28/09/2016: Labour Party Conference Daily Politics

Welcome to the final day of Labour Party Conference

It will be closed by a keynote speech by Jeremy Corbyn.

Will it help heal the deep divisions in the party?

Or will it set off a new storm over immigration?

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Jeremy Corbyn says a Labour government won't seek

to reduce immigration, will the extra money he's promising

for areas affected by immigration be enough to ease public concern?

STUDIO: A divisive leadership battle ended as Labour's week

the focus from splits and divisions onto policy?

We'll look at the announcements that have been made.

Labour and their leader are struggling in the polls,

for a failure to get their message across?

I have this book of jokes about Jeremy Corbyn, can I read one to

you? STUDIO: And we took a whole

book of Corbyn jokes out but did anyone find

them funny? All that in our first

of two programmes from the Labour party conference

today from the wonderful

city of Liverpool. And joining me to take stock

on the final day of conference What is or overall impression of the

conference? It has been a weird mishmash of things going on, in

opposition parties conferences, it feels like sometimes half the action

is away from here, down the road, at the momentum jamboree, and half was

here. We spent a whole week talking about unity and still struggling for

evidence of that. A weird mishmash? The way it is set up by the media,

like a pub brawl, really it is more like people setting at separate

tables. It sounds a bit contrarian, but the obvious reference point is

the 1980s, massive divisions in the Labour Party but there were far

greater ideological differences back then, mainstream figures call for

nationalisation of the monopolies, these days, there is quite a lot of

unity on the issues, conferences education and not selection,

spending rather than cuts, public health services, there is not the

great division, a lot of it is about tone and posture, often, and I

think, when you go through the issues, if you ask what the main

differences are with the other side, people often don't know what to say.

Perhaps a series to divide on immigration? It is not necessarily

called left or right, the most pro-immigration wings of the Labour

Party were the Blairite right and the Labour left, traditionally, now

you have the likes of Chuka Umunna, pro-immigration but now he has

reversed his position. That is compensated. A little bit of

interference on the sound, for our viewers, I hope that you can still

here as well. Robert be a relief for them not to be able to hear my

babblings! LAUGHTER Isn't the problem that we face

today, the conference began with leadership problems. -- probably a

relief. Given what we think Jeremy Corbyn will be saying about

immigration, the Libyan argument? The interesting thing about this

conference, is that you see all sorts of divisions opening up that

we have been ignoring. Division between socially conservative

labour, which is your Labour heartland vote, northern cities,

Welsh valleys, coalfield communities, former industrial

areas, post-industrial areas, they have been hostile to immigration.

Immigration comes up time and time again, they do not have consent for

the levels of immigration we have. And liberal left part of Labour,

North London, they feel very differently about it. That is a very

difficult choice for Progressive parties but much harder for Labour,

because there is a lot of Labour voters, Ukip inclined, who will hate

what he has to say today. If he wants to heal the party, why is he

not making any concessions on immigration? For the reasons Gabby

has said, it is a difficult one for him to tread, the Labour coalition

is fragmenting over lots of issues, in the big cities, as you say,

London, Manchester, Birmingham, younger voters, Labour inclined,

quite well disposed to immigration, if they hear anti-immigration

rhetoric, they will go elsewhere or not vote. Older working-class

voters, particularly in small towns, feel immigration is a threat, it

causes in security, and so on. If they see something that is seen as

pro-immigration, they will go elsewhere. The line he has to pursue

is to emphasise that he understands people's concerns, but I grew up,

not many immigrants, but lots of concerns. What people often feel is

consulted, they feel politicians do not take their concerns seriously.

What he has to say is, I know you have concerns, I understand them, I

don't think you are racist or bigoted for having on, that is why,

front and central, migrant impact fund which gives resources to areas

with high levels of immigration. It is interesting, it was abolished...

Gordon Brown introduced it, 150 million... 50 million? That is what

he said, he did not spend that much. I know that it was very small. How

much did Tower Hamlets get? ?60,000. Well, it needs to be properly

resourced, immigrants taking more than they give back, allocating

resources, that is the kind of argument people make. The problem is

that Labour politicians have been saying since 2010 and before that

they understand your concerns... Ed Miliband tried the same approach.

People want action. Ed Miliband tried the same approach, we

understand your pain, we feel your pain, we will stop undercutting

wages, but people either don't believe that it works, all, it is

not just about undercutting wages, there is something deeper and more

emotional about community is changing, which is not addressed by

money. We shall see, it looks like it is going to be one of the main

affairs today, particularly because home affairs will be part of the

focus. Back to Joe in London, we have been looking at divisions, but

there has also been plenty of policy announcements. -- Jo.

