08/12/2016 Daily Politics

The Commons gives its clear backing for the Government's timetable

MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of the plan to trigger Article 50

by the end of March next year and so begin the formal negotiation

In return, MPs say they want more detail on the plans.

Once we've left the EU what should our immigration system look like?

The Home Affairs Select Committee is launching a nationwide inquiry

Its chair, Yvette Cooper, joins us live.

Is Momentum, the campaign group set up to support

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, facing an existential crisis?

We report on the divisions and infighting afflicting

I'm welcoming the next Prime Minister of Britain Jeremy Corbyn.

He thinks it's possible, despite what the polls say.

But 2016 wasn't exactly a great year for pollsters, so could the idea

of a Prime Minister Corbyn become a reality?

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

of the programme today is the writer and broadcaster Paul Mason.

Paul used to be a journalist for Channel 4 News and,

He reported regularly from Athens. Newsnight before and then you went

to Channel 4. He's now free of the strictures

of broadcast news and able to offer his opinion on all manner

of things, I dare say we may tease out a few of those

opinions in the next hour. Unlike you. I'm envious of your

position. Welcome back. Thank you. One day you might get an

opportunity. I doubt it.

First today, the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has

accused Britain's ally, Saudi Arabia, of engaging in "proxy

The Guardian newspaper has published footage in which Mr Johnson says

Saudi Arabai and Iran are "puppeteering" in various

He was speaking at a conference in Rome last week.

There are politicians who are twisting and abusing

religion and different strains of the same religion in order

to further their own political objectives and that's one

of the biggest political problems in the whole region.

The tragedy for me - and that's why you have these proxy

wars being fought the whole time in that area -

is that there is not strong enough leadership in the

You've got the Saudis, the Irans, everybody moving in and puppeteering

We need to have some way of encouraging visionary leadership.

Boris Johnson there. Paul Mason you must be delighted that the Foreign

Secretary agrees with you? Substantially, I think he is right.

But, of course, if you listen to the whole clip. There are two huge

bloopers in T one is to diss the UK's strategic ally in the region.

Remember, we are building a Royal Navy base in the Gulf, in Bahrain to

support Saudi Arabia in its proxy war in Yemen and the rest. The other

thing, if this weird notion that the Sunni and Shia conflict is the

result of politicians that don't display leader sh. It is a

fundamental fault line. Does he not have officials over there in the

Foreign Office? Was there nobody there saying to him - Boris, you are

going to speak about the Middle East, we have one ally, what is

going on in the Foreign Office? Well, you are not the only one

putting that question. The Prime Minister's spokesperson has in the

last half an hour or so, responding to the commented from the Foreign

Secretary, said that Theresa May wants to strengthen the relationship

with Saudi Arabia. She said "We are supporting the Saudi-led coalition

in support of the legitimate Government in Yemen against huety

rebels." She said, "Those are the Prime Minister's views, the Foreign

Secretary's views are knotted the Government's position on, for

example -- are not the Government's position on, for example, Saudi

Arabia and the region. If that's not a slapdown, I don't know what is

Everybody who speaks in public has an off day but the clip there seemed

to - Boris Johnson seemed to be pulling these ideas almost out of a

spontaneous well-spring of ideas. A stream of consciousness. I think

that's the word. The substantive problem is the May administration

has inherited what I think is a very bad, combined foreign and defence

strategy, in the Middle East. That is, it has this thing about global

reach. To have global reach you need a base in Bahrain, the Saudis buying

your fighters. After Trump, and falling apart of the globalisation,

what does this mean? I would have liked to hear Boris Johnson talk

about that. I think he probably does want to talk about that. I'm sure he

does but at the moment there is now, there are two different positions.

