27/09/2016: Labour Party Conference Daily Politics

Welcome to Liverpool, and day three of the Labour Party conference,

where there's been angry debate this morning as left and right

wrestle for control of the party's ruling executive.

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Labour Party's official policy is to renew Trident, so why

was their Shadow Defence Secretary's attempt to say the policy wouldn't

90 million people are said to have watched the debate.

No, I'm not talking about the one here in Liverpool

We'll ask who won the first big televised debate of the US

presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is not a big problem.

That was the conclusion of an independent

report by human-rights lawyer Shami Chakrabarti.

Was a Labour seat in the House of Lords her reward?

This is more fun than the conference!

And, don't like the old tunes they're playing at conference?

How some rebel Labour MPs got a ticket to ride to perform

All that in the next hour from the conference centre

And enjoying the fabulous Liverpudlian hospitality

are the journalists Polly Toynbee and Steve Richards.

Welcome back. What struck me in the past 24 hours, John MacDonald made

the Shadow Chancellor speech designed to get the party onto big

policy issues. Overshadowed by the row over Clive Lewis on Trident.

This morning there will be major announcements on child care,

education, more issues for the Labour Party, but they got worked up

on the composition of the National Executive Committee. Discuss. That

is what is really going on. The fight possibly to the death for the

heart of the Labour Party for controlling, the NEC controls the

rules. If the Corbyn side of the party can get control of it, which

they have not, they one vote short, they can change the rules in future

which means in future the party will always be captured by their side of

the party. The other side of the party is fighting hard to prevent

rule changes. Let's give viewers a flavour of the debate this morning.

We need to be debating policies to put them into place,

to take them forward and make us look like a Labour government.

I shouldn't have to to support what is essentially

This party should make its rules at its conference, one by one,

We have the eyes of the country on us here.

And a country that is desperately looking for solutions

And it makes Labour look pretty self-indulgent and quite frankly

dysfunctional if all we're doing is having a debate about even

Colleagues, to take a show of hands to see...

Listen, we're going to go to a show of hands.

Can I see all those in favour of accepting the report.

That was a flavour, there was a lot of passion but not passion about

being against Grumman schools -- Grammar schools, how we defend the

nation, how we improve social care, it was about how you choose the NEC.

Takes you back to the 70s and 80s when these things happened all the

time at conferences. Incidentally in periods when they won elections as

well as losing them so it does not automatically mean they are doomed

because they are having these things. The reality is a power

struggle so these things come to matter. The policy-making bodies

will influence the future direction of the party, so although it seems

parochial and insular, it will have consequences, as they used to do in

the 70s and 80s when that bodied ruled everything. Tony Benn became

chair of the home policy committee on the NEC. No one outside would pay

attention. It was a massive power grab in the 70s and 80s. That is why

these things matter. I don't think it means in itself this deeply

dysfunctional party is doomed, because they were dysfunctional in

the 60s and 70s and still won occasionally. We understand the

centrists won the motion and that's the idea is a Scottish and Welsh

representative will go on the NEC, they will be appointed, more likely

not to be Corbynistas. It seems Mr Corbyn's movement has not yet got

control of the NEC. Not yet, but it is not clear because what will come

up at the next meeting will be the idea there should be a special

conference called about rule changes, in which they will hope,

particularly if it is a vote among members, that they can change the

rules in ways... The most important one, could they changed the rules

for triggering the selections of MPs? If they change that rule and

make it easier, a vote of the local party instead of the complicated

system now in which various groups get a vote, it would make it easier

to sweep away. It is not clear because the trade unions on the NEC,

some go this way on one subject and that way on another Anne -- and on

any particular issue it is difficult to call. I read the unions were the

key to this. The swing vote on the NEC and they could determine the

direction of policy, which is interesting to know, but also

interesting that in 2016, the unions would be the pivotal force. It is

one of the things so dated about the Labour Party and has been for a long

time. They are a pivotal force and might still be a pivotal force if

for example as I think is likely that the Conservative government

will be in crisis over Brexit within 18 months. If the Labour Party is

25% then, I think some of those unions might have a pivotal role in

changing things perhaps at the top of the Labour Party. There will be

space at some point in this Parliament. The rebels, so-called,

made a big mistake in going for him this summer. You agree with that? It

did not work, the -- it must've been a mistake. There is much blame

floating about amongst the non-Corbynistas. They are not

coherent and cannot decide whether they would or would not go back into

the cabinet. Should they insist he lets them elect themselves to go

back in the Shadow Cabinet. Corbyn has given nothing away since his

victory. He has not been magnanimous. It is interesting to

see. Thanks for getting proceedings off live today.

