capacity it could then Hayesen a resolution? Very,


very slowly. They have a social unrest issue in China. Number one,


as Mr Redwood says, there is also the issue of what is the balance of


the European steel industry in Europe? And for us, for me in the


Labour Party, people I speak to in the Labour movement, what is


important is we save every job. That's one thing. That's what we are


not hearing, a plan right now. You can't rush around fwrusles to


Beijing without a plan for steel. Even Thatcher had a plan for coal,


didn't she? There doesn't seem to be the ability for this Conservative


Government to have a plan for anything. Do they not have a plan?


Is the Government sort of making it up as it goes along by saying it is


not going to happen overnight, it is still too early to say, we are not


going to commit our sefts to saving every job in the way that Paul Mason


has just outlined, is that because there isn't a plan? I think there is


a developing plan. The Government isn't in full charge. They have to


deal with EU requirements. They have to deal with the very difficult


steel market. They have to deal with the people who currently own the


assets. The Government doesn't own everything, it is not all powerful.


But rhetoric... I believe the businessminister and the Prime


Minister when they say they want to save the Port Talbot works. I'm not


saying they are going to save every job, of course we want to save as


many as possible but we need to save capacity and the technology related


to it. Is it sustainable in the long term, even if you reduce pension


liability and did something about energy costs which are are the


things we could do something about, is it sustainable in the lock term?


When McDonald's automated part of the restaurant do touch screen they


said they weren't losing a single job, they are not doing it to get


rid of jobs, it is to reorder the business. A commitment like that


from the Government would be one thing. If you ask is it viable,


there is an argument in the steel industry, we have Conservative


governments who have not taken seriously industrial policy. I'm in


favour of doing it f it had to happen. It didn't work, before, did


t nationalising steel It did. In what way The steel industry


functioned and had a competitive. Was it competitive If you


nationalise t it doesn't have to. You can do things for the good of


the country, security and jobs The nationalised industry lost aer if


tune, created false hopes, and created five, very, very large works


and -- lost a fortune. Most have gone or are now under threat T


started with the awful problems over Ravenscraig. Let's in the Dell in


the past. We have the same aim - to save as many jobs as possible and


keep a businessic steel-making capacity and technology of the


sophisticated steels which has to belinged. The plan surely must be to


get a buyer, an organiser, entrepreneur, a company to stand


behind. Why are they not lining up? I understand there are buyers in


discussion, but it depends on what we are allowed to do EU subsidy


rules limit what the Government can offer by way of financial cross. EU


domestic rules and energy rules many dear energy. I want the Government


to do much more on cheaper energy. One of the reasons the German


industry sells so much into Britain is they have had much more energy


subsidy than we have in or been allowed to have in the EU. Would you


like to hear the Government saying they want it save every job at Port


Talbot. I would like them and they will say they will save as many jobs


as possible at Port Talbot. You shouldn't give false hope to people.


It is a difficult situation. You have to allow that the a new owner


may have to make adjustments. If a new owner can't be found. You say


there are some in discussion. But I haven't seen that much evidence of


people queueing up to take-to-. Paul Mason is right in a sows, you can


make a priority F it is so important and such an intrinsic part of our


manufacturing history and life in the UK, why not put the money in? We


do it for other things. We did it for the banks and their balance


sheets arguably are still not that healthy. Why don't we do it for


steel? Government has said it is prepared to put money in, but it has


to do it within the rules. The Belgium Government is having a levy


to get money back which the state offered part of the Belgium


industry. The Italian industry Sunday a commission. I think the


Germans have defied the shengen agreement and Dublin 3. Occasionally


a country can say - we are doing it ourselves, take us to the ECJ. Do


you think ideology are tonight Tories going forward with that?