There is Theresa May and the Government's position and there is

the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson's position As we will find

out this, pervies the Government. It has divided positions on many thing,

including Brexit which we are about to talk B but Britain, as an

all-imperial power w responsibilities around the world,

needs, with responsibilities around the world, needs its diplomatic

service to feed into the Foreign Office, what is going on. If you

have a policy you either stick to it or change it and you need

competence. And I, not for the first time one finds oneself saying about

Boris Johnson, the man is not competent to do this job. In terms

of you either change the policy or stick to t the spokespersoned for

the Prime Minister said "The Foreign Secretary will be in the region this

weekend and that will be an opportunity for him to set the

Government's position on relations with Saudi Arabia and others in the

region" rather than his own. And asked if the Prime Minister had full

confidence in Mr Johnson, the spokeswoman said "yes." It has come

to something fairly early on whether you are questioning whether the

Prime Minister still has confidence in her Home Secretary? There is no

need for Mr Johnson to be picking this fight or inadvertent stumble

over Saudy. It is not a substantive issue the Government is trying to

deal with. The Iran deal will be blown up, when Trump becomes

President. We need our diplomatic service on the case and our Foreign

Secretary on the case in the Middle East to work out how we can save,

because we are still part of the European European, which has signed

a deal with Iran, this peace-making deal in the Gulf because nobody

wants a nuclear armed war between these two powers. I wonder how

emotions are running in the Foreign Office at the moment?

The problem is, he speaks as a pundit. As a journalist? I could ask

a question in the Gulf where I go regular lane I could have said that.

He is not a -- regularly and I could have said that. But he is not a

pundit, he is the Foreign Secretary And we had the position where the

opposition try to defeat them on arming the Saudis. What does this

sound like? The Saudis say - the British political establishment is

not keen on us at the moment. They might have taken that away from the

comments. Theresa May has given an interview

in which she's criticised civil servants for using a certain word

or phrase that's popular So our question today

is, what's the word? A) Corbynism, b) Populism,

c) The squeezed middle or d) Jams At the end of the show Paul will

give us the correct answer. So last night MPs overwhelmingly

passed a Government amendment calling on ministers to trigger

Article 50 by the end They also approved a Labour motion

calling on Ministers to publish a "plan for leaving the EU" before

the exit negotiations begin. But what do we already

know about what this MPs are asking Theresa May

about her vision for Brexit but there were some clues

in her speech to the Conservative The Prime Minister said leaving

the European Union meant Britain would now be able to have

"control of immigration". She also said the UK laws should

no longer be subject Both of those statements were taken

by some as a signal that the UK would not remain a member

of the single market. Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson,

also outlined a four-point Brexit plan on the Andrew Marr Show last

weekend. He said Brexit gave Britain

the opportunity to take back control of our borders,

our money, our laws, and to be able That fourth point on free trade

could mean the UK will have Britain could still pay

to get the best access to the single market -

Brexit Secretary, David Davis, told MPs last week that the Government

was considering it. The final exit deal is also

expected to be voted upon by the House of Commons,

after Mr Davis said it would be "inconceivable"