There's been a lot of talk about party unity at this

conference, but it was looking in rather short supply yesterday

when the Shadow Defence Secretary Clive Lewis apparently had part

of his speech relating to Trident rewritten at the last minute

by an aide to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr Corbyn, of course, doesn't want to see

the nuclear-weapons system replaced, or renewed

Clive Lewis was thought to be planning to tell conference

that he wouldn't seek to end the party's commitment

to renewing Trident, because it was crucial

"I am sceptical about Trident renewal, but I am clear

that our party has a policy for Trident renewal."

But while waiting on stage before his speech, he reportedly found out

was "And I wouldn't seek to change it,"

and had been removed from the autocue at the last

by Jeremy Corbyn's director of communications Seamus Milne.

Mr Lewis was not happy, appearing visibly perturbed

Reports circulated that he vented his frustration

afterwards by punching a wall and throwing his phone.

Later, however, he seemed to confirm his original commitment,

telling the Guardian, "I won't be coming back

to conference between now and the next election

to try to undo the policy we have on Trident."

Well, as you may remember, Clive Lewis was due to appear

on this programme yesterday after his speech, but we were told

he couldn't appear as he went to the leader's office.

We don't know if he was there to discuss the disagreement over

But he was keen to downplay the whole

episode as he left the conference centre yesterday.

Every speech is a collective process and I think you guys...

You guys are trying to trip me up and upset me.

I'm really happy where we are and I think...

Was your autocue changed at the last minute?

My speech is a collaborative process.

That's all I can say and all I will say.

I'm pleased my speech is out of the way, and,

you know what, I just want to get on with the conference.

Well, we asked to speak to Clive Lewis again today,

but we so far haven't been able to reach him.

Maybe when his mobile phone hit the wall it screwed it up and it is not

working. But I'm pleased to say

we are joined now by his Shadow Cabinet colleague,

the Shadow Minister Welcome. You have heard what we

think happens. What do you think happened? I don't know, that is the

most comprehensive report I have seen or heard so far into what went

on. I think he delivered a good speech, he is an eloquent public

Speaker. He stated the policy of the party is to maintain a independent

nuclear deterrent, which was voted on by party conference over the

years and went into the manifesto. I don't know what has gone on behind

the scenes with the press secretary apparently changing things, I have

no idea. I know Clive stated the position of the party yesterday. The

words I think -- we think were removed, we can put them on the

autocue. The words, I am clear our party has a policy for Trident

renewal and I would not seek to change it. We think these are the

lines. Would you be prepared to say these lines? I would be prepared to

say it is clear our party has a policy for Trident renewal and I

would not seek to change it? Yes. Members of the body, including

affiliated members, are affected by this decision and I understand the

future of submarines has to be debated across the party. I think

that is a sensible approach. Although Mr Lewis has doubts about

Trident renewal he recognises it is party policy and that he does not

have any stomach for changing it this side of the next election, why

would he not say these words? I don't know if they were in the

original draft. It is speculation they were in the original draft.

Jeremy Corbyn, our leader, and when Emily was Shadow Defence Secretary,

launched a review into the future of the nuclear deterrent. My

understanding is we will discuss these matters across the party,

involving members and unions who represent the workforces involved

and we will come to a decision but at the moment the policy is to

maintain Trident. Do we know when the defence review will be

published? The interim report was published a couple of months ago and

there are discussions of the policy. We have to have a national policy

forum. No doubt we will come to future conferences with a new

position. It is possible, working on the assumption of 2020 election, the

policy could change by that election? Is possible. I think it

unlikely, but it is possible. You seem doubtful. It is clear Mr Corbyn

wants to change the policy, can we agree on that? Jeremy is a lifetime

unilateralist. I think the party can unite around the position of

multilateralist. I think we can find consensus. We represent thousands of

workers who make the submarines at Barrow and elsewhere who are

represented by the GMB and Unite and they have to be part of the policy

discussions on these matters, as well.

