19/09/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


David Cameron wanted the Conservative Party to "stop


And we all know what happened to him.


Now Theresa May is starting to feel the pressure


The Prime Minister is facing calls from Eurosceptic Conservative MPs


for a so-called "hard Brexit", demanding Britain quits the single


market and scraps EU free movement rules.


Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats approve their Leader's call


to campaign for a second referendum on any Brexit deal.


Tim Farron says he respects the Brexit result but says the public


needs more of a say. Protestors in Westminster demand


more aid for migrants But the Prime Minister calls


for a shake up of international rules on refugees as she heads


to New York to discuss Jeremy Corbyn is odds on to reclaim


the Labour leadership. He says he wants to extend an olive


branch to his critics. But will peace ever reign


in the party again? And with us for the whole programme


today is the Guardian columnist, First today, the Prime Minister


is calling for a shake up Theresa May says countries should


enforce a "First Safe Country" rule under which refugees must be


settled in the first Such an approach would bar


other European countries from allowing migrants to travel


on through Europe to Britain. Mrs May is attending a major


United Nations summit in New York, which is taking place amid tightened


security following a bomb blast Activists have turned Parliament


Square into a life jacket graveyard to highlight the damgers


for migrants crossing the sea we had a Dublin agreement. If you


are going to do it like that, you have to reach agreement as to what


then happens to the migrants. The first country they reach will beat


Greece or Italy. We cannot rationally say Greece and Italy have


to take everybody. There is no basis in fairness, in reason, in anything


to make a rule like that. Is the principal bright in terms of basic


thrust? It is an administrative layer for a compromise agreement.


The administrative layer where afterwards countries will negotiate


about who goes where. The UNHCR still has hotspots where people in


dire need will be distributed to a country, depending on where they


have existing family, where their skills are needed, that kind of


thing. You get a hot spot in Lesbos. All people in Syria will be sent to


that hotspot. That system works well but it only works well if countries


are cooperating and they are taking their fair share of refugees. Do you


think it was because the focus was on Greece and Italy for many of the


migrants and refugees who are coming from the Middle East or Africa?


There are other parts of the world that could perform that duty. Many


of the migrants fleeing Iraq could not necessarily be hitting those


countries first, but others. That is a dead duck, that argument. Already,


if you look at the number of refugees Europe has taken compared


with the rest of the world, it is minuscule. Africa has taken a huge


number of refugees. The Middle East is taking a huge number of refugees.


They are taking millions and millions of people every year. What


we are saying is, we're basically having a tacit situation at the


moment where we are allowing countries without economic resources


to bear a huge amount of the burden. We are not stepping in at all. She's


also an argument we need to distinguish even more forcefully the


difference between economic migrants. Those seeking a better


life, and those genuinely seeking persecution. Let's take the example


of Syrian refugees. It would increase public sympathy and public


support for the genuine refugees. Does she have a point? This is a


rhetorical switch on her part. The point is, we already have in place


differences between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants.


Passage is so dangerous by vote. It is perilous. If you're talking back


economic migrants in that situation when you're talking about people


getting onto a vote rather than face starvation. That is probably as


legitimate to leaving rather than facing prosecution. In Lesbos, the


word had gone around among refugees that people were taking Syrians and


not Afghans. The Afghans, when they came in, would pretend to be Syrian,


or... A guy showed me his bullet wounds he was so frightened of being


thought and economic migrant that he had to show the kind of physical


torture he had had at the hands of the Taliban, as it happened. This is


appalling. It is so inhuman that people arrive and think that is not


what we need, to see actual wounds before we respond to them as human


beings for the bid is really appalling but when you look at the


wording of the refugee Convention and deactivate -- aspirations we had


to help and how far we are falling short of it, it is extraordinary.


Now, do you like your Brexit hard or soft?


It's the question on everyone's lips.


Well, it is in this studio at any rate.


In the absence of any concrete details about which tack


the Government will take when it comes to negotiating our exit


from the EU and the nature of our relationship after that,


two broadly competing visions are beginning to emerge.


A new campaign group, Leave Means Leave, are calling


for a hard Brexit, cluding leaving the single market and ending


The group includes a number of leading Conservative


Eurosceptics, such as former Justice Minister Dominic Raab


and former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson.


Leave Means Leave say that remaining in the single market


will pull our political and economic focus towards the world's


On the other side, Open Britain, the successor to the


Stronger In campaign, are calling for the UK to remain


They also want to mend not end free movement,


with an EU-wide debate on how the system works.


Speaking for Open Britain, Tory MP Anna Soubry said leaving


the EU without a trade deal was the biggest


Debates around what Brexit might look like are taking place


as the head of Germany's central bank Jens Weidman warned


that Britain's banks would lose their passport rights


These allow firms to operate across the EU without separate licenses.


