21/09/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics.

The Government should cut the numbers of EU workers allowed

in to Britain to 30,000, once we leave the bloc.

So says the campaign group Migration Watch.

But opponents say the plan will damage the economy.

Voting in the Labour leadership contest has ended -

the result will be announced on Saturday.

But the stalemate between the party's warring factions

The fragile ceasefire in Syria looks all but dead after the US accuses

Russia of involvement in an attack on an aid convoy.

Meanwhile, a group of MPs criticises the Government's

AS MARGARET THATCHER: Betrayed by my one-time

friend and colleague, Sir Geoffrey Howe.

We speak to the characters of a play focusing on the man

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

of the programme today, the former Labour MP

First today, Theresa May delivered her big speech at the United Nations

It was her debut set-piece appearance on the world stage.

She used the opportunity to send a message that Britain was very much

open for business in the wake of the EU referendum.

British people voted to leave the EU.

They did not vote to turn inwards or walk away from any

Faced with challenges like migration, a desire for greater

control of their country and a mounting sense that

globalisation is leaving working people behind,

they demanded a politics that is more in touch

with their concerns and bold action to address them.

But that action must be more global, not less, because the biggest

threats to our prosperity and security do not recognise

or respect international borders and, if we only focus on what we do

at home, the job is barely half done.

Theresa May. Chris Mullin, isn't there a contradiction at the heart

of what she says, that, while she recognises many people in the UK

felt left behind by globalisation, she said our response needs to be

more global, because current problems don't recognise

international borders. That's what people voted against. Whether they

voted against it or not, and there are many reasons why people voted as

they did, she is right. If you take climate change or global migration,

these things don't stop at borders. One of the ironies is that those who

are most against admitting more refugees or migrants are also the

very same people who don't want us to spend anything on overseas aid

but actually, one of the things we do with international development

aid, is help people stabilise their countries to make them habitable

again or, indeed, contribute to maintaining the camps in Jordan

Lebanon to stop people coming here. She wants to do more of that. Yes, I

agree. As you say, people voted for all sorts of reasons, of course, but

there was a theme running through the Brexit vote according to

politicians like her, which is that people felt left behind by

globalisation, ignored. How is she going to address that? That brings

us to the discussion we are going to have later about controlling the

number of migrants. That is what I think people did vote for, whether

it is good or bad. We can have an argument about the extent to which

our economy needs qualified or unqualified people in the years to

come and what the numbers should be but I think people did vote for

having some limit on it, for better or worse. Perhaps frivolously, she

was compared to Gordon Brown. That was for dithering on issues like

Hinckley and airport expansion, couldn't make a decision and nor

could he, according to the journalist John Redwood. Do you

think that is fair? I don't think so because, let's face it, she got

elected rather sooner than she thought she would. There were a

number of big decisions in the intro and she asked for a few months to

give it further thought was given the size of the decision and the

implications for the future, I thought it was perfectly rational to

have a look at it before she settled in.

Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is...

In his speech yesterday, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron

voiced his admiration for Tony Blair, but which music

band did he compare the former Prime Minister to?

At the end of the show, Chris will give us the correct answer.

A tough permit scheme is being recommended to Theresa May

to limit the number of EU workers coming to Britain after Brexit.

Migration Watch UK want to cap the number of skilled workers

which they say would support UK economic growth by ensuring British

employers get the staff they need while putting the brakes on years

Just 30,000 skilled EU workers a year

should be allowed into Britain, according to the group

which campaigns for tighter immigration controls.

Migration Watch UK said a tough permit-based plan would keep

out unskilled workers, who make up up to 80%

of all new arrivals from the European Union.

Net migration - those arriving minus those leaving -

from the EU is estimated to stand at around 180,000 a year.

And Migration Watch said a cap on unskilled workers would cut it

The campaign group said there should be no restrictions

on tourists, business visitors, students or retired people coming

To discuss this are Alp Mehmet from Migration Watch UK

and James McCrory, the Executive Director of Open Britain.

Welcome to both of you. Let's look at the figures first of all. The

current annual net EU immigration figure, those arriving minus those

leaving, is 180,000. Your proposal would take 100,000 from that net

figure, leaving 80,000. 30,000 of the 80,000 are skilled workers. Who

is making up the other 50,000? What we've got at the moment, when we've

looked at those who come in over the last ten years, 1.25 million have

come in to work. If you compare them to those who come in from outside

the EU and how they have had to qualify, then you've got the

percentages you've described. 20% come in to the sort of jobs that

require a degree level sort of qualification and 80% don't. We've

got to get numbers down. That's what the government is mandated to do.