Are you not dancing with shadows here? And taking the British people

for a ride? Jeremy Corbyn has said that if Prime Minister he would

never use the nuclear deterrent, at all. So whether the party is in

favour or not is irrelevant. If the Prime Minister is not going to use

it, it is a waste of money. But we will get a position for our

manifesto and go to the country with it. Whatever the position, if your

leader says that the will not give any instructions under any

circumstances for the deterrent to be used, it is irrelevant. It is

not, because we want to implement our policies and when we win the

election they will have a Labour Cabinet who will want to safeguard

the security of the country. But the Cabinet does not the side, it is the

Prime Minister's job. Whoever becomes Prime Minister, they have to

give written instructions to the submarine commanders, it is done in

a special way, locked in a safe, for use in the eventuality of an

Armageddon situation. If he does not do that, the nuclear deterrent would

have no idea in a Jeremy Corbyn Government how to respond. These

things would have to be discussed. I believe that the Labour Party will

not take any risks with the security of this nation. That is our

priority. I am sorry to harp on, I don't understand how you can say

that and be backing a leader who says that he believes that we should

unilaterally scrap the deterrent, and even if we still have it when he

comes to power, he would never use it. Jeremy is a believer in the

democracy of the party. If the party arrives at the position to maintain

the deterrent, he would not want to be out of tune with the decisions of

sovereign conference. Why are you staying in the Shadow Cabinet? The

Labour Party is elected -- has elected Jeremy is the leader, we

have a duty to scrutinise the Tories. I believe some of us need to

be on the front bench doing that, and I believe we have to get Labour

elected, because the Tory party are making a number of fundamental

mistakes which need to -- which we be to exploit. You say it gives you

and your side of the party a seat on the NEC? What is my side of the

party? Clearly not Jeremy Corbyn's. My side is the unity side. I don't

believe Jeremy Corbyn is the enemy of any party member, nor do I

believe that MPs who get pointed to on Twitter are enemies. The Tories

are the opponents. What has Jeremy Corbyn done to reach out to you? To

me personally? To your side of the party. I believe we should now look

at some form of elected Shadow Cabinet, not the whole Shadow

Cabinet, but an element of it, and it would encourage colleagues to

serve on the front page. Do you believe Jeremy Corbyn would like to

go down that road? He is listening to people, his team are in

discussions with the Chief Whip and the chair of the parliamentary

party. Let me come back to my previous question. What has Jeremy

Corbyn done to reach out to you since he got re-elected? He says he

wants to pull people together and unite people and get everybody

working together. Every politician says that. No party leader says, I

want to does unite by party. He is engaging in discussions. His team

are engaging in discussions. His supporters stopped the appointment

of the Scottish Labour leader and the Welsh Labour leader onto the

NEC. That was not reaching out to you. I was in favour of the Scottish

and Welsh leaders coming on the NEC. I have been coming to NEC meetings

for 12 years,... You are looking well on it! I have never known so

much interest in the NEC! I have wanted the Scottish and Welsh

leaders on the NEC. We have the leaders of the European Parliament

three party and the local Government, so we should have the

leaders of the Scottish and Welsh parties. Why was there such emotion

about this this morning, trying to stop that? I don't know. I don't see

why it is such an unreasonable thing that they are represented on the

NEC. We had some interesting NEC meetings this week, and eight and a

half hour one last week, lots of good discussions and debate, very

comradely. It is a sensible move. Is there not a danger that those who

would remove Jeremy Corbyn lost quite spectacularly, it was not the

best organised of attempted coups, but having lost out, I do not now

trying to win the process by all of the emphasis on the NEC? Nobody

outside this hall, or even some people inside the hall, listening to

you. Even in the city of Liverpool, one of our great socialist cities,

99% of Liverpudlians could not give a monkeys of. I cannot move around

this without a journalist stopping me to ask me about the NEC. You

debated it this morning, we are following your agenda. Not our own

agenda. We always have rule changes on the Tuesday morning of the

conference, they don't normally get this much interest. Are you

comfortable that the Shadow Chancellor's economic programme

would seem to be involving the borrowing of perhaps up to ?500

billion? People want to spread that over a number of years. I do believe

we need to make an argument about investment in the economy. When

interest rates are so low, there is room for extra borrowing, so long as

it is spent on infrastructure. It is not 500,000,000,001 go. It would

take our national debt to ?2 trillion. It is already 1.6 trillion

under George Osborne and now Philip Hammond. Are you comfortable that it

could soar to over 2 trillion? We will see what projections will be

when we have seen the books. Philip Hammond has not told us what his

fiscal rules will be, when he will try to reach a surplus. We have to

look forward to the Autumn Statement, then we will be clearer.