for MPs not to have a vote. But will that be

enough to satisfy MPs? And could the Supreme Court ask

Ministers to go further in how they spell out the specifics

of their exit plan? Well, there were many MPs calling

for the Government to provide more detail during the debate

in Parliament yesterday. I put the Government on notice,

that if it fails to produce a plan by the time we are debating Article

50 legislation, if we are - assuming the Government doesn't win

- amendments from this side and possibly from the other side

of the House, will be put forward, setting out the minimum requirements

of a plan. In other words, we're not

going to have a situation where the Government seeks a vote

in a vacuum, or produces This is a negotiation,

it is not a policy statement, and, therefore, where we are aiming for -

and we may be on the same page on this - where we are aiming for,

may not be the exact place of hints, I would merely remind

the House that when Moses came down from the mountain bearing

the tablet, He was pretty clear about what he

was telling people what to do. Once again, the Labour

front bench sides with They are out to try to frustrate

and overturn the way Parliamentary sovereignty,

Mr Speaker, is short hand The verdict of the people on June

23rd was absolutely clear. It would be perverse to invoke

parliamentary oversight and sovereignty as a pretext

for dither and delay. Now they promised to publish a plan,

but it's been quite clear to me from the Government's statement,

from the statements of Conservative MPs outside this

chamber in the last 24 hours that that plan will not be the white

paper that the Brexit Secretary once promised, it will not answer the big

questions about our vital access to the single market,

the rights of UK citizens abroad and EU citizens here

or issues such as tariffs. Now, to me, nothing could be

clearer than what the I'm glad to see they

find clarity amusing. I think they would benefit from some

clarity but our position on the Government's side

is very simple. We want to have some restriction

on freedom of movement. We what a change in those

arrangements, while having the widest possible access

to the single market. Those are two very

simple principles. I see various members of the front

bench chuntering in their positions but even they should be able

to understand this basic position. Joining me now is the Conservative

MP, Bernard Jenkin, and the Labour Whack to you both. Bernard Jenkin,

Iain Duncan Smith, your colleague fellow Brexiteer said last night's

vote was "historic." Why? Well it was a bit of a watershed wasn't it?

By a majority of hundreds, the House of Commons voted to invoke Article

50 by 31st March. A non-binding op Opposition Day motion which doesn't

technically force the Government to do anything. Correct but historic.

Correct but it was an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons,

that would have been unthinkable before the referendum. There you

have it. It was the House of Commons accepting the referendum result.

What did Labour achieve yesterday? I think we finally got the Government

to confirm that it will produce and publish a plan. That will give us

something to scrutinise. Do you have anything idea what the plan will

look like? It sounds to me like they want a hard Brexit. What I meant

was, the nature of the plan? Will it be a white paper, a green paper?

Back of a fag packet sent over to you. . Back of an envelope. You gave

in, if I can put it that way, without details of what the plan

will be. I think it should be a white paper. We should push hard for

that. Let's not have a childish reaction from the Government where

they bring forward a two-line bill on 30th March. Let's have respect.

And am tour debate based on a detailed plan. What do you think the

Government will do? I think the Government is likely to produce a

white paper. It is likely to be the Government's opening offer, the

shape or opening of the Government's opening offer. For the negotiations?

For the negotiations. What that white paper then be translated into

legislation? No, that white paper would be the opening position for

the negotiation of the withdrawal agreement.

And the Commons would vote on the White Paper? If it wanted to, it

could. Would that be enough? Yes, if the plan isn't good enough they

would have to come back with a better one. It could be that the

Supreme Court may rule that actually you need legislation to do this, a

motion in parliament, even for a white Paper, doesn't change the law.

I don't know if that is how they will rule but that is a strong

argument that has been put by Lord Pannick on the side of the

plaintiffs. If they do that, they motion would not be enough. We would

then need a bill as well. While this is going on, anybody studying

A-level politics should be watching the Supreme Court hearing because

you are getting an almost English Civil War enunciation of the English

Cottage Ouschan for first time by people who know about it -- English

Constitution. The critical problem for the soft Brexiteers like me, I

want the softest possible Brexit, we must do it, but I want to stay in

the Single Market, I want minimal changes to the freedom of movement.

If it isn't that and the Europeans at the end of the two years give us

a very tough deal, what do you do? The people on the Labour benches and

the Conservative rebels need to be prepared to say that they would vote

it down. Let's go to the White Paper first. Do you think they would have

to be legislation to enact the White Paper? No, the White Paper, we are

muddling up two things, we may or may not need legislation to enact

Article 50. The negotiation will result in an agreement and the

agreement may or may not need legislation but the negotiating

position could not be... Unless there is a mad amendment put in the

Article 50 bill saying that the government must achieve this and

this, that would be crazy. I assume that is what Labour would like to

do, if the government laid out a negotiating position, its broad

position in an act of Parliament... That would be crazy. You would want

to amend it? We can't do the crystal ball gazing, if they come forward

with a plan, a piece of legislation that isn't in the national interest

and we have to go to them and say that you have to come back with a

better one. The clear thing is not connecting it to not triggering

Article 50. We need to hold the government to account, not the

ransom. I'm trying to get clarity here -- not to ransom. He White

Paper wouldn't be that long but it would outline the strategic aims of

the government, and then almost a short, almost a three line act of

Parliament simply saying, we now vote to trigger Article 50 and begin

negotiations as laid out in the government White Paper. What the

government has promised is a vote at the end of the Article 50 process. I

think that's the key. This is so dynamic. On the deal? Yes. David

Davies said yesterday that he thinks it is inconceivable that there

wouldn't be a vote at the end of the two-year period. He probably said it

was inconceivable that Donald Trump would win! I'm not a betting man.