Unusually for a party conference, there have been plenty of policy

announcements this week, so we thought we'd pull together

Jeremy Corbyn and his team have been doling out policy sweeties this

conference like they are going out of fashion, which of course they

was John McDonnell's pledge for a minimum wage of

with a plan to ban tax avoiding firms from winning

a future Labour government will make up any shortfall in European funding

for the regions went down well with activists.

after his pledge to accept party support for Trident renewal was said

to have been removed from his speech while on the auto cue.

saying that the nuclear weapon system would be renewed

as long as it remained party policy.

on Andy McDonald's proposals to give local communities more control

over their bus services and return them to the public

One of the most controversial announcements

was that of a complete ban on fracking,

made by Barry Gardiner despite criticism from the GMB union.

announcement comes from Jeremy Corbyn himself,

who will commit the party to not cutting the numbers of migrants.

Apologies again for the sound in Liverpool, we have change the

microphone, hopefully there will be an improvement.

I've been joined by the shadow secretary of state for

international trade, energy, climate change

The policy will have to change to reflect the Brexit vote, it was

said, how has it changed? What we have to do, we have to make sure

that people understand that there is controls on immigration. So that

people who are coming to this country feel that the ones that are

coming in are benefiting them... It would be making sure that the people

who come here have the skills and are able to contribute to our

economy in a way that everybody is going to benefit from. And that they

are not going to be people who are either displacing people from work

here, but the key thing is, I don't think people are in the opening

piece you referred to numbers, I don't think... People are concerned

that there should be controlled immigration, so that they can see

the benefits... Let me ask you about control, what control would Labour

have on immigration from the EU? You are asking me to second-guess what

we are going to now have in terms of the relationship with the EU. We are

going to be out of the EU, what controls would Labour have? We don't

know about the relationship that we will have with the youth. This is

something they have got to come clean on. Jeremy Corbyn, Jeremy

Corbyn... I'm trying to give you an answer... Jeremy Corbyn has told us,

he said, " we are not out to control immigration in terms of numbers, in

terms of numbers, there would be no controlled immigration.

To say there is no control is absolutely wrong, let me clearly

answer the question that you put. What people need to be able to see

is that there are controls over the people who are coming into this

country, in a new relationship. This government has not set out whether

it would prioritise the passport team of goods and services into a

single market, the financial services and other services that we

need all the free movement of people. -- passporting of goods. If

it doesn't come clean with the British public about what the red

line in the negotiation is, then... I'm not asking you about government

policy, I will be doing that with the government next week, I am

asking about Labour Party policy. You are asking me to tell the

future, I cannot because I do not know what the government will

negotiate. You could have a policy urging them to negotiate for

something, that is your job as opposition. Last night the office

brief Jeremy Corbyn's office said that he was not concerned about

numbers, if you are not concerned about numbers, what controls would

you have on EU immigration? Quality, quality control. We already have a

system for judging, we have Tier one, Tier two, T four. Not for EU

immigration. I'm talking about a system for judging. We already have

a system for judging in the immigration control system. For

non-EU. But you are now asking me to say what it would be for the EU, we

don't know what the future relationship with the EU is. If

there is an election next year, which party thinks there is, you

would have to do the negotiations, you would have to have a policy on

immigration, where you would negotiate. I'm trying to work out

what that policy is. So far, no answer has come. I have given new

two answers, you just don't like the answers, make a distinction there.

Let me ask you again, how would you control immigration? I'll tell you,

what we would do, if we were government next year, we would

negotiate a Brexit on the basis that there are certain principles that

you remain true to, one of those is to say that immigration must benefit

the people in this country. Quality controls, like we already have

outside of the EU, in terms of Tier one, Tier two, Tier four. He would

then be able to put those controls in place, and that would be part of

the Brexit negotiation. What I'm saying to you is I cannot predict

what the government is going to do, and I don't know what colleagues in

the rest of Europe are going to be prepared to grant us. That is why I

say you have to do this from the point of principle. Just to be clear

on this, you would have a whole series of controls, on EU migration?

What I am saying is that I would have quality controls on all

migration into this country. Because what we want, and what the British

people want, is they want to know that if people are coming into the

UK, it is going to benefit their lives and not just the people who

are coming. Of course we will always take refugees, that is entirely

sensible. When we are talking about economic immigration, the economy

must work in the favour of the British people and the British

public, if they see that political parties are prepared to put those

controls in place, then I believe, and they are working to their

benefit, then I believe it is not the numbers that matter, it is

actually the quality and the economic benefit they are bringing.