We're joined now by the Deputy Editor of


Welcome to the Daily Politics. The Bundesbank president has said the


city will suffer if the UK leads the single market. Is he right? It


depends. That's not forget, for a start, all these people are actors


in a political struggle. They are about to enter negotiations and


everyone is trying to depict a set of threats to try to modify the


outcome. It is important for the city to have access, trading access,


to the single market. There is more than one way to achieve that, one


way through passport images what he is referring to. That is licensed to


sell financial services to the rest of the EU. There is another


alternative, equivalence, and maybe a third way. We do know what the


actual legal possible it is that currently exist are at the moment.


He is right in one respect. The city could lose out from all of this.


That is why negotiators have to be very careful. They need to be


careful to maintain trade access and financial services. You are saying


in a sense he is right? I am not saying that. I am saying there is a


Brexit -- a danger that Brexit needs to begin ducted in the correct way.


Are the passport rights tied to the single market? Yes, in a sense if


you want current passport in mechanism you need to be part of the


EIA. That is under the current system. On the other hand, they are


moving towards a system that third-party countries could have a


form of passport ink in the next couple of years. That may avoid the


need to be part of the single market. That is why these things are


uncertain. The City needs to put its own perspective on theirs. We need


to know exactly what they think the options are that would allow them to


have access. I think we should not listen to much to the people like


the Bundesbank who are trying to put the most negative gloss on all of


this. That is true. He has a vested interest in wanting to see banks and


other operations leading London and going to Frankfurt. As you said that


there needs to be a new negotiation full as it stands at the moment, the


City's sporting rights would be lost. We could have something else


called equivalence, which may be identical. We do not know because it


has not been tested yet. This may largely be a non-issue but we are


not sure yet. This is a reason why it all of this is quite complicated.


It is very important we stuck to hear more from the Government about


how exactly they want to continue with these negotiations. There will


be costs and benefits to any benefit. The Government's job is to


maximise the benefits and reduce the downsides. If the Bundesbank


president is saying banks will be stripped of their ability to conduct


business across... He does not know that. That is what he is saying. The


have established he has a vested interest. If he is saying that, and


he will be considered by banks as someone to listen to. Isn't that the


risk that, in this interim period, banks relocate some of the


affiliated operations elsewhere? There is a risk. What is happening


at the moment seems to be the asked DUP offices in Ireland and


Luxembourg, smallish offices. -- scooping. They may have signed


leases, we do not know that yet. That may be sufficient to stay in


London and continue to operate across the EU. We do not know if


they could be brass plated offices. That is a possibility. It is true


the banks are very nervous. It is true that corporate Britain remains


quite nervous, quite a lot less nervous than it was in the immediate


aftermath of the referendum. Confidence has come back largely. A


lot of people are nervous about as white as important for the


Government to be more explicit the way they want to go in all of this.


To discuss this further, I'm joined by the Labour MP


Chuka Umunna who's backing the Open Britain campaign


group and the Conservative MP and former Defence Minister


Gerald Howarth who is backing Leave Means Leave.


Gerald, what exactly in your mind is hard Brexit? Hard Brexit is a term


which you in the media have streamed up. Essentially, what is at issue


here, those who feel it will need to take a long time in order to take


every box, to cross every tee and. Every eye, and those of us who


believe we need to accelerate this process and ensure that certainly by


the timetable set by the Prime Minister, namely the beginning of


next year, the United Kingdom activates Article 53 begin the


two-year process of exiting. You want to leave the EU as soon as


possible, without having secured any sort of deal with the European Union


in terms of whether or not we remain part of the single market? Well,


there is a legal issue here, which Liam Fox has referred to. Namely


that we aren't debarred from negotiating trade deals with anybody


else until such time as we have left the European union. What we are


trying to do is get as much agreement as we can before we invoke


Article 57 know where any difficulties will lie between us and


our European friends. -- 50, so we know. Many of us in Parliament are


under pressure from constituents saying, we voted to leave the


European Union and we want to see action happening. The Government


cannot just activate it because there were no plans by the previous


government in place when we voted on the 23rd of June. What do you say to


that? A speedy process is what the majority of people voted for. A


quick X it from the EU. It would be foolish to rush to invoke Article


50. I am not saying we should take as long as we possibly can but


people massively underestimate the gargantuan task involved. It is not


just about invoking Article 50, which starts the two-year


negotiation process for our withdrawal. It is question are


making all the legislative changes to give effect to that. The 1972


European Community 's act... That can be done in a day. You can


overturn it. You make it sound easy but Gerald and I have done the whole


thing we have legislation ping-pong in between the two Houses of


Parliament. It takes a long time and is an important piece of


legislation. There are lots of other pieces of legislation. If you look


in the field of employment rights, there are number of rights at work


that people have, your right to paid time off. That is once the act has


been repealed. Let's give the a few steps. Sign up you will need UK


legislation to plug the gaps. Practically speaking, as fast as


people would like to do this guy it will take some time.