There is the European element but the problem with the ideology, is


Sajid Javid sitting there and thinking it would solve itself. If


they said to Tata Steel, this country profound by believes in the


steel industry and we will back whoever own it is with money and


state aid, with fighting against dumping, for all I accept it is not


the main issue here with some smaller plants, if it had done, that


the Government sets rules of behaviour and big international


businesses move in and they say - OK, we can predict what can going to


happen for ten years. I think the market forces ideology, made them


take their eye off the ball and now 40,000 people are going to pay for


what. What I would do, Mr Redmond, I would stick money in upfront and say


- there is money for whoever buys it upfront, state aid and see who ko.s


I think I'm certain that is the reason why some of the interested


parties areaway right now. I think the Government is saying - there is


Government money available under the rules but the Government has to take


legal advice and it cannot low noeingly break European law. The


Civil Service interrupt European rules. Tell them to butt out They


will be telling ministers the Italians and Belgians are already in


deep trouble over this very thing. I will finish it now. Thank you very


much. Now, roll up, roll up,


roll up your sleeves and get your working hands


on the hottest economic Proving there is nothing taxing


or sinister about going left, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has


invited his favourite economists to get out of Westminster


and deliver a series John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor


welcomes the world On the new Economics Bill,


there has been advice from the brightest left side


of the brain, Mariana Mazzucato. Then economic cocktails served


with a bowl of Joseph Stiglitz. Empressario John McDonnell himself


chatted to Danny Dorling, not to be confused with Dany Dyer,


although that would have been Then, there was the wisdom


of Ha-Joon Chang, followed by the economic equivalent


of being hit by a scooter driven by a well-groomed Greek rock


star, Vanis Varoufakis. Top of the bill tomorrow,


the gritty growl of reformed revolutionary,


TV personality, Paul Mason. What a performance there from Giles


with his guide it Labour's economic lecture tour.


But what policy is emerging from all this economic wonkery,


and will it help Labour win the next election?


Well, to discuss that we're joined by the Blairite


Blairite commentator? Let's have that discussion afterwards.


Paul Mason, Ed Balls said in January 2014, there will be no more


borrowing from day-to-day spending. Last month John McDonnell said they


believe the Government should not need to borrow to fund day-to-day


spending. The same thing. I don't think it is. I think the fiscal


policy he underlined is looser on current spender. It can be looser if


we hit the zero band with interest rates and we have. At a time like


this, I would interrupt that - I'm in the Shadow Chancellor - but I


would say we have nor leeway on current spending and certainly on


investment spending and as I'm going to be outlining in my lecture for


him this week, in any case, fiscal policy is not the main thing. Once


you have an unor the docks monetary policy as we have, printing money,


guaranteeing no interest rate rises for a certain period, you have a


spill-over between fiscal and monetary policy that allows a future


Labour Chancellor to stimulate the economy. It is not radically


different. Ed Balls talked about stimulating the economy. The


Government is strangling the economy. Even if you stimulated it


mildly, I would argue, it would feel a lot divan, and again, you would


have a predictable environment for the expansion of the NHS, and the


education sector and in science and R that isn't happening right now.