When he says he's not about numbers, that is consistent with having

substantial controls. All right. Of course, of course, because it is

quality controlled, quality controlled. With no regard on the

numbers? It is about making sure that the people who are coming here

are benefiting our society, if more people were coming here than there

was employment for, that would automatically be a quality control,

but it would also limit numbers. These ask serious questions, you are

trying to trap me into a semantic phrase will stop I am trying to

figure out what is your policy. Which I have given you. -- I am

trying to figure out what is your policy? I have given you the answer,

they are clear. The viewers will decide if they are clear. Andy

Burnham has said he would not like to be included in the next Shadow

Cabinet because he will be running for mayor of Manchester, he said

Labour voters feel taken for granted and abandoned because of the failure

of the political class to curb immigration. Do you agree?

I think Andy is making an important point, that people feel abandoned,

that the forces of globalisation which mean that multinational

companies move labour across the globe, exploit tax regimes and make

sure they get the benefit instead of the benefit accruing to local

people. Local people had seen jobs go, all the certainties of place.

They used to know that generations of people worked in the same towns.

We have to show people that there are new jobs. That globalisation is

something that can be controlled. My own view is that we are more likely

to be able to control that by working and cooperating with others

around the globe then simply by being in isolation on our own. You

were part of the group that said Labour

the energy infrastructure, energy infrastructure for the future and

not the past. Looking at president Barack Obama, they ratify the

climate change agreement, the disagreement. Last week the governor

of the Bank of England, Mark Carney was talking about how there is five

times more energy, oil and gas reserves, identified then we can

use. Why is it right to input shale gas

from America, when we have plenty of by doing that now, by investing now,

in that technology, and remember here, this is a technology that,

George Osborne, when he was Chancellor, gave 75% tax allowances,

capital allowances, too. The only way they can make it profitable is

on the backs of taxpayers. The average life of a shale gas...? The

average life of a shale gas field is about three years.

We will need gas for quite a while. I insert viewing you -- am I

interviewing you? Oil is running out in the North Sea, you want to ban

fracking, so the only alternative is that in the years ahead we will

import more and more gas. Make a distinction, Andrew, between gas and

shale gas. What we do at the moment is, we have more gas that we produce

in this country. We export 33.8% of the gas that we produce, and we only

import... We had 5% lower imports of gas than we had the year before.

That is because we are losing less. North Sea gas is running out, isn't

it? You make these statements, but you don't listen to the answers. The

answer I am giving is that actually our production of gas in this

country over the past five years has increased. Year-on-year. Let me

clarify, because it means everything I've read must have been wrong.

North Sea gas is not running out? Eventually, of course, every field

will run out, but not in the time frame that we have now, in the next

15 years. If you look at the Cambridge Econometrics report, it

shows there will be a 26% reduction in gas demand in this country by

2030. That's why it makes no sense at all to lock us into a fossil fuel

shale gas technology subsidised by 75% by the British taxpayer. If we

are producing so much gas, why are we importing ?15 billion per year of

gas? Because we are exporting more. That is why. You're laughing. Do you

want to check the figures, Andrew? I will. Because we are exporting 33.8%

of the gas that we produce. We are importing... ?15 billion. 1.1

billion cubic metres less than we are exporting. In actual fact, the

whole point is that we do need gas, we'd need natural gas -- we need

natural gas that will take us through the gaps in renewables to

take us through to 2030. We need gas to do that and I support it. What we

don't need is to be locking ourselves into a new gas

infrastructure, namely shale gas, which is subsidised three quarters

by the taxpayer and which will demand a return over a 35 year

period which takes us beyond that time when gas will be diminishing in

the system. You've made that very clear. Thank you very much. Good.

Now, back to Jo in London. I've been joined in the studio

by the Chief Secretary Giving your remain position during

the EU referendum campaign, can we presume you are in support of free

movement as Jeremy Corbyn has outlined it? We voted to leave the

European Union, you are right. I was on the other side of the argument.

The British people have made a decision and we have to respect

that. One of the key elements that drove a lot of people to vote to

leave the EU were concerns about migration. In terms of negotiating

our new relationship with the EU, that needs to reflect that. It needs

to reflect the concerns the British people have about how free movement

of labour operates. You thought those people were wrong during the

campaign. You are in principle and personally in agreement with Jeremy

Corbyn, who doesn't want a limit on the numbers of migrants coming into

the UK? That's what you campaigned on - freedom of movement in the EU.