The broad differences whether we remain a member of the single


market. You are pushing for us to remain a member of the single market


and you are pushing for free movement, but that is no different


to being in the EU. I have that I think Theresa May should be


ambitious and she should prove leave and remain campaign is wrong. Her


ambition, yes, we should stay a member of the single market while


respecting people's voice which was expressed away the -- around the way


free movement operates. I think we can stay members of the single


market and getting the reform to live with the immigration changes


that come with that. Is that desirable, to stay a member of the


single market and keep the benefits that come with that if we can in


some way amend the freedom of movement? When people talk about the


single market, what they are talking about is essentially the European


single market, under which you accept free movement of people, and


you accept, lock stock and barrel, right across industry and commerce,


all the rules applied by the European Union. What we are looking


for is a free trade agreement, like the rest of the world has got. The


idea that you have got to have free movement of people, that you have


got to accept these rules and regulations, is absurd. United


States and China are not members of the single market and yet they trade


with the EU. Can I pick up on the point Gerald is making? What I am


saying, Gerald, is let the Prime Minister aim to maintain access to


the single market and not have the free movement in the form we have at


the moment. She can argue to the Germans, who have a general election


next year, and the French next year, and in Italy the year after, look,


you have the same debate around the way free movement operates, whether


it is fair to people and whether it helps the labour market or not. They


are going to have that debate as well so I think she has a big moment


here where she can do what no other European leader has achieved. And it


is not just a question of tariff free trade. What you get for your


membership of the market our rights and protections, and by being a


member of it we can impact on those rules. Go on? You are quite right,


of course, we have a block of EU legislation, a huge amount of EU


legislation, which you and I know is passed more or less tick box by


Parliament because it has been decided in Brussels and the European


Parliament, so we have got to accept it lock stock and barrel. When we


leave, all we need to do is accept every bit of EU legislation that is


already on the statute book. Legislation applying to employee


rights and to the environment. We accept all that. And then if a


future government decides in the UK that we want to unpick some of it,


we want to change it to meet our own circumstances in the UK, then we can


do that over a period of time through our own sovereign


Parliament, which is the people do not like it, they can remove it and


change the government of this country, which at the moment you


cannot do. We have just had the discussion with Allister Heath and


you have heard the comments from the Bundesbank President that London


banks will automatically lose their right to passport across the EU if


Britain leaves the single market. Do you not think that is a negative


consequence? That is a matter for negotiation. As I understand it,


many of the banks have already got brass plates in other European


countries. I think the international financial community will vote very


firmly that Britain is a great place in which to be based, and they will


want the government of Germany, to which the Bundesbank is answerable,


they will want that government to make sure that this is accommodated.


But this will be up for negotiation. Why should they accommodate it?


Because I think there will be an enormous amount of pressure on them


so to do because otherwise we get into the business of retaliation.


Germany exports hundreds of thousands of cars to the United


Kingdom and we also export for example Minis from BMW from the UK


to the continent. We don't want to get into a trade war and the reason


we don't want to and they don't want to get into a trade war is because


they export ?70 billion more to us than we export to them. They would


be cutting off their own noses to spite their faces. Is it possible,


really, realistically, to have access, to be a member of the single


market and in some way amend freedom of movement? There are so many


strange coming that I cannot even process them! The idea that because


people buy BMWs means people will not do anything punitive to our


banks is ridiculous. Then we would be talking about a mass boycott


among citizens to boycott cars so that the banks survive. I don't


think half of the people who voted Leave would do that for the banks.


But it is tit-for-tat. They don't want to do anything that would


provoke retaliation for us. But the point is we can't retaliate, except


as consumers. We have very little leverage. The idea that the consumer


power would offset the weakness of our hand at the negotiating table is


preposterous. It is not consumer power, it is governments dealing


with it, and the British government will not sacrifice the City. I think


the point that Zoe is making... Hang on! They are a much bigger customer


to us. 47% of goods go to them, than we are to them. So Zoe is right.


Don't be cavalier about the importance of the single market. The


Japanese government has companies that employ 140,000 people and they


say maintaining membership of the single market is crucial for those


jobs. It is jobs we are talking about, people's livelihoods. Thank


you very much. Now, while we're on the subject


of Brexit, the Liberal Democrats have voted in favour of holding


a referendum on any eventual deal the Government comes forward


with on the withdrawal of the UK The party's leader Tim Farron says


a further referendum is vital, but are all party supporters


behind their leader on this one or do they think


the public has spoken? We sent Adam down to Brighton


to test the mood at conference. Welcome to the first mood box of the


Lib Dem party conference in Brighton. Today we are going to ask


about the EU referendum. Is it done or should we have another one?


Yes, I think there needs to be another referendum simply because we


don't know what kind of Brexit people voted for. Have another one.


We have got to accept the democratic decisions are just get on with it.