Saying it and being able to achieve it requires a forensic look at the

figures as to who is coming to do what sort of work. If you are saying

there should be no restrictions on tourists, business visitors,

students or retired people coming to the UK from the union, do they make

up the remaining 50,000? No, no. There are no restrictions on

tourists, business people, students, the retired, unlike the Times, who

got it wrong today. We are saying there shouldn't be restrictions on

those people. That will continue. We want the minimum of disruption. We

are not coming out of Europe, we're coming out of the EU. What we are

proposing will bring numbers down significantly. We reckon, in the

medium term, by about 100,000. Do you agree? No, not surprisingly. I

think it would be damaging for our economy, because it would guarantee

that we leave the single market and it would also restrict UK businesses

from employing the skilled and semiskilled Labour they need. This

report suggests that people who come over who are not highly skilled, not

engineers, people taking graduate roles, are not making an important

contribution to our society, care workers, hospital porters, bus

drivers. They are not degree qualified but there are lots of them

in this country making a huge contribution, paying taxes, working

hard, keeping the economy going and benefiting society. We have had a

big report today on the crisis in the care industry. Even ministers

who have worked in the area say, if we lost the EU workers in those

industries, it would collapse. We've got to get numbers down. That has to

happen. This is a sensible and reasonable way of doing it. With

regard to care workers in that report, that was saying there was

going to be a shortage in years to come. Whatever immigration we have.

What I would suggest is, having been involved with parents and in-laws

having care over the last ten years, what they could do is pay people a

bit more, change their conditions of service so it's more attractive

rather than look for the cheap option, the option they can push

around and go for overseas workers. Do you accept this is about getting

numbers down? If you take the main point, that there has to be a

reduction in the number of people coming here from the EU and even

from outside it, as a result of the Brexit vote. I accept that people

want to see free movement reformed, but just having a crude number, just

saying, 30,000, that'll do, isn't the way forward. You get to a Dutch

auction on numbers which I do think it's healthy for an open and honest

debate. We have looked at the numbers over the last ten years and

those who have come in with the sort of skills that industry says it

needs only consisted of about 20% of the 1.25 million. Do you accept that

figure? Last year alone, the qualifications required to meet

Migration Watch's target were larger than the 30,000 they have put the

cap on, it was 33,000 even by your estimate. 25,000, and we've added

5000 to allow for growth. It's still a small number, when you take

180,000. There will be an argument to say, why would you plan to cap

the number of migrants Britain needs, in terms of skills, whether

it is high skills for engineering or slightly lower skilled in other

areas, but you want to have limitless numbers of students?

Students from the EU go. We don't know that, we don't know how many

people leave the country. Our analysis shows that EU students

leave. Non-EU students tend to come and stay. That's a separate issue.

In terms of getting the numbers down, there has to be an attempt at

taking radical action so people will see the evidence of fewer people

coming. I think you can look at reform of free movement as a whole,

set specific emergency brakes, tying it to the free movement of Labour,

for example. But not a crude thing, 30,000, and if we get one more

engineer in November he can't come in. What I think is damaging is that

this suggests that, unless you are very highly skilled, you have no

role to play in our economy. People who work in our agricultural

industry, people in the hospitality industry, people driving buses and

working in hospitals and care homes, this report says these people

shouldn't be allowed to come to this country and make a contribution and

pay their taxes. I can't agree with that. You are talking about manpower

and planning. Do you have businesses to set these figures for? Why don't

we hear from them? From non-EU, for the last six years, we've had a

limit of 20,700 visas, work permits per year. At no point has that

figure been reached on an annual basis. Never. Occasionally, one

month to another, there have to be carry-over numbers. We know that we

are able to bring in the sort of skills that businesses say they

want. We have had businesses on here who say they would have liked to

bring more people over from outside the EU and they were stopped from

doing so, which has meant certain industries have suffered. Why will

you not have industries setting the figures? What are you afraid of? I

don't think... Turkey being given the opportunity to say whether or

not we have Christmas or not is the right way to do it. It's not the

approach. What we are saying is they will be up to choose whoever they

want so long as it is within certain limits, and we believe those limits

are perfectly reasonable. Even Stephen Kinnock, writing in the

Guardian yesterday, said we've got to manage migration from the EU in

some way. This is a reasonable and generous way of doing it. Both of

you agree it's got to be managed, it's about the numbers and how many

people we are talking about. If you're not keen for business,

turkeys voting for Christmas, to set the limits, at least open to

businesses in agriculture about the number of farm workers they need to

pick the fruit, for instance, in seasonal weather? All of those who

are here doing those jobs now are not going to suddenly disappear

overnight. That isn't going to happen. But it's about guarantees.

We know it isn't going to happen. Going back to what I said earlier,

we need to pay people a bit more and look after them a bit better, then

perhaps we will attract from within our own labour force market rather

than going overseas. What do you say about the limit on skilled EU

workers? It an arbitrary figure but nobody knows how it work out. I

assume that Migration Watch isn't wedded to it and if it doesn't look

like it is working out, perhaps, let's wait and see, they will agree

to adjust it. The interesting thing is what the impact will be an

unskilled and low skilled areas. I do actually agree that's one thing

that should happen is we should start enforcing the minimum wage and

protecting British citizens already doing those jobs and making those

jobs more attractive to British citizens.