I don't agree that we can ignore the voice of the British people. The

British people have made a decision. We fought the referendum on the

basis of the reforms negotiated that I'm no longer available to us. It is

important in terms of the new relationship with the EU that we

don't just ignore what the British people have said, that the new

relationship has to reflect what the British people have said. You've

said during the referendum is that Britain would be worse off if it

limited migration. Are you now saying you were wrong? I am saying

that in terms of the negotiation, we got -- we have got to reflect the

concerns of the British people in terms of free movement of labour,

and we need to ensure we have a strong access to those European

markets for goods and services, and that we don't put in place

unnecessary barriers to trade. You don't believe now that Britain would

be worse off if it limits migration? The position that I and others

argued during the referendum campaign was leaving the EU would

make is worse off than we would otherwise be. When you talk than the

Treasury talked about the impact and benefits of immigration, they said,

you said, that Britain is better off economically broadly as a result of

immigration. So you were wrong? We have to have a migration policy that

reflects the fact... You said that. I'm trying to say that your personal

position was the same as Jeremy Corbyn's. We need to respect the

result but also ensure it works in the best interests of the UK

economy. We need to make sure we have the right people with the right

skills and so on. You agree with Barry Gardiner, who once quality

controls on all migration, including the EU? In a different position from

the one we were in before the referendum. What we're hearing from

Jeremy Corbyn, as far as I can see, and admittedly that briefing we

received yesterday of what Barry Gardiner was just saying don't

appear to be consistent, but we will see what Jeremy says. He says the

quality counts. The numbers do matter. You've failed completely to

control those numbers. The numbers, in the end, didn't matter, did they?

There were steps we took to reduce those numbers. We have a target to

bring those numbers down. Actually, there were aspects of the EU

negotiation which were about trying to restrict access to benefits,

which the public understandably had a lot of concern about. The idea

that Jeremy Corbyn is saying that we should do nothing to address the

issue of migration, and whether that is the message he puts out this

afternoon, we will watch with interest. It may demonstrate he is

out of touch with where the British people are. The and for where you

were before the referendum result. Before we leave immigration, the

migrant impact fund was scrapped by you. Was that the right decision? We

came to office at a period of time where there were difficult decisions

to make about the public finances. Because of the impact on communities

that you were representing, who felt you were -- they were being ignored

by politicians, and yet you got rid of the fun. We inherited the most

awful mess and had to sort it out. We had to make difficult decisions

when it came to public finances. It became the priority. I'm not sure it

was the migration impact fund that was the priority issue at the

referendum... Really? It was going to help communities deal with an

increase in immigration. The work concerns about immigration before it

was in existence and they remain after it has gone. We shouldn't

place too much emphasis necessarily on that. We have to ensure that we

have an economy that works for everybody and that those areas are

left behind, whether that is done through a particular fund or through

other means, I think... Lets take the phrase, a country that works for

everyone and not the privileged few. Labour have won the battle of ideas,

never mind the Battle of rhetoric, in terms of public announcements.