You are the second Labour MP in 24 hours that has answered my question

about John McDonnell by answering about Philip Hammond. Is this a

trend? It is what politicians do, you know that. I do, to my cost! I

am only 35, but this is how I look! 12 NEC years, you are as young as

can the! 37. Not a day over 25! Now, it may have been

the most-watched political No, I don't mean

yesterday's Daily Politics. Or even Diane Abbott's speech

to conference this morning, But the first televised debate last

night between Presidential candidates Donald Trump

and Hillary Clinton. Some of us here in Liverpool,

me included, were hardy enough, you might say foolish enough,

to stay up until the If you didn't, here's a flavour

of the exchanges between the two candidates, who appear to be

in a dead heat in the race We think at least 90 million people

in America watched this debate, the biggest televised political event in

history. Two candidates who appear to be in a dead heat.

His cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons is so deeply troubling.

That is the number one threat we face in the world and it becomes

particularly threatening if terrorists ever get their hands

So a man who can be provoked by a tweet should not

have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes,

as far as I think anyone with any sense about should be concerned.

That's getting a bit old, I must say.

Secretary Clinton doesn't want to use a couple of words

If we don't have it, we're not going to have a country.

By the end of this evening, I'm going to be

blamed for everything that's ever happened.

Just join the debate by saying more crazy things.

She tells you how to fight Isis on her website.

I don't think General Douglas MacArthur would

At least I have a plan to fight Isis.

No, no, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do.

See, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do.

No wonder you've been fighting Isis your entire adult life.

Please, the fact checkers, go to work.

I was the one that got him to produce the birth certificate

Now everybody in mainstream is going to say, that's not true.

He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie

that our first black president was not an American citizen.

There is absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted.

I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament.

The other day, behind the blue screen, I don't know

who you were talking to, Secretary Clinton,

I said, there's a person with a temperament

OK! The consensus seems to be that Hillary Clinton got the better of

Donald Trump. But not by much. And perhaps not by enough to be a game

changer. You can decide for yourself, you can watch the full

debate on BBC Parliament at 12:45pm. Not want to go. We prefer if you

wait until the end of the Daily Politics before you switch over. Not

much happened in the first 15 minutes!

From our studio in Brussels, we're joined by former Ukip

We're joined now by the Labour MP Jamie Reed.

He's a keen supporter of Hillary Clinton and was

Donald Trump did not quite sparkle enough last night.

It was unsurprising, Hillary Clinton is a professional politician,

trained, scripted, good boys, but very little warmth. Donald Trump,

the nonprofessional politician, not least to this format, did in the

early part, the first third, on the economic, positive stuff. Overall,

the commentator will say it was Hillary Clinton that edged it

marginally, the real question is, did that debate last night change

the minds of any undecided voters? I would say no. I would say in ten

years, 20 years, we will not remember a single exchange from last

night, and we have got Louisiana and Vegas to come. How do you think

Hillary Clinton did? She was excellent. Going into the debate she

was clearly characterised as being almost sterile, difficult to like,

robotic, and she came across very warm and confident and, even, fairly

sassy. These e-mails continue to haunt her. Donald Trump, when they

were arguing about his tax return, he threw the e-mails. He said, I

will show you my tax return if you show me the deleted e-mails. They

still haunt her, that is the nature of American politics, both

candidates have long histories in and outside politics. In terms of

shifting the needle, I think Donald Trump's tax returns have the

potential to shift it far more than any e-mails. It was suggested last

night in the debate, which was a delicious prospect, he did not deny

that the reason he is not publishing his tax returns is he does not pay

any federal income tax, he may be so overloaded with debt, it is all

packed that the he not pay any. He did not deny that, he just said, it

would make him smart. That is not credible for a multi billionaire to

pay no federal tax, is it? As you say, a different tax system

and culture, but you are right, it is a question, I think, that he will

need to answer. I suggest he needs to point out, aged 70, how much tax

he has paid over the last 50 years, not what he paid last year.