Well, John McDonnell has said he is against austerity and that those


cuts that the Tory Government - - well, he has said he wouldn't put in


place the sort of cuts the Tory Government is proposing because


there would be growth in the economy from the investment that the Labour


Party would make. That is a departure from Labour before Well


reforically, yes, but we are just - I have come here to commiserate with


Paul, you know, he's backed John McDonnell, who was the campaign


manager for somebody called Jeremy Corbyn. He should have been the


campaign manager for Liz Kendall, Liz Kendall was saying those things


during the leadership campaign, you have to balance the current


spending... She was a good candidate. She was a very good


candidate. And she argued for fiscal responsibility which John McDonnell


has now adopted. I know you want to get out of what is said by invoking


the lower bound escape hatch. But you can't possibly agree with Liz


Kendall's approximatelicy which John McDonnell has adopted for normal


fiscal times. He is talking about fiscal responsibility. He needs to


try to get the public to trust Labour and he is really doing the


same things As certainly the previous Labour fwroencht and almost


the Tory Government. The reason all governments have had fiscal rules is


because they make sense 678 there is a cross-party academic agreement


that, this is how it works - if the economy hits a rough patch, you


spend some more now, to make it grow and then later the growth helps you


pay back what you borrowed. That's the basic principle of all fiscal


policy, but to formalise it stops you. This is I think the reason why


McDonnell has done this. It stops your own supporters, the unions,


people in the Labour momentum, etc, thinking that everything can be


sorted by tax rises on the rich, or, you know, spending boosts. It


signals to your own party that there are limits to these things and that


other things have to take over, like industrial policy, like


nationalising the steel industry and like boosting monetary growth. But


he is going to, John McDonnell and if Labour were in power, add to the


deficit. If you add the deficit you run over


the debt. The deficit thing is doable. The thing is, Ed Miliband


failed to get elected with those sorts of arguments, the Tory


arguments, talking about fiscal responsibility, saying he'd balance


the books and saying he would be responsible. Those aren't Tory


arguments. That is what Ed Miliband echoed. Isn't it time for Labour to


choose a different path? Paul has admitted they had chosen the same


path, having debt as a share of trade in GDP by the end of the


parliament and that is something that you and Jeremy Corbyn


supporters condemned as neoliberalism. Wait until they, we,


get our hands on the Office for Budget Responsibility and when it


starts to calculate the real impact of fiscal stimulus on growth there


will be a lot more allowed, even under the John McDonnell rules. And


you can do more QE. That is what I will say in the lecture. So you


don't want an independent Office for Budget Responsibility? I wanted to


be independent of the Treasury, not using the Treasury Dome of fiscal


multipliers that don't agree with the IMF. We should use fiscal


multipliers that say... Osborne's kind of does. The Obi produce the


answers he wanted without producing any of the growth he wanted -- the


Office for Budget Responsibility. That is why he is reversing out of


austerity. He is 4.5 billion out of his own austerity plan. He has


reversed a position occupied by Ed Balls in the last Parliament. John


McDonnell and his supporters do not disrespect Ed Balls's plan but we


just need a different one going forward. In the end what will be


more credible for the public? Fiscal rules, whether you stick to them,


whether they are artificially made, do they make any difference question


it showed by the last election they clearly did make a difference, even


if the Tories argue that way. Labour will be Prime Minister, strange


though it might seem to the Westminster bubble, if they tell the


British people that is a believable story about how children get decent,


secure jobs and have a diva -- decent lifestyle without having to


win the X factor will be a professional footballer. I would


actually agree with that. I think that is how Labour could win an


election. But I don't see how they can possibly do so under Jeremy


Corbyn. Why not? Because that is not what they are offering the British


people. They are offering the British people anti-American is and


fantasy economics and that is not a programme that the British people


will want. What about this fantasy economics you spoke about? What is


the fantasy bit? The fantasy is what they really believe as opposed to


what John McDonnell has said before the budget suddenly it decided to


adopt that, which is conventional economic thinking, that you should


balance the books over the economic cycle. You think that would be


abandoned if they came to power and they would revert to some sort of


socialist doctrine you think they still hold by? I don't think John


McDonnell really believes it, so I don't think he has any credibility


in arguing for it but I think that is the base from which any party


hats to approach the general election, and you cannot convince


people to give you that vote. He is not saying to balance the books over


the cycle. Balance the current books. It does say that, in five


years' time. It was Gordon Brown who had an economic cycle -based rule.


The rules of Ed Balls the current government are not cycle -based.


What does infrastructure involved? A lot of it is not just building


tunnels under the Pennines, it is about building the capacity of the


workforce. There's a lot you can do under the label of infrastructure


that actually cascades not into steel construction for example. At


the end of the cycle, over five years, under the current fiscal rule


that Labour is trying to implement all would implement, you would get a


big infrastructure boost early on in any parliament and it would


stimulate growth and draw jobs in. What would happen to the debt and


deficit? The deficit might rise over the short-term, but that is the


idea, but debt would come down as a part of GDP because over time the


growth would come. Are you going to be a convert? If they're going to


convert to conventional economics, fiscal responsibility, then I am all


for it. The Blairites in the Labour Party have always been in favour of


that and it's good to hear them come on board. The question is whether


they really believe it. John Rentoul, thank you.


Now, the pavements of Britain are thronged with sweaty, lycra-clad


runners training for Sunday's London Marathon.


Our Ellie's amongst them, and she's gathered together some fellow


Westminster Village runners about to embark


The weather is getting better, the sun is shining, the temperature has


lifted and what else would you want to do on a Sunday morning banged


over a gentle 26.2 mile I have three Labour MPs with me and


we like to keep them on their toes at the Daily Politics, and here they


are, running towards me. I don't normally get politicians running


towards me. Hello chaps. Amanda, this is your first London Marathon.