Workers on board, a proper living wage, and Theresa May defining

herself by the words that I've just said. We are all socialist now,

aren't we? Yellow might know. You have copied every single one of

those policies. Jackie -- no. We have reformed public services and

welfare in the teeth of labour opposition. We have cut taxes,

focused particularly on the lower paid. We have increased the personal

allowance for income tax. Not necessarily opposed by Labour but

not something they did in office. What about workers on boards - that

was a Labour policy that you have taken on board. A proper living wage

of ?10 or more - argue in agreement with that? It was the Tories that

brought in the living wage. It was an extension of the minimum wage

brought in by Labour. You have stolen the idea. We brought it in

when John McDonnell was still a backbencher. We can hardly say that

was John McDonnell's idea. Do you agree with the aspiration of ?10 an

hour? We believe in a national living wage full stop at ?10 an

hour? You have to balance the benefits are low paid workers with

the risks to employment. George Osborne make that decision

unilaterally. He ignored the low pay commission so that politics could

set the standard. He based it on the work that Sir George Bain had done,

who was the first chair of the low pay commission, who recommended a

link of 60% of mean income. If you like, we can all plot numbers out of

the air. If we had said ?10, they could say it 11. John McDonnell said

it was based on what could actually -- what people could actually live

on, rather than a median amount. I think he has. He made this

announcement this time last year, as far as I can see. Do you agree with

it? It was the Conservative Government that brought in the

national living wage. In terms of the judgment, following expert

advice, it was 60% of median income. Would you like to see it go to ?10

an hour by 2020? We have to make a judgment about the

rate at which jobs will be lost, when we do not have access to the

Labour market, we have an extremely good record of getting people

working over the last six years. It is a question of finding the right

balance. In one of your previous answers you said that you had

addressed the public finances, actually, where is the evidence for

that, given that George Osborne dropped his fiscal rule to reach a

surplus, before losing his job, and even the IMF have come out to say,

fiscal consolidation has not worked, and world is moving against

austerity and we will be against the policy. If you look at what has

happened to the public finances, the job is not done. It is not completed

in the first term of office and it is still a work in progress. We have

not completed the job of eliminating the deficit, I'm the first to admit

that, but we have demonstrated that we have brought it down, very

significantly, from where it was, at a record level, the point I was

making, roaring a divide between what we heard from the Labour Party

throughout the last Parliament, don't worry too much... About

austerity, which is what you are doing. I would not categorise it...

You have dropped that Kieran will, to reach a surplus and eliminate the

deficit. The circumstances have changed. Because of the Brexit vote,

we are not going to go chasing after that. -- that key promise. It is

still important that we live within our means, and get the deficit down.

David, thank you very much joining us.

Reverting back to Barry Gardner's interview, we were talking about the

amount of gas that Britain imports or exports, I was surprised when he

said that we exported a lot of gas, overall, we seem to be very strong

in that regard. On the latest government figures that I have here,

official figures, they say that the UK has been a net importer of gas

since 2004, a net importer of gas, with net imports of gas in 2015

accounting for just over 40% of the total supply of gas. Maybe we are

talking about two different things, that is what I was basing my

questions on. Let's just pick up

on the issue of immigration, Jeremy Corbyn's office said that

as Labour government would not seek to control the numbers

coming in to the country. Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham

has been speaking about this two conference in the last few minutes.

Let Labour stand for a fairer Brexit, not a hard Brexit, true to

Britain's past, protecting the economy but crucially also providing

the change that people voted for. Conference, this party was must

fully face up to this fact. Millions of lifelong Labour supporters voted

to leave the EU, let's be honest, they voted for change on

immigration. We have not yet even begun to show them that we

understand why. Let's get some reaction from

the Labour MP, Stephen Kinnock. Last night it was being briefed out

from the office of Jeremy Corbyn that the Labour leader was not

concerned about numbers when it comes to immigration. Were you happy

about that? I don't think that is the right way to go, I say that if

we want to build a society that have let our values of compassion,

cohesive communities, of what people working together in harmony, then we

have got to talk about controlling the inflow of Labour from other

countries. I believe we should be talking about a sector by sector

approach, defining the numbers we need in each of the areas,

agriculture, home care services, the retail sector. Setting a number that

is appropriate, and when we reach that number, we say, that is it,

that is all we need. We must make it clear to people that we respect

their desire for having control of the borders and the way that the

labour market works, so that we can build the sort of society that we

actually want to build. Are you aware of any controlled that Jeremy

Corbyn would be in favour of, on, for example, EU migration, after

Brexit? I have not studied the detail of what he is proposing, it

is not something that has been discussed in the Parliamentary

Labour Party so far, I can't comment too much in detail, but certainly,

the message coming through seems to be about an open door, with no

controls at all. I really hope that Jeremy Hall rethink that, and

reconsider that. We have got to have a clear message around making

immigration work for all of our people. The integration side of it,

with the migration impact fund, we welcome that, what let's remember,

many of the people who have deep concerns about immigration, there is

not much immigration in their communities. This is an issue of

control, not integration. Barry Gardner, who I also spoke with about

immigration, not just gas, he outlined... He said there would be a

range of quality controls on immigration. Including immigration

from the European Union. -- Barry Gardiner. Do you know anything about

that? That is a bit of a risk, it seems to conflict with the message

coming from Jeremy and the speech, the briefing about the speech we

have received, there is a risk that looks like we are making it up on

the hoof. I hope that we will be able to have a hell stick and

constructive debate within the PLP, and I will be arguing firmly for

saying that 23rd of June result was a political earthquake, we cannot

pretend that there is not a clear message there are, about the need

for control, but we also can say that this does not necessarily mean

a hard Brexit. We are in the process of negotiating, we as a Labour Party

must set clear tests for the government on what we think a clear

Brexit looks like, marrying together democratic imperative around control

over free movement with the economic imperative of not wrecking the

economy through the Brexit process. Theresa May is supposed to be a

tough and effective command negotiator, let's set those tests,

hold her feet to the fire. -- -- Theresa May is supposed be a tough

and effective negotiator, let's set those tests, hold her feet to the

fire. Why do you say that? That is what I have read in the newspaper. I

regard was talking about quality controls for all immigration, tests

and so on, is it not likely as part of the immigration that we will have

two be more liberal towards EU migration, if we are wanting things

from them, then to immigration from the rest of the world? -- have to.