You asked about business a moment ago. One of the things business has

been doing at the lower end of the trade is recruiting in the far east

or in Eastern Europe. Without even making the jobs available, here.

They aren't even on the market here. Then you've got people living, ten

people into rooms, and they'll be able to undercut British bus

drivers. And that's where the undercutting happens. It's the fact

the living costs are so much blubber, they can afford to charge

less than those jobs whether they are builders or plumbers and that is

where the low skilled end of the jobs market suffers for Brits. I do

think anyone is against raising wages in any sector particularly

amongst the low paid. It's enforcing it, though. I completely agree that

adverts that only advertise in foreign countries before in Britain

first, that should be banned. Look at how the relatively low rates of

unemployment. The idea we are not benefiting from EU workers in low

skilled jobs in agriculture, hospitality and public services is

just not true. These people are making a very valuable contribution

and to suggest we aren't going to need any of them in the future is

ridiculous. If the government listening to you on this? I hope so,

yes. Do you have confidence Theresa May will deliver Brexit? She said

that in China not so long ago. I believe she will deliver Brexit,

yes, absolutely. In a way here we are arguing about the referendum

debate, really. What was going on. What we're talking about now is a

situation but we are going to leave the EU. What we are proposing is a

sensible and measured way of controlling numbers coming in work.

Thank you. Let's turn now to the situation

in Syria, because the United States has said it holds Russia responsible

for a deadly attack on an aid convoy in the Syrian city

of Aleppo on Monday. The attack left around 20 civilians

dead and has further complicated efforts to maintain a ceasefire

in the ongoing civil war. Meanwhile, here, the House

of Commons Defence Select Committee has criticised the Government's

strategy for combating the so-called The UK has been taking part in air

strikes against Islamist militants in Iraq since 2014 and Parliament

authorised their extension But one of the main points

in the Committee's report is the disparity between the number

of UK air strikes between The report says that,

since December 2015, UK air strikes have been

predominately in Iraq, with 550 attacks, yet just 65 UK

airstrikes have happened in Syria In the first two weeks of September,

there have been nine UK air strikes in Iraq,

mostly near the Iraqi town of Qayyarah, with attacks also

in the Iraqi regions There have been two UK

air strikes in Syria, at a Daesh strong point in the east

of the country and also over In a statement, the Ministry

of Defence said: "We have conducted over 1,000

airstrikes, which is second only to the US in both countries,

and have helped train more As a result, Daesh is losing

territory in Iraq and Syria." Let's speak now to our defence

correspondent, Jonathan Marcus. What are the main criticisms in the

report? Essentially the main criticism is that they point out

that this can't be won by military means alone. The fear is that whilst

Di Esch, so-called Islamic State, is being pushed back particularly in

Iraq but also to an extent in Syria, the fear is that if there isn't a

proper political transition in place in both countries then of course,

the victory if you want to call it that could be squandered and there

will be a vacuum and other, maybe more extreme groups, could take

over. There is a clear difference between a rock and Syria and it

actually underlies why the overwhelming predominance of air

strikes have been in Iraq. In Iraqi have a functioning government, for

all of its faults. You have Armed Forces and so on. There it is very

much a question of bolstering but the Iraqis are doing, trying to

persuade them to be less corrupt and more inclusive, to pursue the sorts

of policies their Western allies would like. In Syria it's completely

different, not only are you trying to push back Islamic State but you

are also trying to remove the Assad regime and back the formation of a

new so-called democratic, Western leaning government in the country.

But as we've seen through the past few days, the failures of the

putative ceasefire and so on, is a hugely tall order. That's what the

committee is particularly concerned about. There are difficulties in

Iraq but the situation in Syria seems to lack an overall clear

political strategy altogether. Does the report then have any suggestions

in terms of what the endgame should be as far as Syria is concerned with

the civil war raging there? It doesn't have any clear answers and I

suppose to be fed to the British government, Britain although it's

the second largest contributor of air strikes is clearly a small

player compared to the United States. I do think anybody has any

clear idea what can be done in Syria. The move at the moment has

been to try and get a ceasefire, to stabilise the situation, to relieve

some of the besieged areas. And then perhaps in the wake of that to try

and get some political and diplomatic dialogue going. The

difficulty of course is that the underlying Western aim has all along

been essentially the hope that the Assad regime would be pushed aside.

Almost a year ago now, the Russian intervention with its airpower and

also to some extent operations on the ground, has really altered the

dynamics and made sure that the Syrian regime is very much in place

for the foreseeable future. Thank you very much.

We did ask the Ministry of Defence if a minister

was able to talk about this, but no-one was available.