Companies have up years and down years, borrowings. He needs to

answer back and that was the 1.I thought Hillary made that put him on

the back foot, as indeed the e-mail question she can't answer. I think

he needs to come up with an answer to say he has paid his fair share

over half a century. You are the only British politician I think who

has shared a platform with him in this run. Are you telling him today

he should publish some tax returns? My advice is he needs to deal with

the question Hillary put. He has said clearly, I will show you mine

if you will show me yours. She has already published her tax returns.

Both her and Bill Clinton have published their tax returns. The

point made was that there is still this incredible secrecy around these

e-mails. These arguments will go back and forth. What is more

interesting is when we get to Louisiana, the debate will move on

to immigration, open borders and terrorism. I think that, either way,

will probably be the game changer for this presidential election.

Perhaps Mrs Clinton's biggest problem is that in an America, you

were in Mississippi, you will know there is an antiestablishment mood

in America. There is also an anti-politician mood in America.

There is an anti-continuity and Mrs Clinton represents the

establishment, the political establishment and continuity. I

think that is true and I would expect to see those charges levelled

against the Clinton campaign until polling day. Where Nigel is wrong

and it feeds into the point you are making, it is the thing for the

candidates to publish their tax return. In the midst of the worst

crash since the great depression, that it is all right for the US

presidential candidate not to pay taxes in that period, that destroys

charges about not wanting a continuity candidate because that

demonstrates a cavalier attitude towards public office. Did you

believe Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, when he claimed that he had what is

known as the controversy, the argument over whether President

Obama was actually born in America. I say argument but the facts are

pretty much overwhelming, if not unanimous that of course he was born

in America. Mr Trump kept it alive for five years. I have seen endless

video of him questioning whether Mr Obama was worried and was that a

dangerous thing to do, not just because of the absence of evidence,

but because this was the first black president and to question whether he

was born in the US was as Mrs Clinton said, effectively racist, a

racist line of attack. When it comes to racist lines of attack against

President Obama I suggest people look at Hillary's campaign team and

what was said in 2008. This becomes a score draw in the end. Hold on,

Hillary Clinton did not get involved in that. Some of her campaign team

may have. She never indoor Stitt, she never used it and never carried

on for the next five years saying they was still an argument about

this. As I have learned myself, if employees or people in your team say

and do inappropriate things, you have to act and there was no

evidence she did. On the birth stuff, clearly Donald Trump was

wrong and so the dangerous thing would be to maintain that line but

he has changed his position on it, sensibly. These arguments about the

personal failings of either candidate will go back and forth.

This is about, do you want to vote for the establishment, business as

usual, or do you want to vote for change? That is what this election

is about and I do not think last night moved us forward on that.

After last night, do you think Mr Trump will still win? Mr Trump's

voters are like Brexit voters, they believe in it, have enthusiastic and

passion. He is the one with momentum, I still think he will win.

I think when we next see Nigel trying to make a comeback he will

have to explain why he has tried to defend Donald Trump's racism. It

will be a tight contest. I expect Hillary to win but it could be

tighter than people expect. You both expect your person to win. I heard

Nigel Farage saying that Donald Trump had the backing of momentum!