How do you feel? Incredibly nervous. I am excited because I'm assured


that the crowd will carry you along, but very, very nervous about the


whole thing. Dan Jarvis, a long way to be carried. How many have you


done? This is my sixth London Marathon. Always hard work but a


great event. The atmosphere is wonderful and the opportunity to


raise money for Cancer Research is to good an opportunity to miss. You


are the first Cabinet minister to run the marathon. No pressure. I've


got to complete it. This will be my fit and I have to complete it --


fifth. I have been running much in the last month, I can tell you.


Getting his excuses in early. Amanda, apparently there is


something called maranoia. Have you got any of that? I know that I want


to do it and I want to think all the way through why I am doing it, and I


think it's one of those things that will carry me through to the end. Is


it paranoid or mad? It is madness, but it would be mad not to do it


such a good cause. There is something lovely about this week in


particular. You don't need to do any more running, just eat a load of


carbohydrates. I haven't done a huge amount of running before these


weeks, so I'm getting the excuses in again. We can look forward to the


race. The atmosphere is wonderful and the level of support is


incredible. I think it's really important we come together to


contribute and be involved and do our bit. You said jokingly, but


having the time to do it, but it does take a lot of time. Why do you


do it? What is about running that goes with politics? The first is to


raise money for a good cause and the charities and the impact they have,


and the is quite selfish, you feel $1 million crossing the line. And in


the training running up to it there are a lot of MPs running around the


parks of London, late at night, and you are running through it --


through Green Park, and it gives you a structure and stops you drinking


and eating too much and it is a focus from Christmas until the end


of April. Danny Connor you are sandwiched between some


conservatives, and there are five Conservatives doing this and five


Labour politicians but none of the other parties are taking part. Is


there any rivalry here? Yes there is. I have been reasonably close in


previous years and he has given me a bluff about some problems with his


knee. I'm not buying it at all. I think we will be close to each other


on Sunday. A bit of friendly rivalry, I think. I should point out


it isn't just the politicians running this Sunday, there are some


very dedicated political journalists who will be trying to give these


politicians a bit of a run for their money. But we will see. It's a long


way to go. Hey, wait for me, guys. That could have been very nasty. I


actually ran with LA last weekend, no it can't be last week in, it


feels like ages ago and I did a half marathon I thought I might need a


hip replacement at the end. You have run a marathon? Yes, 20 years ago.


The London Marathon is superb. A great social occasion and one of


these institutions that holds the country together. It's great to see


the MPs having a go. What was your time? 3.5 two. That's quite good.


It's better to go slowly, carefully and finish. Did you run the whole


thing? I ran like a whip into the first six miles and then had to be


almost carried around after that. -- I ran like with it. It does take a


big chunk out of your life, and not drinking in London, as one of those


MPs said, quite difficult. Now MPs use the technique to talk


out legislation they don't like. But a committee of MPs is proposing


reforms aimed at putting an end to what's sometimes


known as a "filibuster", calling it "a fraud


on the people we represent". Here's the Conservative MP,


Philip Davies, speaking at the debate on a bill to end


hospital car parking So if we are already


seeing this huge increase in parking fees for people,


I don't want to introduce a bill which would see people


have to pay even more. This is something


that was highlighted by the British Parking Association


back in 2009, following the scrapping of hospital carparking


charges in Scotland. They say car parks need to be


physically maintained, Charges were not introduced


to generate income but rather to ensure that key staff,


bona fide patients and visitors Without income to support car park


maintenance, funds which should be directed to health care


have to be used instead. There is also a very big


geographic inequality... Mr Deputy Speaker, this speaker has


already been speaking for an hour and nine minutes


and what we are getting now And the Conservative MP


Philip Davies and Labour MP Julie Cooper, who introduced that


bill on hospital car Why did you do it, Philip Davis?


Isn't it a bit of a low rent technique to adopt, filibustering?