Joining us now in the studio is the chair of the Defence

Welcome. Just listening to Jonathan there, having a sort of double aim

of trying to get rid of Assad and tried to deal with Daesh, which

should we be prioritising? There are differences of view. My personal

view all along has been that there is no third way in Syria. That is

not the view it must be said of the committee as a whole. I believe that

the reason why we find so few air strikes, and it's right that there

should be few air strikes if we are not sure of the target and who we

are supporting, the reason why there are so many in Iraq and so few in

Syria, nine to one is the ratio, is that in Iraq we know what we're

doing, there is a government we are content to see victorious, there are

forces fighting on the ground that can benefit from our air strikes. In

Syria we not only want Daesh to lose, we also want Assad to lose as

well, and the great dispute about the time when we voted to extend the

air strikes from Iraq, which was uncontentious and voted through with

a huge majority, into Syria which was much more contentious, was

whether there was a third force of 70,000 moderate fighters who would

benefit from the air strikes. If there are tens of thousands of

moderates, why aren't we doing more air strikes? Do you have a list of

who these people could be? Or the government say they are trying to

connect with? We repeatedly asked the government to let us have a list

of these groups. The government took the view, and a majority of

committee members agreed with it, which is that if the government were

to confirm which groups we are helping, that would somehow endanger

them and assist Assad or I. -- assist Assad or Isil. The report as

a whole did conclude that by not naming the groups it casts a degree

of doubt as to how real this third force of tens of thousands... You

don't believe they exist, do you? I don't. I believe we are in an

analogous situation in Syria to what we were in Libya. I voted for the

Libyan one because I was told it was air cover to protect the citizens of

Benghazi. Had I been told it was to remove the dictator, atrocious

though he was, I'd have voted against it just as I did in Syria.

The committee of the whole takes the view it would be helpful if we could

have more information about this because that would add credibility

to the government's position. You take away from this report that we

are not actually doing anything in Syria, it really is a fig leaf to

the Americans. We are doing this because we are in a rock, it's not

actually achieving anything. That has been my view all along. I agree

with Julian's analysis. I don't see there are three ways, I think there

are two. We surely have learned by now but when you take the lid of one

of these regimes, be it a rock, Libya Syria, you take the lid of the

fires of hell. Here we are yet again trying to remove an admittedly

dreadful regime and perhaps really... There may eventually have

to be some sort of division of the country and safe zones for those who

are of a different persuasion to the regime. We don't want to see more

massacres. The Turks are doing something like that along the

border. Do you think the latest fallout from the attack on the aid

convoy near Aleppo which the Russians say was not down to the --

not done to them, the US said it was. How does that relate to that

situation? In relation to that disastrous attack and the other

disastrous attack which killed 62 Syrian army forces, which apparently

the West was responsible for, those sort of attacks are precisely the

result of the fact we haven't basically faced up to the fact that

it's hard enough to intervene in a civil war to get one side to win and

one side to lose. When you want both sides to lose, you've got to be in

dead trouble. Until we can get an agreement with Russia over exactly

what we are going to do in Syria, incidence of this sort on both sides

are likely to be repeated. Unless you were to send in ground troops?

There's no support for that but is that the only way you could deal

with the situation which of course we didn't do in Libya? No, that

would be entirely the wrong thing to do. The wrong thing that unites all

of these Muslim factions against us is to have infidel boots on Muslim

territory. The answer is, you can intervene, you can do support, in

support of indigenous local forces. That's why it's working in Iraqi but

in Syria. Because of course apart from the magical 70,000, who we

can't seem to find anywhere, the moderate forces we can't seem to

find, apart from that either Assad's side or someone like him is going to

win, or the Islamist is going to win. One thing the report does say

is the fact that we say we mustn't get too hung up just over this

group. Because the al-Nusra Front is if anything a more dangerous threat.