It is done. The government are refusing to tell us what Brexit


actually mean that when they do I think the public should have a say.


So another one. People have made their decisions and the Liberal


Democrats need to accept that. This is better than the Tim Farron Q and


A. EU referendum, have another one? Another one, but it have to be a


different one, on the terms of exit. Should people just get real? I think


we need the best deal possible but we don't need another referendum. It


should be another different one. She has taken a long time to think about


it but luckily she has a couple of years before it becomes an issue.


What does it mean? Have another EU referendum or it is done? Well, it


is not a yes - no situation. We will have trouble if we don't have


another one because Brexit is bad. Did your dad tell you to say that?


No! You are squeezing that ball! I feel very strongly. We don't know


what the deal is. We didn't know before the referendum and we don't


know now. Cockroaches are the only things that survive. The Lib Dems


are cockroaches because we would survive.


Virtual reality comes to the Lib Dem conference. I am actually putting it


into that one, which says it is done, because clearly the electorate


has spoken. Are you still there? The British public will decide whether


we should stay in the EU or not. They already have. No, they have


decided they want the government to negotiate a Brexit deal and we will


see what the deal is. My biggest fear is that Nick Clegg is standing


there making a funny face at me! You are not an MP any more, you can say


whatever you want! Well, you can't get much more


conclusive than that. And an absolutely huge majority of Lib Dems


want another referendum, but not the old one again, different one. Fairly


emphatic there. Earlier I spoke to the Lib Dem


Leader, Tim Farron, in Brighton. Vince Cable, the party's


former Deputy Leader, says a second referendum isn't


a panacea to anything. We are in a hideous mess


as a country at the moment. The referendum result in June,


which I fully respect, The relationship with the single


market, with a package that involves some form of free movement


for British people overseas and vice versa, relationship


with the police forces We don't know what deal


is going to be imposed on the British people,


and imposed is the key word. We began this process with democracy


in June, and it looks like we're going to end


up with a stitch-up, with Theresa May, David Davis,


and Brussels bureaucrats, between them, in an enclosed space,


coming up with a plan The only way to finish this job


properly is to give the people their say


and let them take control. You say you respect the outcome


of the first referendum but, listening to you there,


it looks like you are looking for a way to kill


the first referendum. You let the cat out of the bag


to some extent yesterday when you said a further, or second,


referendum was the best Of course I have not


changed my views or my principles. There are people who blow


with the wind when a vote I utterly respect the result


and the many people, We are looking at something


which is beyond the 23rd June and something which I think


people of all persuasions, politically and in terms


of the referendum just it would be utterly despicable


for this Conservative government to impose on the British people


a deal that nobody voted for. Let's assume you were a business


person in London, or here in Brighton, or up in the Lakes,


in my neck of the woods, who voted to leave because you didn't


like the EU but you wanted, you assumed, because you were told


this would be so, you would be And suddenly you end up


with tariffs on your exports, tariffs on what you are having


to import, and you're Those people deserve the right


to vote on the deal, It is nobody's fault,


other than the Conservative government, I should say,


that there was utter lack of clarity over what would happen


if we were to leave. I don't blame


the 52% but I blame David Cameron, George Osborne and Theresa May


for there being no clarity. But now we are in this situation,


a deal is going to be stitched up, and that deal must not just be


a matter for British politicians in Whitehall and civil servants


and indeed Brussels bureaucrats. You are saying a deal


will be stitched up. There is no sign of it


being stitched up. It was the case that people said


they wanted to leave Will mean


leaving the single market too. You used to campaign


for an in/out referendum. Now we've had it, you seem


to want to reverse it, or at least to tell people what sort


of new relationship That doesn't sound very


liberal or democratic. No, it's exactly


liberal and democratic. What is undemocratic is the thought


that this government can make assumptions as to


what the 52% meant. You're making assumptions


about what they meant. I am saying the British people,


52% of them, voted to leave. What's not clear, and it's


not their fault it's not clear, that we don't know what


we're going to do next. We don't know what the plan is,


you don't know what the plan is, the British people don't


know what the plan is. I am really strongly suspecting


that Theresa May doesn't Given that 52% of people voted


to leave, and the assumption that you made that they all wanted


to leave the single market, I didn't say all, I said some people


might want to leave the Some people voted because they


wanted to control migration. Some people voted because they just


didn't like the EU and thought Some people voted because they


didn't like the single market. Others thought, leaving the EU


is one thing but being able to trade with Europe freely without tax


or tariffs, which was one of the things promised


by the League campaign, -- the Leave campaign,


is something that lots of people who voted to leave