What is required here, is a proper bottom-up process, where a

government and employers and trade unions have conversations, sector by

sector, about what is required, what are the skills required, what is

required for the NHS, what is required in the agricultural

industry, and we set a number on that basis. And we can say on the

doorstep, we have a handle on this, we are on top of this, and we have

set the number as this much, when it gets to that much, we will close the

door. That is the way that it works in Australia. I was very surprised

to see Theresa May come out against a points-based system. If you are

going to have quality controlled and criteria, whether we call it

points-based or quality control, I don't mind, but you have got to have

those filters in place, so that we can reassure the British people so

that we can move the conversation onto what kind of public services we

need, what kind of investment we need, class sizes to full? We cannot

see all of that through the prism of immigration, but that is what is

happening at the moment. -- too full. If we impose work permits on

EU members, they would undoubtably impose work permits on British

citizens going there are, is that really a constructive way forward,

to have work permit? I think that there is more of an appetite than

there has ever been in countries like Germany, France, the Nordics,

the Netherlands, to have a root and branch review of the way that free

movement works. Theresa May has the opportunity now to use that

leveraged, to go to Berling, to go to Paris, and work together on this,

the Brexit referendum gives us an opportunity to think in a new way

about how freedom of movement works. -- use that leverage. Let's look for

a pan-European settlement, if you can strike that bargain, you can

then have a very different conversation about access to the

single market of goods services and capital. A migration fund is being

proposed, Lord Browne had won, only lasted for a couple of years. It was

only tens of millions, very small fund. Would a much larger fund work?

-- Gordon Brown. How wrong would it be before it had an impact? It is a

very compelling proposal, and it is something that we need, I would look

to increase it is substantially, perhaps up to 500 million, but I

would pay for it with a levy on visas, and if we move into a work

permit -based system, charging for them, so you are not dipping into

the taxpayer pocket. Levy on non-EU visas was how Gordon Brown financed

the one in 2008, and the revenue it produced, quite a big levy, but it

produced only peanuts. 30, 40 million. And they only spent 23

billion thousand eight ninths, if you put a levy on European Union

visas... What are they going to do? I think that is going to be up to

the negotiations. -- then he spent 23 billion, in 2008 /9. It is in

fierce challenge of revenue. The levy still exists, we just don't

want to fund it. Levy got scrapped by the Tories. That is able to

economy. It is about rather than integration, but the integration

fund will work well where there is a large number of immigrants, but many

places, for example, working class heartlands, it is not the numbers

that is the problem, it is the sense of a lack of control. Andy Burnham

says that he doesn't want to be considered again as Shadow Home

Secretary because he is off to run for mayor of Manchester. A vacancy

there. Do you fancy that? My phone has not yet rung! It has only just

announced it. What I really hope is that Jeremy will move towards

Parliamentary Labour Party election for Shadow Cabinet positions. I

think if that happens, then I think it will make the bridge back to

cohesive and united party far easier to cross. I can see that it is not a

note. My phone has not yet rung. I am so honoured and privileged to be

serving my constituents, the steel crisis is still taking up a huge

amount of my time. I understand. There is plenty to be getting on

with. I thought that you were going to say you honoured and privileged

to be on the Daily Politics! Indeed! I doff my cap! LAUGHTER

Now, does the acronym MSM mean anything to you?

I'll give you a clue, according to those who use

the term we are part of it, as are most of the journalists

"MSM" stands for Mainstream Media and some on the Left say

they are to blame for the difficulty the left have in getting

So Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have been trying to bypass

like in this YouTube film about Jeremy Corbyn

Get a good quality apprenticeship, but I require a society which gives

every young person an opportunity to get an apprenticeship or go to

university, so that the opportunity is there, and not be saddled with

debt at the end of it. We have turned education into a commodity

for under fives and over 18s, 30 years of being told that neoliberal

economics is the answer to everything. No, it is up at the

answer to everything. It is an hour-long film, available on

YouTube, Jeremy Corbyn speaking with these people.