Who knew that? Thanks to you both. We will get to speak to you again as

the US campaign goes on. Does the Labour Party have a problem

with anti-Semitism? Well, what was billed

as an independent report on the issue concluded

that it was not "overrun" And at the fringe event

run by Jeremy Corbyn campaign group Momentum,

it was claimed that the problem has been "exaggerated

for political purposes." It's a subject that's been debated

at conference this morning. Let's have listen to Mike Katz

from the Jewish Labour group. I don't want to be here,

because I wish there hadn't been an upsurge in anti-Semitic,

Islamophobic, misogynistic and homophobic vile hate

speech in our party. Against this backdrop

is there any wonder, conference, that support for Labour amongst

British Jews is said The party of Manny Shinwell,

the party that has done more than any other to promote

tolerance and equality. The party to which the Jewish Labour

movement has been affiliated since 1920 is not seen

as a welcoming home for Jews. Are you disappointed your enquiry

has not closed down this issue? I think my findings have yet to be

fully implemented that I was delighted to hear a few days ago the

NEC of the Labour Party has adopted certain aspects of my report. The

recommendations of language and conduct and stereotyping. There are

procedural recommendations that have yet to be implemented. Not least

greater resource for discipline and an in-house counsel. At the

conference leaflets have been handed out calling for the expulsion of the

Jewish labour movement. A Labour peer has resigned over anti-Semitism

and a Jewish MP has had to employ personal security to come to

conference. I would suggest it is a big problem. There are issues and we

cannot run away from them. They are serious. They are serious issues and

more needs to be done but I was heartened to hear a re-elected

Jeremy Corbyn uses now greater mandate to be clearer than he has

ever been with people across the party, including people who claim to

be his friends. He has been crystal clear this will not be tolerated and

I think that is incredibly important. No part of our society is

immune from anti-Semitism and from racism as we saw in the referendum

campaign. It seems to be prevalent in the Labour Party. I am not going

to get into the competition of virtue and victimhood. In British

politics we lost a bright MP in that toxic summer. This is what you and

Jeremy Corbyn have done, you tried to generalise the anti-rather than

sticking with the issues. A Jewish peer left because he described your

report as an anaemic whitewash. I regret that and I am sorry to see

him go. I would urge people to read my report. I have read the report. I

do not think there is any whitewash. I said difficult things to the

party. I was not able to name and shame individuals still pending

discipline. I understand that, but have you spoken to parry Mitchell? I

have not spoken to Lord Mitchell. Would it be worthwhile to reassure

him? I spoke to him in the run-up to the report and I know his concerns

and when I am back in London and Westminster I will try to speak to

him again. The Jewish board of deputies of the most important

Jewish organisation, describing the report as a white wash for peerages

scandal. A particular person described it in that way. I would

say no community is a monolith and know one person speaks on behalf of

an entire community and I had a lot of solidarity and gratitude and

welcome and support from other members of that community. A leading

Jewish charities said the report was a shameless kick in the teeth. I am

sorry that not everyone agrees with everything I wrote. What leading

Jewish organisations have supported your report? I have had support from

a number of people in the Jewish labour movement, from rabbis. I did

not ask about individuals, I asked what leading Jewish organisation has

supported the report? I wrote the report mostly for Jewish members of

the Labour Party who felt threatened and unwelcome and interestingly they

cross the political spectrum. But what may be leading Jewish

institution has backed your support? I am not doing this for institutions

but for people. I know what it is like to receive racism and I have

been aware of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and in the country all

my life and that motivated me to do this work and it is what motivates

me still. Why did you join the Labour Party to do this report? We

have known you have had Labour leanings, but for the wider public

that wanted to be reassured this was an independent report, why join the

party to do the report? Because in my view, if you want to achieve

change and tell people difficult things about themselves and about

their party, it is better to do that honestly from within. People respect

you as an independent voice. That is left-leaning but not in anybody's

pocket. I am not doing anybody's pocket. I might have my suspicions

about your leanings as a broadcaster but I do not doubt you are

independent and I am independent. People respected you as independent.

Would you not undermine that by joining the party? This was a report

for the party, about saying to fellow Labour members we have to

look at ourselves in the mirror. This party instituted every piece of

equality legislation this country has known and we have to live up to

those values ourselves. Would it not have garnered more weight in the

country and among people in the Labour Party if it was seen to be

done by an independent outsider? Parties often bring in independent

outsiders to review processes, usually a lawyer and you are a

lawyer. That is one point of view. But another, and mine, it is if you

want to say hard truths to any family and want to tell people they

are falling down on values, sometimes it is better to do that

from within. A lot of people do not think you told hard truths. You had

minor criticisms but not hard truths. I do not think it is a minor

criticism to talk about epithets used within the party nor to talk

about the way in which the Holocaust has been used in vain. People have

used Nazi stereotypes and anti-Semitic stereotypes. It is in

the report as his criticism of the disciplinary process and I hope and

believe now this toxic summer and this civil war is coming to an end.