believed was the case. How on earth can it be


right and democratic for our Conservative government,


in its botched and messy renegotiation at the moment,


how can it be right for them to come back to the British people,


after we started with democracy in June, and end up with a stitch-up


when a deal is imposed on the British people,


that not the 48%, nor That is a recipe for a complete


breakdown in trust in politics. One of the big problems


for you is you haven't really got much of a voice in terms


of your size or in terms Nick Clegg, the former Leader,


thinks what would help would be a realignment of the centre-left


in a pro-EU common cause. I think some form of realignment


is an interesting prospect. Who knows what might happen over


the next few months and years? We are looking at a Conservative


government which has no Why don't you link up


with other left parties? I think it is very clear that


even if you are a Conservative supporter, you probably think


it is utterly terrible for Britain Given the Labour Party has chosen


this backwater, this infighting, to go away from the serious business


of trying to win power, thinking power is a dirty


word, when it is not. It's the way you change people's


lives and make a difference. That means only the Liberal


Democrats across the whole of the United Kingdom stand up


against the Conservatives. When you talk about realignment,


I believe there are liberals in the Conservative Party appalled


by what is going on over Brexit and the absolute disastrous


lack of plan there is for our Even more there are liberals


in the Labour Party who believe that winning power is a key ingredient


to making a difference to people's lives, saving the NHS


protecting our schools, making sure we have enough police


on our streets. Winning power helps you to do


those things. Those liberals


in the Labour Party, I utterly respect your loyalty,


loyalty is an absolute virtue, but what would be more


of a virtue at a time like this would be to join us


in standing up against the Conservatives, so we can win


for the people of Britain who need and the Liberal Democrats will be


that decent opposition. Will you work closely


with Jeremy Corbyn to try I think Jeremy Corbyn is the kind


of person who does not During the referendum,


I reached out to him on more than one occasion to share


a platform with him, as I did with Gordon Brown,


David Cameron and others. On a personal level,


I like Jeremy Corbyn. His agenda, and the faction


he is surrounded with, the momentum that has taken


over the Labour Party, The one thing they will not


want to do is to work with anybody. That is a real shame but I can't do


anything about that. What I can do


something about is building a decent opposition that holds this


Conservative government to account. Like I say, there are many decent


minded people around the country, some of whom vote Conservative,


and even they will think it is bad for Britain there is no proper


opposition and the Liberal Democrats So, the 48% that voted to remain,


has Tim Farron got any swell up public support for a second


referendum on the Brexit deal? There is a huge amount of pomposity around


this issue. You say the British people voted on something which was


much to compensated to have a simple yes, no answer. Nobody has the


mandate to deliver a deal which nobody put honestly on the table in


the beginning. It was a simple question. Yes, about a very complex


issue. The question was deceitful. There was nothing simple about it.


Does it mean trade deals, immigration? Does it mean we do not


have red tape? Do you think people want a referendum? The people who


won do not want one and those who lost do. He is saying that some of


the people who voted to leave the EU want a second referendum in terms of


the deal. That is impossible to answer. 7% of the people who voted


leave had regret afterwards. Three people who voted remain also


regretted voting remain, even though they lost anyway. We need to park


those opinions and just concentrate on the fact it was not a resounding


victory. It couldn't really have been much closer, unless it was 49/


51. Half the country are blundering into a deal with the other half


standing there, saying, this is appalling, it is an act of


vandalism. I do not think calling for a second referendum on the terms


of the deal is unreasonable. I do not think we will get one.


Westminster is in recess for the next couple of weeks


as the main parties hold their conferences.


But that doesn't mean politics grinds to a halt.


So what else is happening over the next week?


As we've been hearing, Theresa May will be arriving


in New York this afternoon ahead of her first speech to the United


On Tuesday, the Liberal Democrat Leader Tim Farron will be


making his big speech to the party's annual conference.


On Wednesday, ballots closes in the Labour leadership contest


between Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith.


The House of Commons is in recess, so there is no


But Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson will be going head-to-head


at First Ministers Question in the Scottish Parliament


And eyes will turn to Liverpool on Saturday, where the result


of the Labour Party leadership race will be announced.


Joining us now are Martha Gill from the Huffington Post


and the Daily Telegraph's Christopher Hope.


Welcome to both of you. Christopher Hope, first of all, Lib Dem fight


back. Any evidence? 18,000 new members, a few seats in the West


Country council level. It has started but from a very low base.


They are about the same size as the Democratic Unionist Party in


Westminster, virtually irrelevant in terms of voting numbers. It is a


long crawl. No surprise Nick Clegg is calling for another coalition.