I've been joined by the director of the centrist Labour group

and by Momentum activist Bhaskar Sunkara,

which offers "socialist perspectives on politics,

Quite a mouthful, is it an online magazine? No, we are in print. We

have 20,000 subscribers. Is it the mainstream media that is not giving

Jeremy Corbyn a fair crack of the whip, or is it laid the's constant

divisions and arguments that are undermining it? It could be both! If

you are under constant attack from your own party, it is very difficult

to actually develop the message discipline, to figure out what

points you should be consistently hammering across the mainstream

media. At the same time, the media can also create a hostile

environment for pushing forward ideas to begin with, that does not

mean that certain ideas cannot get across, that does not mean that the

left should avoid that a reign of the mainstream media. You still

think you should engage? I consider myself a member of the

pre-mainstream media, that is the entire point of why I do politics

and... What does that mean? I hope to one day be a member of the

mainstream media with my publication, I hope my ideas become

the mainstream. Not that I would just be sitting at home doing this.

Does the mainstream media treat Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party badly?

I don't think that it does, it does its job, shining highlight what is

happening inside a very powerful organisation that we are all hoping,

and the country expects, to be the opposition and the alternative

government. It deserves a lot of scrutiny, and when there are

semi-mistakes coming directly from the office of the leader, it is not

surprisingly there is key insights, and that makes news in the country,

and then, actively divisive things are done by the leadership which

they know MPs are going to dissent on, and dissent is interesting to

the public. And covered by the media. The Labour Party is a party

in transition. I am based in the United States, I would not even

define myself as an activist, I am an ally, but when you have a party

in great transition, so many new members, people engaging in these

debates are the first time, a lot of people are inspired by Jeremy

Corbyn, for the first time, of course there will be different

messages and debates. Protestation. That is politics, it is not an usual

particularly. The fact the media is playing up these divisions, I think

that is also potentially fair, but to me, the fact there is not a

unified voice coming out of the Labour Party, that is a natural part

of a party in transition. Because it is going through a certain change.

The also have people getting their message in first. In the debate

between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, people are not dealing with

the reason why Trump did not win. It seems to me that people who know

that Jeremy Corbyn's ideas will not go down well with the public get

their reasons in earlier. The mainstream media, to me, are doing

their job. You gave me a hard time when I was last on the programme. A

Labour leader always faces the hostility of what we used to call

the Tory press. Although it is not as powerful as it was, there is

still an identifiable Tory press. A Labour leader like Mr Corbyn gets it

in the neck even more than others, though Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock

would tell you they got it badly as well. If you say, they are behaving

to tag, what about the non-Tory press part of the mainstream media?

Is that treating Mr Corbyn fairly? I think it treats in normally. There

were complaints about the Guardian being unfair. I think it is quite

pro-Corbyn in its editorials. But the amount of mistakes they have

made is newsworthy, and they come about as news. It is something you

have to put up with. I think the public, crucially, see politicians

who complain about the media as silly as sailors complaining about

the sea. For Labour, it has always been more difficult. We know we are

the change-makers and we have big ideas and it will always be harder

to break the status quo. We have to accept that, otherwise it looks ugly

to the public. In the United States, perhaps not planned, but it happened

in reality, the mainstream media turned out to be Donald Trump's

biggest ally, because they kept putting him on. Even small L liberal

networks like ABC and NBC, I will put Fox in another corner. But he

was good ratings, so they gave him a tonne of time on-air. And he didn't

have to spend money on TV commercials. For that insurgent, the

mainstream media was an ally. In a certain sense, yes. He deserved that

attention because he was compelling because people were for him. I think

his politics are abhorrent but he deserves that attention. Bernie

Sanders and other candidates weren't getting that attention even though

they had similar polling levels. There should be some criteria, and

it should be rooted in how much support a politician has, how much

grassroots energy they have. Should Mr Corbyn engage more with the

mainstream media? I think every politician needs to engage with the

mainstream media, it is important. I haven't seen Mr Corbyn shy away from

interviews, from the mainstream media. I think there is a narrative

that says Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters only care about social

media and not the mainstream media. I think they are just trying to

reach people however they can. Should he? He cancelled an event

yesterday morning. The point just making is, how thankful I we have --

are we that we have the BBC? They have Corbyn supporters, people who

are not, and they balance things out. If we had an American-style

media, like Fox News and ratings every minute of every day, and shot

politics is the only way to get on the media. It is not just the BBC,

ITV is regarded as a public service broadcaster, so is Sky. And Channel

4. I feel like a socialist making a Nationalist argument, but the

American print media is probably less biased and more objective.