We hadn't heard of Isil a few years ago. Once they are disposed of don't

think that's the end of the process, there's plenty more out there. Thank

you. Now the polls have just closed

in the Labour leadership race. But with Jeremy Corbyn the clear

favourite to defeat Owen Smith and be re-elected on Saturday,

many are focusing instead on the ongoing power struggle

between the Labour leader Rule changes proposed

by Mr Watson were discussed at a marathon meeting

of Labour's National Executive The proposals included a possible

return to Shadow Cabinet elections. But, after almost eight-and-a-half

hours of talks, the meeting ended So which side holds

the upper hand today? Our reporter Mark Lobel has been

finding out and joins us now. You spent much of the day outside

that meeting. Has any side won it? Tom Watson's attempt to put the band

back together it a bum note. The main offer on the table, elected

shadow cabinets, seen as a way of bringing dismayed MPs back into the

party, a more respectable way for them to return if they were elected,

has been kicked into the long grass. There will be another attempt on

Saturday night at the NEC meeting at the Labour conference to vote on

this, but an attempt to make that the final vote, the knife edge vote

was lost by the anti-Corbyn wing of the NEC rather than the pro-Corbyn

wing. It looks like that could go on for some time. Many were looking for

this measure for party unity, and it goes to show you how important the

balance of pro-and anti-Corbyn MP 's are. There was some good news for

the anti-Corbyn members, because representatives from the Scottish

and Welsh Labour parties are likely to be given two new places on the

committee, which will be seen as anti-Corbyn members, which would add

to the vote for that site. But we recently had elections at the NEC,

so two new pro Corbyn members are about to come in. We are left with a

divided ruling body. So do you think that peace will ever break out in

Labour? The ballot has just closed in the election and we have just

learned that 630,000 people voted in the election, an electorate of

640,000, so that turnout is enormous. It's widely expected that

Jeremy Corbyn will win. I was talking to the anti-Corbyn wing of

the party, so-called centrists, and they were saying the leadership

contest should never have been held this early in Jeremy's tenure. They

were saying that many of the members have seen this as the Parliamentary

Labour Party stabbing Jeremy Corbyn in the back, so it's self-defeating

for them. They say they are hearing on the doorsteps that many Labour

members now want to see Labour MPs making party unity is a priority, so

there will be a lot of pressure on who work counter Corbyn in the party

to come into his tent. I am told by the Corbyn camp that we should

expect an olive branch to be held out at the conference if he wins

next week, and we will be very surprised, I'm told, by the type of

people they are asking to come back into his tent. I am waiting with

bated breath. Well, we can hear now from someone

who was at that marathon meeting. Darren Williams is a member

of Labour's NEC and Also here with me in the studio

is Luke Akehurst, a former member of the NEC and now secretary

of the Labour centrist Luke Akehurst, Jeremy Corbyn has

won, presuming he is going to win the leadership. That would be my

assumption, that he is going to win on Saturday. And he has won for

control of the party as well. I don't think so. I think the decision

yesterday that the rule change to give seats on the NEC that are

specifically for Wales and Scotland is unlikely to produce people that

are his supporters, which throws a spanner in the works of the quite

outrageous plan that seems to have been patched to try and sack the

general secretary and key staff members. That won't happen. In terms

of conference, we already know that, for instance, there won't be a

debate on Trident, so none of the big overseas that Corbyn supporters

would like to change are going to change for another year, and the

delegation -- the conference make-up is quite good for the anti-Corbyn

members. You voted against this change, to give the NEC votes to

representatives from the devolved administrations in Scotland and

Wales. Why? I voted against it because, as far as Wales is

concerned, it's an workable. The idea that a front bench Assembly

Member or any Assembly Member would be able to go to an NEC meeting in

London on a Tuesday when the assembly is sitting and we only have

29 AMs is an workable. There is a practical problem. I'm in favour of

the principle of Scotland and Wales having ring-fenced representation,

but those people should be elected by the ordinary members. You wanted

them to be elected by ordinary members. Does that tip the balance

of power away from Corbyn and his supporters, that it isn't going to

happen? Other proposals are under discussion is -- discussion that

were too contentious to be agreed yesterday, but they will be

discussed after conference, which will potentially change we made up

of the NEC. So I don't think we should see it is just adding two

more people for Scotland and Wales. There is more to be done. So it

isn't going to throw a spanner in the works in terms of getting rid of

the general secretary of the Labour Party, Ian McNicol. Nobody is

talking about getting rid of the general secretary. Yesterday, there

was a general message that there should be no threat to sack or

anything of that nature. Well, there you go. It's been widely reported

that there was a meeting at Unite's offices in Esher to plot the removal

of key members of staff, and even when an assurance was made at the

NEC, Jeremy Corbyn needs to make that very publicly that he has

confidence in the general secretary, whose behaviour, I think, has been

impeccable during the leadership campaign, trying to uphold the rule

book in difficult circumstances. That is what discussed at that

meeting in Esher, wasn't it, that there were discussions about getting

rid of people who hadn't been legal -- and been loyal to Jeremy Corbyn,

including Ian McNicol. I wasn't at that meeting, Jeremy was. He told

the meeting clearly yesterday that that wasn't part of the discussion.