Filibustering is not allowed, and the speaker will pull you up. But


that is filibustering, isn't it? Lots of people, on a Friday with


bills that are ill thought through, worthy sentiments, and this is a


prime example, but it hadn't been given proper consideration on the


detail and application and it would have seen five out of six carers


paying more than car parking. It was ill thought through, so this bill


did not deserve to go through. But should it be talked out? Every


parliamentarian uses whatever procedures are in place to deliver


the outcome they want. This is how the Labour Party got into the Jeremy


Corbyn situation by MPs saying they did not want to be the leader of the


party, but let's give him ago and they ended up with a leader they


want. You have to use what procedures you have got at your


disposal to get the outcome you want, and every MP uses procedures


to get the outcome they want. If they didn't they would not be used


-- doing their job properly. Let's pick up on that it was ill thought


through. Julie, do you want to come back? I totally disagree. I spent a


lot of time researching the bill and I spoke to people on all sides of


the house, including some Conservative members, Liberal


Democrats, Scottish National party, the Green party, various supporters


of the bill. I had been advised earlier on when selecting the


subject that it was wise, if you hope to have any progress, that you


had an issue that was noncontroversial and every party


thought they could get behind. The whole point of the bill committees


that follow one in the second readings are to iron out the details


and I spent a lot of time with people far more experienced than I


am preparing bills and there was a sound prospect in the bill but it


was not to be thanks to filibustering. What do you say to


the claim that MPs can and should adopt any technique that is


available to their disposal if they think believes, as he put it, ill


thought through? What happens is outrageously dishonest and


undemocratic. I welcome the work done by the procedure committee


since that episode that is actually looking to bring reform, because one


thing my bill to do was to raise the whole issue in the public mind. Had


I been successful, a million carers and their families would have


benefited. Just to correct what Philip said, no carers would have


paid extra charges and a million carers would have benefited, so it


had a lot of public attention. And they were quite rightly disgusted at


what they saw was spoiled on the part of some MPs. Is that not what


it is? It is bored, because you do it because you can, speaking for one


hour and 52 minutes, and were you being undemocratic? I was blocking a


bill I thought was ill thought through. It's not the first time


you've done it. Lots of bills go through. It's noncontroversial. But


you did it on the compulsory emergency first aid education bill.


That was a bad bill as well. The point about Julie's bill, if you


don't mind me saying so, five out of six carers it wouldn't have applied


to and only applied to people with an underlying claim to carers


allowance. We had no idea how the hospital would determine that claim,


how it would be managed, whether if there was a dispute between the


hospital and the carer whether there would be some new parking ombudsman


who would resolve complaints, whether the money to pay for this


would come from the hospital on the doctors and nurses, from the


government or from higher parking charges and everybody else which


would have meant five out of six carers would have paid more. Julie


couldn't and is the questions. She hadn't even spoken to Burnley


Hospital. She had spoken to other parties. This was very much a soul


campaign, not a party campaign, so you took it upon yourself to wreck


the bill. The point is this. If a hundred MPs turn up on Friday to


support a bill and it passes through, irrespective of what I do


over how long anybody speaks, if Julie couldn't muster 100 MPs out of


650 to support the bill and she claimed she had all the support,


where were they? If a hundred MPs had turned up, it have passed. The


point is that more senior MPs have sat through so many sessions that


they know how it works on a Friday, but Philip and a couple of his


colleagues sit there Friday after Friday, every time a Private members


Bill comes through. Did you get the support? Yes, I did get the support.


Where were they? The important thing is that going forward the committee


looks at improving the process so we can have a fair situation and an


honest boat. A number of colleagues -- an honest boat. A number of


colleagues said that they support carers in Parliament and then they


refused to vote against it. Many of the issues that Philip mentioned I


had discussed with the Minister before the bill was presented and he


made it plain that the government did not want to support it, so let's


have an honest debate. Should there be moves to get rid of this option?