There are tabloid stories that come out about Corbyn that are shocking

and unsubstantiated, and that would not fly in America. Sanders did not

get treatment. On the left, we had access to lots of those I've --

outlets. It is nice to talk on the mainstream media about the

mainstream media! He's inspired colouring books,

poetry and a play, and now Jeremy Corbyn has prompted

the publication of Here it is - it's The Little Red

Book of Corbyn Jokes, and we'll be talking to the man

behind it in just a moment. First, though, we asked Adam

to test the jokes out So, I've got this book of jokes

about Jeremy Corbyn. What is long and rigid and gets you

up in the morning? The Morning Star

newspaper's editorial. Do you not read

the Morning Star? How many of the commentariat does it

take to change I don't even understand

your accent, but... My wife went out drinking with Fidel

Castro's wife. Wow, that's the best

response we've had. What starts with a screw-up,

takes nine months and ends up with a load of kicking

and screaming? At least you're still

smiling, I suppose. What did the Irishman say

when he walked into the That's entirely a matter for

the Irish and needs no input from What would happen if James Bond

took Viagra. What would happen if James Bond

took Viagra? He would continue being

a state-sponsored terrorist whose I strongly resent the

implication of patriarchal behaviour contained

in What's black-and-white and red

all over? The Tory press after

it's been nationalised. Oh, that's a good

one. What did the socialist pigeons

say to the neoliberal I think it's the way you tell them,

Adam! I've been joined in the studio

by the man who dreamt up "The Little Red Book

of Corbyn Jokes", Jason Sinclair. And by the comedian Grainne Maguire,

who supports Jeremy Corbyn. Welcome to both of you. You were

laughing all the way through. She liked your jokes. How difficult was

it to put it together, to find enough jokes to fill this book? We

tend to write a joke whenever something catastrophic happens in

the Labour Party, so... What are you saying? There was a lot of material.

What is your all-time favourite Jeremy Corbyn Joe? Oh gosh, I don't

know. A quick easy one was, why did the chicken cross the road? White?

Neoliberalism. Do you find them genuinely funny, or are you laughing

at us into the? Corbyn jokes give me life. I just love them so much. The

letter gets accused of being sanctimonious and taking themselves

too seriously, so I think it is important to poke fun is ensure that

we can laugh at ourselves. Do you have one of these books? No, but

fingers crossed I will get one today. What about topical jokes from

the conference? Well, I'm not saying my mother-in-law hates me, but I am

just saying what Seamus put on the autocue. Knock knock. Owen Smith --

who's their? Owen Smith. Owen Smith who? Exactly. What is it about

Jeremy Corbyn that lends himself to humour? Because he comes across as

so humourless and Ernest, so it is funny to see what it could be like

if he was telling a joke. How do you think Jeremy Corbyn would be if he

told a joke? Would he be as good as your reporter? The bar is lower with

Adam. Would you agree with that about Jeremy Corbyn? I think he

comes across as so earnest and well-intentioned that he would try

to be funny, but he would just end up with a lot of facts about the

Irish potato famine. The Irish potato... You are a Corbyn

supporter. I support Jeremy and the Labour Party in all its wonderful

facets, but I do stand-up comedy, and it's important to poke fun at

Jeremy. Do you poke fun? Is he a good source of material? It is funny

they say he has a problem with women. He has been married three

times and his ex-girlfriend is in the Shadow Cabinet. If anything, he

gets on too well with women, if you ask me! You could look at it from

that perspective. Did his ex-wife vote for him? I don't know if

anyone's would, to be fair. I'm sub tries G voted once for him. She did

an interview just before the result saying she wasn't supporting him

this time. What has the response been to the book? Next... Very

diplomatic. There are 12 5-star reviews and some one star reviews.

What about Corbyn now, with his renewed mandate's are their jokes

that you will be able to make? He is leader for the second time around.

What will you do? Labour itself is like a dysfunctional, crazy family

with lots of strong personalities. Whenever there is a disaster, there

are people who are so happy to give an interview. Morin sadness than in

anger, but where is my like? There is -- more in sadness. On Amazon, it

says "This is not raisins." How do you respond to that? That's true,

it's not as tasty as raisins, but it might be funny. How many jokes

altogether? It is quite big writing, not many jokes on the page. Tell

like there are a lot of introductory essays, parodies and pastiches, not

just jokes from the twitter account. -- there are a lot of introductory

essays. What were the last words of the Marxist intellectual before

committing suicide? Comrades, please don't

That's all for now, but i'll be back here on BBC Two

in just one hour's time, with live coverage of

So, grab a sandwich, make yourself a cup

of tea, and see you back here at two o'clock.

He will have a lot to say about various policies, and we'll be

bringing it to you alive and uninterrupted from 2pm this

afternoon. Grab a sandwich, get a cup of tea, and we'll see you back

here.