Do you think that Ian McNicol should stay? Luke Akehurst presented that

there is no question about decisions made by officials during the

election. A lot of the decisions were controversial, such as the

decision to challenge the High Court judgment about members

disenfranchised by the six-month freeze date. I don't think you can

simply say that every decision made by party officers, with the

involvement of... Should he stay or should he go? It's not for me to

say. But you have a view? That decision has to be made in the round

by the NEC if there are concerns about actions made by party

officers. I would not get into talking about individuals. Last week

you said the changes to constituency boundaries presented an opportunity

to replace Labour MPs with other candidates more in tune with the

views of ordinary party members. Can the party come together when senior

members like you are effectively calling for a selection? I was

saying that, in my view, we should be in a position where elections

should be as open as possible and members have a genuine choice. --

selections. I was not suggesting a purge of anybody who differs with

Jeremy Corbyn. It's a decision for members in every constituency to

make. Members in each constituency, when a selection contest comes up,

should be able to change from the widest range of candidates. Given

the evident disconnect between the views of many of our MPs and

ordinary members that we have seen emerging, it would be a positive

thing for that choice to be made available. It's not that a purge or

a witchhunt, it's about wider democracy. Actually, what he is

described is a purge or a witchhunt. It's to frighten MPs into not voting

or speaking according to their conscience. And saying, you could

sacked by activists, and he can dress it up in whatever technical

language he wants, but this is effectively a call for mandatory

reselection for every MP. It's a recipe for chaos. How can Jeremy

Corbyn be expected to lead the party when there are groups like Labour

First actively organising to get rid of him? It's the right of people in

a democratic party to want to change the direction of the party it is

exactly what left-wing groups like the Labour representation committee

did all the time when they disagreed with the direction that Blair or

Brown was going in. People cannot put their conscience on ice and not

speak up about the fact that they think that Jeremy is leading the

party in a disastrous direction. We have a duty, if we believe it is

going in the wrong direction, to say so, and he should have listened when

MPs no-confidenceed him. We are in this situation because he didn't do

the right thing and step down after that vote. What do you say to that?

I think that's a very arrogant position. Jeremy Corbyn has the

biggest mandated in any leader's history. I am confident he will get

a similar mandate as a result of this vote. 172 Labour MPs tried to

overturn that mandate. I think we are going to see that their views

have been rejected. To return to what Luke Akehurst was saying,

nobody including myself is suggesting that anyone who differs

from Jeremy Corbyn on matters of policy should be regarded as... But

that is what is said publicly, but privately when you speak to people

these things have been set in meetings. Of course it isn't the

public statement of Jeremy Corbyn or any of those around him, but you

have to accept these things have been set in individual constituency

meetings. There is an important difference between disagreeing with

the leader of the party on policy, nobody is suggesting, as Luke

Akehurst was saying, that people shouldn't be true to their

consciences. Those disagreements have to be aired. Jeremy Helan did

clear that he feels there is room for a wide spectrum. -- Jeremy has

certainly made it clear. Where MPs have been consistently and publicly

disloyal and hostile, briefing against him in the media and openly

plotting against him, I think if I were a party member in those MPs'

constituencies, I would be interested in alternative

representation. The party membership at the moment is completely

unrepresentative of Labour voters, let alone the voters we need to win

over to win a general election, so we have people that demographically

and politically are not a representative sample of the public,

that have lumbered us with a leader who frankly is unelectable and it

looks like they want lumber us with unelectable MPs as well. Chris

Mullin, we have just had a report which says that Owen Smith, the

challenger to Jeremy Corbyn, as appeared to concede repeat. Asked in

an interview whether he would serve in a Jeremy Corbyn Shadow Cabinet,

Mr Smith at -- Mr Smith said he would not be serving but he would do

what he had always done, he would vote Labour lawyerly and served from

the backbenches. Should people like Owen Smith, if Jeremy Corbyn has won

it, which we expect, go back and served in a Shadow Cabinet? Should

those MPs who said they had no confidence serve him? That up to

them but they shouldn't spend the next year or two trying to undermine

him. -- backed up to them. I respect Jeremy but I am not a Corbyn

supporter. I think it's unwise to elect a leader who has the support

of perhaps only 10% of the party. But we have now had two elections.