No. I think the system works well in the sense if the bill has the


support of 100 MPs it can go through without anybody blocking it but


gives a mechanism to block bills. Otherwise people come with a worthy


sentiment and expect everybody to faun all over it and pass it on the


nod. We are passing legislation, it it is serious business, it should


the be able dom with a worthy sentiment and go through. Do you


think it is worth keeping? Absolutely not. The balance is not


what happens in Parliament. If a large corporation wants the law


changed they don't ask an MP to put a Friday morning bill in. They go


and get an ordering counsel, they get statute changed and ministerial


decisions and they are in there, as we speak, consultants being paid


tens of thousands a week to do that. Business can get any change it wants


to into government but the public has to go through petitions which


are never listened to or private members bills and somebody pops up a


and stops them. The minimum you can do, is streamline and make clear but


a there are some crazy ones. Make clear that the private member's


bill, that the procedure - but in the end, I think it is only the


beginning of participatory democracy, which is what we need in


this country. Do you think it'll put people off, other MPs coming forward


with private members bills Absolutely definitely. I would think


ten times, 100 times before I give up a Friday to support a private


member's bill, even on a very worthy issue. It is a total waste, and a


disrespect of British Parliament and even more than that, it is a


disrespect to the British public. It is insulting for them for them to be


- 1 million careers could have benefited and many of them and their


families tuned in that morning tloisen to see the -- to listen it


see the charade that passed for debate. All right. Thank you for


both of you. I won't let you talk out the rest of the programme.


Talk of a steel crisis reminds us of a time, not so long ago,


when workers were out on strike, stock markets were crashing


and the far left in British politics were agitating for a revolution.


Including, it appears, one young journalist from Wigan.


Times have now changed and these days Paul Mason has recanted his


"revolutionary marxism" in favour of "radical social democracy".


In a moment we will find out why, and hear from Peter Taaffe,


the General Secretary of the Socialist Party


and former chief of militant, about why he thinks a revolution


But first, let's go back to 1987 and hear the views


There undoubtedly was the demand for a forum where the left could come in


from the cold. For many be the so-called outside left the Labour


Conference was a disaster. Since then it has been greatly lifted but


the problems of the world stock market. The world will never be the


same again. There is no way back for Thatcher and Reagan and it'll be the


end of monetaryism. Tony Benn had hoped it could be a family reunion


for the left but it was a family with immense strain. As well as over


1,000 Labour MPs, there were many people from way outside the party


like Socialist Work and entryist like Workers Power. There a tendency


within the Labour Party To do what? Build revolutionary politics inside


the Labour Party. I'm joined now by Peter Taaffe,


General Secretary of the Socialist Party and founder


of the entryist Militant Group which caused Labour so many


problems in the 1980s. Welcome to the programme. I hope you


enjoyed doing yourself. That jumper was superb. Why didn't you show me


at that age. You were part of a ginger group... Ginger. Well a


groups agitating for revolutionary politics but when George Osborne


accused of you being a revolutionly Marxist, you denied it. Why? Because


I'm in the one now. Thatcher destroyed the miners, we had


extrajudicial force used against working class people. There were


riots on the streets. We were fighting a battle for the survival


of working class communities, which we lost, which I am terribly sorry


about. There are people in emmer vale and Wigan, Leigh, where I come


from, still living with that and we were right to fight it. Why aren't


you still fighting? The world that has emerged is different. The global


economy, the possibility for social just tis that is has emerged have to


be recalibrated from where you start with. For me, personally ut journey


I have taken, I think the revolutionary left politics of the


197 #0gs and 80s had a fatal weakness of failing to understand


that what most working class people, ordinary people that work now, let's


leave aside the labels, what they want is an area of self-control


within capitalism, within the system. That's what people like Nye


Bevan fought for that.ings a what, as a trade unionist and MP, and


that's what I would fight for now. Are you disappointed by this change


of heart. Paul Mason says he is adapting to the world as it is


today. You are stuck in the 1970s and 80s? No, I think he has changed


his position and it is greatable, as he has explained. I think there is


more of a case today for the battles we fought 30 years ago and they won


some of those battles. It wasn't all losses. We are the people, that was


Militant, now the Socialist Party who took on thatch-and-a-half in


Liverpool and defeated her. She was forced to give big concessions to


the working class of people. We also mobilised 18 million people to


defeat the poll tax. If you read Mrs Thatcher's biography, you will see


she admit in there that that battle, Paul, led to her resignation. It


wasn't the EU. Those lessons are relevant today. What does Jeremy


Corbyn's election to the leadership of the Labour Party represent? What


does the Bernie Sanders phenomena in America represent? Where he has


talked about revolution, you have articulated that. You have left at a


time when perhaps, Britain and America are ripe for revolution.