That is the best chance they have. What do you think there are chances


wise of some sort of progressive left Alliance? They are keeping it


quiet for now, for obvious reasons. I am not ruling anything out. There


is a huge space in the centre that has opened up which the Lib Dems


could well take advantage. Whether they do that along with some others


the question. In terms of Brexit, Christopher Hope, looking at Theresa


May and the honeymoon, if there ever was much of a honeymoon for her, do


think it will get quite difficult for her in terms of backbenchers? I


think so. This new campaign group launching today looking for a hard


Brexit is most brides. Towards the first quarter next year, Britain


needs to get on with serious talks. -- is no surprise. By Easter next


year, there will be some real problems. They cannot say Brexit


means Brexit was that it is like saying, cheese means cheese. It does


not last for ever. Theresa May is going in on freedom of movement. We


need to see more of what Brexit really means. Have you sensed any


great unrest among Tory backbenchers? Are they still giving


Theresa May the benefit of the doubt and enough time for her to formulate


proper policies around negotiations? As Nicky Morgan said this weekend,


when there is a vacuum, people will fill it. That has been filled not


only from her backbenchers but also by prominent figures in the youth


who are starting to really play hardball about Brexit negotiations.


-- in the EU. Death they may want to protect other countries are not


Britain. -- just saying they want to protect. It may be time for trees


are made to say what Brexit really means. Christopher, do you have


names of any Labour MPs who voted for no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn


but who might now contemplate a return to the front bench? There


were names around the weekend like Kia Starmer and respected figures


from the recent part of Labour. Kier. In the old days clash at


Cabinet responsibility meant you could stand up to most Labour


policies if you are a moderate Labour politician. Given what may be


coming out of Labour in the future, these people will not want to go


into the Shadow Cabinet and defend what they may find indefensible.


They do not know what to do. They want to help bring Labour back to


the middle ground but can they sign up to some of these policies? It is


difficult. The olive branch which Jeremy Corbyn is presenting two


Labour MPs who have been critical of him, is there a sense it is genuine?


Well, I think a lot of people find it a bit questionable. Also, there


are rumours of a widescale power grab by Jeremy Corbyn. More policy


decision ability from members. The sort of veiled threats to deselect


troublesome MPs. This is something which is going to make the PLP


furious. There is also an argument it might actually unite the party in


some way. Some of them have been so disillusioned they are actually


backing off and looking for prominent backbench positions,


rather than coming back into the Shadow Cabinet. In a way, Jeremy


Corbyn might end up with a more supportive PLP in the end. Plenty to


chew over. Thank you very much. Now, there's less than 48 hours


to go before the polls close The polls suggest Jeremy Corbyn


is on course for another victory, but many are asking


whether the party can reunite. Some Labour MPs, who have been


critical of Mr Corbyn, are fearful that they could be deselected


by local party members loyal Here's what the General Secretary


of the Unite Union, Len McCluskey - a supporter of Mr Corbyn -


told the BBC's John Pienaar for the Panorama programme scheduled


to air later this evening. All of the MPs have behaved


absolutely despicably They have not shown any respect,


whatsoever, to the leader. So, those vocal dissidents,


who do not show the respect to the Leader that you describe,


when it comes to deselection, they would simply be asking


for it, you would say? I think anybody who kind of behaves


in a way that is totally disrespectful, and outwit


the culture of the Labour Party, is basically asking to be


held to account. With me now is Barbara Ntumy


from the campaign group, Momentum, which grew out of Jeremy Corbyn's


first leadership campaign, and Richard Angell


the director of Progress, Welcome to both of you. Richard,


first of all. Let's pick up on what Len McCluskey said. Isn't he right


that Labour MPs who are openly critical of the leadership of Jeremy


Corbyn are asking to be held to account by their local party


membership? Len McCluskey was not particularly supportive of some of


the Labour leadership. Jeremy Corbyn vote truth to power when he was a


backbencher in the Labour Party. This has to be a Broadchurch party.


We all need to have different ideas as long as we are constructive in


those, that must be important going forward. People have tried to serve


on the front bench but have been frustrated time and again, which is


what led to the situation when we led the EU. Isn't it the case,


Barbara, you would have a monoculture within the Labour Party


if everybody thought the same way? It is true that Jeremy Corbyn did


not support any of the recent Labour leaders but there were no calls for


him to be deselected? Do you understand that if you are not in


agreement with the leader, or agree, if you're not in agreement with the


leader, you should still have a place? You should still have a place


in the party. Doing disruptive purposely at a time when Labour


should have been putting forward its planned this recently after the


referendum, some of us feel concerned about it. We could be


pushing back the Tories and said of having an internal, bitter fight,


with people resigning every hour. It was a bit embarrassing. Labour MPs


would think to do anything like that. You'd think they should be


held to account? Whatever form that comes into people have voted for


them and constituents should be able to do that. I don't think it is good


for anyone to be deselected. What do you say to that? There is a


difference between people having problems with the leader and having


mass deselection is. After we left the U, Jeremy Corbyn said we should


trigger article 50 straightaway. -- the EU. Somebody who caused a big


issue like that, people do not want to think they cannot do the job


ahead of them. Where Labour is now, according to Neil Kinnock, he says


he will never see a Labour governed again in his lifetime. What do you


say? I disagree. Hundreds of thousands of people joined the


Labour Party. We're all going to go door knocking. We're trying to speak


to the current situation with people having zero hours contracts, who do


not have stability in work. We are speaking to community about and that


will win us into government. Even though the polls are disastrous? The


polls are disastrous because we have had the summer we had. The polls


have called it wrong several times. We should not 100% rely on them. The


polls are in the favour of Labour. It could be worse than they are now


full Jeremy Corbyn was not a head before the Brexit referendum


happened. There is a deep problem we have. The problem is, what our


momentum waiting for question of the two programmes coming out later


show, behind-the-scenes with a not the nice people on the television


making the decisions, it is many others. They are prioritised in


deselecting many MPs rather than door knocking and winning the


election. That is untrue. It is a democratic organisation.