If he wins twice, that result has to be respected for the duration. Last

time, when he won it by a considerable margin, the plotting

and scheming against him started within 24 hours. I just despair if

that is going to start all over again. We can't go on like this. The

party needs to get its guns facing outwards. There are all sorts of

open goal is to be kicked out -- at that require a functioning

opposition. Do you believe these claims of entryism, that the people

supporting Jeremy Corbyn are not true Labour Party supporters? There

might be a bit of it but it doesn't account for the huge numbers that

have joined. There has always been a bit of it but it is not a decisive

factor. When it comes to internal strife

in the Labour Party, Chris Mullin has been there,

done that and probably got Ellie Price has been

delving into the archives. 22-year-old Chris Mullin stood

against the Liberal leader I wouldn't ever want to fight

an amorphous slab like perhaps Hull where I lived before,

and this strikes me as a very lovely way of beginning

a career in politics, But he had to wait another 17 years

to start that career as a Labour MP. So in the meantime he set

about becoming a journalist, It took him to conflicts in places

like Vietnam and Cambodia, and to war zones closer

to home like the one waging in the Labour Party

in the early 1980s. Chris Mullin was a leading Bennite,

and edited Tony Benn's speeches when he stood against Denis Healey

to become deputy leader. He also wrote a pamphlet entitled

How To Select Or Reselect Your MP. It was fundamentally

about democracy, no doubt we were a bit over the top at times,

but it was about making leaders When the deputy leadership bid

failed he became editor of Tribune, Shifting its direction

further to the left, falling out with senior party

members along the way. The tradition of Tribune's

rebelliousness, which is correct and must be maintained,

has moved to the point where it has simply become a vehicle

for opposition to another I think what has happened

in the last two or three years is it began to enjoy rather a too cosy

relationship with the establishment. We suddenly found ourselves

in danger of becoming part And I certainly am not keen that

that should be the case. It's not good for a campaigning

paper, I don't think. But in 1987, Chris Mullin did become

part of the establishment, elected as an MP

for Sunderland South. It might be a good idea

if the United States called By the time Labour got

into government in 1997, Chris Mullin was signed up

to the New Labour project. He even served as a minister

in three departments. His journey from the Bennites

to the Blairites is a different approach to that of one

of his contemporaries. This picture of the newly-elected MP

Jeremy Corbyn was taken in Chris Mullin's garden three days

after the 1983 election. Jeremy is a saintly figure

of enormous personal integrity, and a man who lives his life

in accordance with his beliefs. So for example, if you run into him

on a train, as I have done on one occasion,

he'll immediately get out his box of sandwiches, which are vegetarian

of course, and cut them in half Do you see him as electable

as a Prime Minister? You hesitated there but you do feel

he is not the right man to lead the party? I do, yes. As I said a moment

ago, it's a high-risk strategy in a system that is a parliamentary

system to elect a leader who has the support, for good reasons of bad, of

only 10% or so of the Parliamentary party. It is a recipe for problems.

But actually, isn't this what you've always wanted? A leader who wants

party members to be more involved, to have more democracy in the party,

that they would make the decisions about who is appointed, who is

sitting on the National ruling executive? Why aren't you supporting

Jeremy Corbyn? I still support reselection. I'm still a member of

the campaign for Labour Party democracy. I've consistently voted

to get rid of nuclear weapons. I haven't changed as much as you think

I have. But I do think we ought to be in a position to form a

government and I am in favour of that. One of the reasons I supported

Tony Blair in 94 is, having lost four general elections in a row, my

feeling was that we couldn't even take a little punt on the outcome of

a fifth general election if we wish to remain relevant. So why is Jeremy

Corbyn doing so well? If you cite that he can't win an election and

somebody like Tony Blair, but he won elections? He's one internal

elections in the party. One thing we have learned is to be popular in the

party doesn't necessarily translate into votes in the country. And

actually what ordinary punters complain about is not whether

somebody is left or right, on the whole they're not that bothered

about that. But if you are disunited, they say you are fighting

each other, how can you function as a government? That's a reasonable

point. You read this pamphlet about the reselection of MPs and you stand

by that but isn't the truth now that that is used as a weapon and it's a

weapon to oust centrists, in this case, rightly or wrongly, who are

deemed disloyal to Jeremy Corbyn. As Len McCluskey has clearly said, that

it's not for making the party more democratic, it is a weapon. Both

sides have always tried to occasionally undermined their

opponents. But actually I was new Labour ahead of my time. Safe seats

for life is old label and a contract renewable every five years is new

Labour. This situation has not been brought about by people in the

Labour Party, it's been brought about by the government's

determination to have a boundary is reorganised. That is what has given

the opportunity and inevitably some Labour MPs will lose out. But it

could be used as a weapon, to take this opportunity... If you look back

all of these points were made in the 1980s. Very few people were

deselected for ideological reasons. I can think of two in the 1980s.

Despite the hysteria in the media, two is all I can think of. Is this

situation now worse in your mind than the 1980s or the same? Slightly

worse. Nobody ever doubted that Benn was capable of governing. Aren't we

supposed to be talking about my memoirs? Go on then, tell us about

it. The Hinterland. It's all a thread through, your political

journey. You made a political journey, are you saying Jeremy

Corbyn hasn't made that political journey? There's no doubt about

that. It's about my life, for better or for worse. I believe that the

most useful MPs are the ones who have done something before they get

elected. Young people come up to be sometimes and say, I'm interested in

Parliament, what's your advice? My advice is go away and do something

first, and then you might be useful if you get elected. I was 39 when I

got elected. I'd been a reporter in Vietnam and travelled all over.

Taken part in a major battle against the establishment it about

correcting miscarriages of justice. The trouble is there the cult of

youth in politics although it has come to a rather grinding halt with

the election of Jeremy, hasn't it? Theresa May isn't in her 30s either.

Not to say that she's old, of course. Yes you could say leaders

are a bit older rather than younger. I'm not against that. The route that

happened lot under New Labour, you went to Oxford, studied PPE, got a

job working for a minister. You then used your contacts to be levered

with patronage into a safe seat and jewel on the front bench or indeed

in government by the age of 30. By the time you were in your late 30s

very often you burned out. Whereas you are an example of how a career

can span the decades! Things are not yet so desperate that they are

saying, send for Chris Mullin! As we get used to political life under our

second female Prime Minister, memories of our first abound.

Not least how she too had Europe to blame for many

Her divisions with former Chancellor and Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe

are revisited in a play currently touring the country.

In a moment we'll talk to the playwright Jonathan Maitland.