People from all strands of the party will get behind the report and we

can do better. When was the prospect of a peerage first discussed with

you? I have dealt with all of these questions. Just indulge us. It is

the first time we have had to chat. The report was published on June 30.

When was the prospect of a peerage first discussed, not the offer, the

prospect? After the report. No discussion beforehand? It was after

my report. It was part of the Prime Minister's resignation honours, I

understand. There was no discussion of a peerage with anyone in the

Labour Party before the report was published? I have been approached

for peerages and third... Will you let me finish the answer to your

question? I have been approached. I have been approached by senior

politicians. I am talking about this peerage. This peerage, the only one

I have ever owned, was offered to be after the report as part of the

Prime Minister's resignation list. Was it discussed before the report

with anybody in the Labour Party? And when were you offered the

peerage, when did Mr Corbyn or his office suggest they put you up for

that? It was around the time of the Prime Minister's final PMQs. I

believe that is when the two men had the conversation. And you had no

inkling he would be offered a peerage? I have heard all sorts of

rumours and all sorts of people have suggested I entered Parliament as an

MP, that I work for the party. Do different things. Because I joined

the Labour Party. I have had these smears all summer. They are not

smears, they factual questions. And I have answered. Would it clarify

everything, a former head of Liberty and a in transparency, if you

published your correspondence with the Labour Party and yourself on

this matter? Yes, except there isn't any correspondence. Not at all? This

was an offer that was made to me over the telephone by Mr Corbyn. He

made it first? He made it over the telephone personally and there might

be people in his office who have notes of that.

Would you be interested in serving in the Shadow Cabinet? It would be

completely presumptuous of me to be making job applications on national

television. I was not asking for that, but what I am saying is, if

asked, would you be interested? It is not appropriate for me to do

this. Issues around the composition of the Shadow Cabinet are incredibly

sensitive at a time when the party needs to unite behind Jeremy Corbyn.

That is the priority. There are 16 vacancies. He needs some fresh

talent, everybody would agree that you can be filed under fresh talent.

Would it not be part of the Unity Project to join his team? I will try

and help this party and help the Unity Project. I am trying to now by

sitting here. I will do everything I can to be part of the solution and

not part of the problem, but the best way for me to help is for other

people to decide. Now, a proposal to have

a debate on Brexit here But we're helpful folk

here at the Daily Politics and wanted to allow delegates

to have their say. So what better way to do

that than to get Adam They are not having this debate on

the conference hall, so let's have it here. Brexit, embrace it or fight

it? The people have spoken, 52%, it would not be democratic to deny

them. I would say embrace it. Scotland has two accept their result

in 2014, we have to accept our result in 2016. Embrace it or fight

it? I have gone for the wrong box! We have to be careful what the terms

are, but absolutely embrace it, because it was democratic. What does

your hair look like when you wake up in the morning? It is all over the

place on it is a wonder to behold! Thank you. Fight it. We should have

another vote. People were lied to. The man himself. That is what I

tagged it as when I posted it on Facebook. 30 likes so far. Neither.

Pretend it does not exist? I would like to fight it, but we have to

make the best of it. Somebody thought it was embrace IT! We all

have to embrace IT! Can things turn out OK? If it was the Labour Party

and Jeremy sorting it out, yes, but I would not trust the Tories. We

don't have to take these top-level European commissioners' word, you

can do your own thing. It is not working for working people.

Everybody sees midday from their own doorstep. What does that mean? It is

a French saying. You speak multiple languages? What is Spanish for this?

And embrace is... Can I do this for the 10pm News one

night? We can do it tomorrow! I thought I could do it. That's fine!