Bernie Sanders talk of revolution is about a political revolution in


America, throwing money out of politics. You as co-thinkers inside,


I think in is he atle you have one City Councillor Yes. But there is a


big thing happening, horizontally among young people. We mean by that,


not involved in hierarchial groups. There are people on the streets of


Paris, every night fighting for social justice, not a Leninist


revolution. The poblted of that has gone. Number two, yes, the struggle


we won things through fighting the poll tax, your own collaborator,


Tommy Sheridan was heroic I would argue and Scottish people followed.


Yes, jailed in that time. And the point is what do we do now, it has


to be a mixture of resisting the austerity and the injustice that is


have been inflicted be o people and parliamentary action. Why don't you


- why don't you just come in, join the Labour Party, give yourselves -


as we did... On the last question. As we did in '97. I was part of the


Labour Party. Why don't you? We would like to join the Labour Party.


In the same way as the... Do you still want a Leninist mai,


coalition? In the same way as the co-op. The idea of Leninism as a


hierarchial, centralised... Do you still believe in it? We believe in


parties. We don't believe we will be a spontaneous movement that can


overthrow the most ruthless, capitalist class we have had in


history. They are absolutery ruthless. They have been trained to


rule. The phenomenon you have mentioned, it is a step forward. The


Jeremy Corbyn movement is a step forward. Because would you like it


to be the sort of party you want it to be, this overthrow of the


capitalist class. We believe that will be arrived at by democratic


discussion and debate. We would like to be part of the Labour Party. Paul


wrote a very interesting article in the Guardian in which he said - it


can't be now that - centralised, a topdown party. We agree with that.


Why not a featheration, different organisations in different parties.


Do you think there is still, a swell of support for that sort of


sentiment? Stls not among young people and young people, in other


words, are way ahead of the kind of fossilised leftism of the 20th


Century. They have realised that you can have your own personal


revolution, you can do quite a lot on your own and the key difference


for me is that so many people have decided that, you know, in spending


your entire life to enforce labour to do things or Knight night or the


RMT, do it yourself -- or Unite. The point is you don't need a


hierarchial organisation and structure, you don't need T with a


cell phone you can do more than you can. I think that's childish,


frankly. What you have explained in your book about post capitalism, is


the enormous oppressive apparatus that the ruling class worldwide has


bilted up. You give a good phrase where you said think about Manila in


Gothenberg. You talked about the head of Prudential insurance saying


the minimum wage is the enemy of young people. They are ruthless. Do


you think that by coming together in the kind of general discussion, that


we will be able to overthrow this capital class, it is childish? The


only way is by building a mass party. Social counter-parlance. Are


you still close to Jeremy Corbyn? In a sense, yes, we support Jeremy


Corbyn. We would like to be part of his project but Jeremy Corbyn is


unfortunately, he is trapped behind enemy lines. Who is the enemy? Who


is the enemy? Some are the Blairites, one of whom you have had


in here today. They don't want what Jeremy Corbyn stands for. Paul know


this is. We have two parties in one in the Labour Party. We have the


Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party and we have the old, discredited remnants


of the Blairites. We want a real struggle to build a party that


represents the overwhelming majority. Briefly, do you think


Peter and his supporters are threatening the potential success of


Jeremy Corbyn? 123450 not so far, they can't win a single election


against him. Labour San alliance of the left and right. It is unusual


the left is leading. That's what the Blairites can't get their head


around. I will have to finish it there. Thank you very much. Now time


to find out the answer to our quiz: The question was which leading


politicians has spent Was it a) The Home


Secretary Theresa May? C) The Lords' Speaker,


Baroness D'Souza? Or D) Scottish First Minister,


Nicola Sturgeon? It is the Lords' speaker. Nearly


?10,000. It is, it is Lady D'Souza. Well done you. You don't get a cash


prize but you can probably take a mug.


Free membership of the Socialist Party for a year. From all of us,




Download Subtitles