But first Mark Lobel got the hot ticket to

Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mrs Thatcher's longest serving colleague

throughout her years in power, turned on her in the Commons today.

It's rather like sending your opening batsman to the crease only

for them to find the moment the first balls are bowled

that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain.

I never expected him to say what he said in the way that he did.

The surprising events that brought Margaret Thatcher down are closely

examined in writer Jonathan Maitland's play.

It depicts how the man Denis Healey once compared debating with to being

savaged by a dead sheep - the title of this political drama -

went on to deliver one of the most effectively brutal Commons

Or, as Thatcher, played by Steve Nallon, who provided her

voice for Spitting Image, might have put it...

AS THATCHER: It was about how I was betrayed, betrayed,

by my one-time friend and colleague, Sir Geoffrey Howe, aided and abetted

I was stabbed, stabbed in the back and the front.

AS SELF: The physicality helps to create the voice,

so it's actually much better to be wearing the frock.

I'm dressed like this now for rehearsal, but it is good to get

What's unique about this play is that it puts Geoffrey Howe

centrestage after he finds an increasingly Eurosceptic Thatcher

AS THATCHER: Monsieur Delors said that he wanted

the European Parliament to be the democratic

body of the community, that he wanted the Commission to be

the executive and the Council of Ministers to be the Senate.

AS SELF: Those three words a story tell.

Dead Sheep depicts the moment Geoffrey Howe delivered his

resignation note to Thatcher, highlighting their

AS SELF: He is divided between loyalty to the values

that his wife holds and also to his country and party

The production's three-month UK tour will arrive in Birmingham

next month, coinciding with the Conservative

When you heard Theresa May's first Prime Minister's

Questions, did you hear the voice of Thatcher?

Mrs Thatcher, towards the end, used to use her glasses to lean

She didn't like wearing glasses, so she used take them off and lean

Theresa May didn't exactly do that, but she put a hand on the dispatch

But, with Europe dominating the agenda once again,

this drama reminds us that a Prime Minister should take care.

It even brought the Iron Lady down in the end, with a little

And the man who wrote the play, Jonathan Maitland, joins me now.

Fantastic mimicry going on of Margaret Thatcher. Why a man for the

role? He was the best person for the role, actually. It was famously said

she was the best man in the Cabinet. He is unbelievable, it's pure

Stanislavsky. He's got the 1981 voice, the 1984 voice... He changes

with her! One might say, surely we know all of this drama in terms of

Margaret Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe, and how she was brought down,

there's nothing left to say. You might know it, Jo, but I'm not sure

everyone else does. There's been lots of plays and films about her.

When I had a chat with John Sergeant he said, you are wasting your time,

everyone knows it. But actually I think the Geoffrey Howe 's story is

the best bit of the tale. He was the mouse that roared and he ended up

stabbing her in the back. He went from being the world's worst speaker

to making one of the greatest speeches of all time. Also, his wife

couldn't stand Mrs Thatcher and she couldn't stand her. You've got this

podgy bloke in between two powerful women. The Iron Lady films treated

Geoffrey as a walk one pompous buffoon, he was much more than that.

It was devastating in the House at the time. You are saying it makes

for great drama. These political events do make for fantastic stage

plays? Judging by the reaction of the audiences it makes for great

drama and break comedy as well. You've got Margaret telling Geoffrey

to shut up in front of Cabinet and he keeps on humiliating her. It's

interesting because there were tragedies along the way. The glue

that bound them together was the late Ian Gow MP for Eastbourne. In

the play he dies which is what happened. He was assassinated by the

IRA. You've gone from a seen before whether they are laughing about

being at school together, to this terrible tragedy. You had a front

row seat to this. Not quite on the front row but I was there, yes. It

was a dramatic moment. If you read Jonathan Aitken's biography of

Thatcher, it documents how she treated... Actually it's true of

Charles Moore as well, it documents how she treated Geoffrey Howe. It

was her who humiliated him and this was the payback. She said in front

of civil servants, that paper you submitted is twaddle! And the

private conversations are interesting. That's the point. I

like to think the play personalises politics because politics is all

about personalities. I am trying to make the political personal.

Geoffrey was quite every man, he was like a plump country solicitor with

a really good brain. It's the quiet once you've got to watch! Thank you.

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

The question was which music band did the Lib Dem leader

Tim Farron compare former Prime Minister Tony Blair

to in his conference speech yesterday?

I am going to go for the Stone Roses. That was a good and educated

guess. It is right. I'm not just a pretty face! What do you think about

Tony Blair deciding he's going to give up the money, or give up making

any more money? To be honest, he runs four charitable trusts, that's

where quite a lot of the money has gone. I never see that point made.

Yes, he's earned himself a lot of money... Grudging, here! I'm saying

he employs something like 180 people and that's where the money has gone,

it hasn't all gone into his pocket. Andrew and I will be back at midday

tomorrow. From all of us here, goodbye.