Momentum activists went out to campaign for Sadiq Khan, including


me and my friends. There is not one priority over the other. Actually we


can do both. I don't know who the elected officers are for Saving


Labour. We want the Labour Party to be democratic and we want ordinary


members to have a say, as opposed to MPs, or even the leader having a


direct veto. People are sick and tired of austerity light and we want


better. People want alternatives to the government, not just a


replacement. Let Richard finishes point. We have got to build a bigger


vision and it cannot be about control of the Labour Party. It has


got to be winning over the community that left us and that means


campaigning all year round, not just street stalls from Momentum and


campaigning for Sadiq Khan when the vote comes round. It is campaigning


all year. It is a great thing that the Labour Party is bigger and


better off than before. Are you loyal to Labour values? They seem to


be more loyal to Jeremy Corbyn rather than the party brand, because


they have come from the Green Party, the Socialist workers party, maybe


the Communist Party, but they are not actually loyal to Labour.


Labour's policy is to have a democratic party, which is what most


people are. There is a difference as to how that is interpreted with


different leaders over the years. All these new members are loyal to


Labour because what Labour and the leader stand for things that bring


us together as opposed to being like the Tories and not having Labour


values. Momentum turns a blind eye when the workers have this Russian


doll policy. Momentum controls the left group in the local party, which


decides who the delegate is for party conference, that is not


tolerable. Do you think piece will break out in the Labour Party? It is


very silly. There is a lot of silliness going on here. Everything


you are talking about is in the Dispatches programme, I believe. The


idea that AWL, that she is some kind of dangerous trot, that is


ridiculous. Anybody would recognise her from an 80s Labour Party, any


meeting you had ever been to in 1984. There is no dangerous


subtraction. There are people who believe in things more tragically


than others. Momentum, the guy they have got on the Dispatches


programme, apparently from Momentum but isn't actually a member. But can


they reunite? If Jeremy Corbyn is handing out an olive branch and you


have a Labour MP like Peter Carr who says he is the first person who uses


an olive branch as a weapon to beat people with because of the abuse he


has had locally from within the Labour Party, does peace have a


chance that the Labour? It as if everybody takes the temperature down


a bit. You can't look at an army of activists and write them off as


revolutionaries and not be interested in them. You have got to


be more curious and open about who Momentum are what they want to do.


If you are the kind of party that worry so much about whether a Green


Party member is true Labour and you cannot accept their membership, then


you have got to ask what your values are. Do you think they should stay


in their positions? Loads of people like myself and my friends will feel


that people who have been told they can't be members of the Labour Party


because they might have tweeted about anything else... I think it


raises the question. I don't disrespect Tom Watson and I don't


think he should go. I think there are issues about the way that people


have been treated which need to be looked at. If people cannot act


fairly then we need to have a discussion about whether they are


there to serve the party or to say this person has tweeted about the


Green Party so they could possibly have Labour values and I think that


is wrong. Thank you. Theresa May insists government will be


remarkably different from David Cameron's that doesn't appear to


want an early general election to provide her with a mandate.


So does that mean she'll stick by everything in the Conservatives'


We've been busy crawling through the promises


made by David Cameron, and updated our Manifesto Tracker


to check which policies are being pursued.


By the magic of television, I will now step into my virtual studio.


It's been an eventful period since we launched


Britain has voted to leave the EU and a new Prime


Minister is in place, but the Conservative Government


under Theresa May will still be held to the promises it made ahead


of the 2015 general election in their manifesto, and a few other


big commitments made during the campaign.


And this is how we are keeping track of their progress.


We have identified 161 pledges and loaded them into


We've grouped them into categories covering all the major areas


of Government policy, from the constitution down to welfare.


And we have given each of the promises a colour rating.


Red means little or no progress so far.


Amber means the Government has made some progress.


While green is for delivered pledges.


Let's start by looking at one here in foreign affairs and defence,


The promise to hold a referendum on our EU membership.


We have changed that to green, as the Government did deliver


in June, even if it didn't get the result it wanted.