The unscientific result, it is pretty close, but there are more

embrace of fun fighters. And we're joined now by Shadow

Health Secretary Diane Abbott, You told a fringe meeting last night

that people who voted for Brexit wanted to see less foreign looking

people on their streets. Is that right? You get the sense there were

a variety of reasons for voting for Brexit. One was the long-standing

issue of sovereignty and Brussels bureaucracy. A lot of my colleagues

have said that many of their voters voted for it because they were

concerned about immigration. How many of the 17 million who voted for

it wanted less foreign looking people? I can't say, but we have

seen some horrible attacks both on Eastern European and people of any

colour when you get far out of London. That speaks to even if it is

a tiny minority people who are motivated badly. Have you

established these attacks are related to Brexit? You did not have

this flurry of attacks on polls and Eastern European. I have a friend on

the south coast, she has had abuse shouted at her, she is a black

woman, and they say, we voted for Brexit. I voted to remain. You were

quite Brexit minded. I was Euro-sceptic about the economic and

financial arrangements, but in the end remaining was the right thing to

do. You are not one of the 17 million who want less foreign

looking people around? I am not saying they were all motivated by

that, but the evidence suggests that someone. The theme of your approach

to the health service is to reverse the privatisation of the NHS. We are

seeing a rise, a small rise, but steadily, in the amount of NHS

funding going to Private organisations. What percentage?

Think it is less than 10% at the moment. 6.5% of the whole budget. It

is rising more slowly than it did under the last Labour Government.

There is concerned about the fragmentation of the health service.

And whether this will make it easier to privatise. You don't think it is

the Government's policy at the moment to privatise it? The health

and social act makes it easier, makes it easier for hospitals to

have a higher proportion of being patient. What does it mean to

nationalise the health service? Most GP practices are privately provided,

they don't work for the state. Most hospital CT scanners are privately

provided, buildings, beds, bandages and Lou Rawls, all medicines are

privately provided. Do you want all of that to be provided by the state?

Since 1948 we have had doctors who were private contractors and most of

our pharmaceuticals were purchased in the private sector. I am not

seeking to alter that dispensation, I am trying to say that there is a

concern about more contracts going to the private sector, and what

happens to the data and the privacy of data we do give that to private

sector organisations? Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell seem to be

concerned that the drugs the NHS uses comes from the private sector.

Are you? We have always purchased some from the private sector. The

state does not make drugs in this country. They want to bear down on

the costs of our drugs bill and use more generics, which has been done

in other parts of Europe. Do you object, pig farmer spends ?4 billion

on research and develop an investment. Internationally they are

more and more than anything new drugs by purchasing smaller

companies rather than investing. They still spend ?4 billion a year

on research and element in this country. Is that a bad thing? It is

not in itself, but we have to look at the profit margins on some of

those drugs. Despite the level of investment, we believe that the

ongoing profit margins that these companies put is not acceptable.

Junior doctors, and look like they are calling off their strike. Are

they right to do so? It is not for me to say. I am asking for an

opinion. They have concluded that the issues of patient safety were

overriding, and they were always going to put that first. They are

the doctors, if they say that safety is compromised, they are doing the

right thing. Now, they've been "talking

about a revolution" here at the conference centre

in Liverpool, and tired of telling left-wing activists to "get back

to where you once belonged". Some Labour MPs have taken

the "long and winding road" to the the city's Cavern Club,

where Adam joined them. The Beatles, Cilla Black and dumber

for one afternoon only, the former shadow culture secretary plays the

cavern club. He blagged a spot on the sacred stage thanks to a Labour

member of the Lords, who is a Scouser. Let's hear some music.

Guess what, he is really good. # Take these broken

wings and learn to fly In the audience, some bemused

tourists, a smattering of MPs, and Labour's Chief Whip. It was

brilliant. Is he allowed time off to do this? Special dispensation for

Michael, obviously! He has been a vocal critic of Jeremy Corbyn. He is

not in the Shadow Cabinet anymore. But this was all about the music.

Thank you. Well, mostly. This is more fun than the conference!

And we're joined by the former shadow Culture Secretary

Michael Dugher, who you saw performing there.

What Beatles lyrics define the state of the Labour Party? For one or two

of the people screaming at us, back in the USSR! That was too easy! I

would like to think come together would be good. I don't want to spoil

the party. Which songs did you choose yesterday? Get Back. What not

a political song? A Beatles song! I would like to hear you play. Play is

out. # Blackbird singing

in the dead of night # Take these broken

wings and learn to fly # You were only waiting

for this moment to arrive # Blackbird singing

in the dead of night # Take these broken

wings and learn to fly # You were only waiting

for this moment to arrive # Into the light of

the dark black night # Blackbird singing

in the dead of night # Take these broken

wings and learn to fly