19/09/2016 Daily Politics

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