Many of the promises made while David Cameron was leader


were based around what he hoped he could achieve in his


renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, particularly


The manifesto said that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits


and child benefits must live here and contribute


The deal offered to David Cameron by the rest of the EU was a much


weaker version of the pledge, which, like the rest


of the renegotiation, was rejected by the voters


So we have given this a red, although it is possible


the Government could deliver on it once we have left the EU.


The same goes for the promise that if a child of an EU migrant


is living abroad, they should receive no child benefit


David Cameron's renegotiation failed to secure this policy


in full and it would be up to Theresa May's Government if it


The vote to leave has had big implications for manifesto


commitments in other areas, like here in the economy.


One of the central promises made by David Cameron


and George Osborne was this one, to eliminate the deficit and start


But after the Brexit vote, Theresa May confirmed that


while the Government still aims to achieve a budget surplus,


it has dropped the target of doing so by the end


Now those are some areas where the Government has made little


Well, it fought a major battle in Parliament to tighten the rules


This promise, which said strike action can only be called


when at least half the eligible workforce have voted, is now law,


As does this one, meaning that strikes affecting essential public


services like health, education, fire and transport,


will need the backing of at least 40% of those eligible to vote.


We have marked the majority of promises as amber,


meaning at least some progress is being made.


Here, in welfare, for example, we have got the Government's


flagship reform universal credit, which has been rolled out


for some job-seekers, although the timetable for full


delivery has been pushed back repeatedly and is currently


And another here, under the environment.


That's the promise to create a so-called bluebelt of protected


conservation zones in the water around the UK's coast.


That has been given an amber, as the programme still


Now let's see how the Government is doing overall.


Out of 161 election commitments, the number of commitments we have


The number marked amber falls to 90, and the number of green,


We will be returning to the Manifesto Tracker again


but, in the meantime, you can find all of the data on the politics


To discuss this, I'm joined now by the former


Welcome to the programme. Does the 2015 Conservative manifesto on which


you were elected to government still apply post-referendum? Yes. Really?


Yes. But Theresa May seems to have hit the reset button when it comes


to key areas of government policy to stamp their own style as opposed to


David Cameron. I think it is interesting to talk about the role a


manifesto blaze. Most voters wouldn't necessarily spend hours


poring over every aspect of the manifesto. But they might look at


the key pledges. Yes, and it has an absolutely crucial role. As a


minister, you come in after the election, and the officials will


have gone through the manifesto and taken out all the pledges and they


use them as your template. That will form the basis for Cabinet


committees, their gender, and so on. So yes, the manifesto remains


absolutely relevant in terms of policy but at the same time you have


a relationship with the voters and there may be a policy in there that


post Brexit reasonably cannot follow through on and you have got to


explain that to voters and it is something they might consider at the


next election. Some keep pledges have been abandoned. The plan to


eliminate the deficit and reach a surplus by the end of this


Parliament was dumped within days. Some supporters will be very


disappointed about that. Politicians are accountable at general elections


and I think this is a useful exercise. I know the BBC people


spent all summer putting this track together so I know we will be coming


back to it because a of work has gone into it. So should there be a


general election as you have just said? I don't, because Theresa May


has taken over in different circumstances to the way that Gordon


Brown took over from Tony Blair, for example. It was planned resignation


by Tony Blair. There should have been a general election. Here


Theresa May is stepping in because circumstances have changed. The


Prime Minister has gone because he failed to fulfil his proposals on


the EU. But if the Prime Minister comes in and abandoned ski pledges


like the one about the deficit, and grammar schools, and bringing back


selection, she needs to go to the country to get a fresh mandate. I


don't accept that. The manifesto is very detailed and it provides a


template for all departments to work too and they are held to account,


but at the same time politicians have a direct relationship with


voters and it will be up to Theresa May and other ministers to explain


why they are changing direction but that is perfectly acceptable. Even


if there hadn't been a change Prime Minister, governments can be hit by


events, just like the last Labour government was hit by the banking


crisis. Nobody expects a manifesto set out in 2015 remain absolutely


carved in stone for five years. What about grammar schools? She didn't


have to do that and nothing has changed in terms of education so why


grammar schools? As a new Prime Ministers she is entitled to promote


individual policies that she feels very strongly about, including


grammar schools, but this consultation, the white paper, the


green paper and Parliament, they get to debate it as well. You are right.


When there is a national emergency, which Brexit constitutes, you do


have to drop things, but you are wrong to reintroduce selection. One


of the most important things that has been said in the education world


for 20 years, just because you want to stamp the mark of a kind of


person you intend to be. It is vain and arrogant and completely wrong.


Nobody has a mandate to do that. There are two things at play here.


The manifesto is important because it allows the government to know


what they are playing too. But Parliament remains sovereign and if


a new Prime Minister wants to bring in a new policy, Parliament can


debate it and decide on it. Thank you to all our guests, especially to


you. Andrew and I will be here at midday tomorrow for two programmes.


Make sure you join as them. Goodbye. -- join


Download Subtitles