The bill won't mention the White Paper, the negotiation will not be

made just as a bull in law. Our system works. The government

proposes and Parliament disposes. If Parliament does not like the

government's negotiating in the European Union, ultimately

Parliament can sack the government and it would become an issue of

confidence and I'm certain we would win on the issue. At the end of the

process, what would happen if we have a vote, two years have gone and

we have a deal, some will like it and some won't. If the Commons then

voted for the deal, off we go, but if it votes against the deal, it

isn't a vote for a better deal, it's not even a vote to stay or leave, it

is just a vote for no deal. I think... These are all

hypotheticals, but I think it's more possible than not, actually. It

takes two to tango and the Europeans are in no mood to give us anything

other than a hard, clear Brexit. That may suit the government. It

might but it might not suit them because they need to sell to British

industry this transitional deal of Nissan getting a piece of the

action, the insurance industry getting equivalents. Even this

fairly Eurosceptic Tory government would not accent a straightforward

brick. Do you have a clear idea in your mind off what the broad

strategic aims should be off Brexit? I can give my opinion, I don't have

any inside knowledge. I think the government is likely to make a very

broad offer, 00 offer on tariffs and an offered to translate the regular

tui services for trade into a system of mutual recognition -- regulatory

services. It is in everybody's interests to do that. The

alternative, especially on tariffs, if they don't want to do that offer,

we would go to the WTO tariffs and we would raise a lot of money on EU

imports into the country which we could spend an Loring business

taxation, improving incentives. -- Loring. -- Loring taxes. There is

this talk about access to the Single Market. If they wanted us to pay for

access, then they are caught tariffs and we will pay them. I didn't ask

about tariffs, that's another issue. Where does this leave the Supreme

Court? The top judge on the Supreme Court said, I'm not saying it's his

opinion, I suspect it isn't but he said people will wonder, if

Parliament has voted for Brexit, as it did by such a huge amount, what's

the point of the Supreme Court? The answer perhaps is that the court may

still insist that there has to be legislation. The court could insist

that but I think we're beginning to see that this action has been rather

otiose. Otiose? An American elevator? That's Otis! Unnecessary

and time wasting. The Supreme Court had to get themselves out of a

difficult spot. The courts don't like to interfere in Parliament. A

rather odd situation where we are waiting for a judgment... Spending

millions of pounds of taxpayers money on this otiose... On the other

point you raised about the process, it is vital that we have a

transitional arrangement as part of the withdrawal agreement. We aren't

going to get the full deal with in the process. I'm going to stop you

because we will definitely be back on this! More than once! Thank you

both. Many MPs seem to agree

that the referendum was a vote in favour of stronger

controls on immigration. But beyond that, there doesn't seem

to be much agreement on what our immigration system

should look like once Well, today the Home Affairs Select

Committee is launching a nationwide Its chair, Yvette Cooper,

has been speaking this morning. Let's take a look at

what she had to say. We know that immigration

is important for Britain but it also has to be controlled and managed

so that the system is fair, and so the public can

have confidence in it Right now, that doesn't happen

and public concern has steadily grown and it has consistently been

among the highest concerns Often the debate about immigration

has been angry and polarised and has been an excuse for some people

to whip up fear or anger and divide communities,

making it harder to have thoughtful discussion about the

reforms that are needed. And some people have

felt that they simply What do you think the referendum

told us about people's opinions on immigration? I think for a lot of

people it was about immigration and wanting more control. For others it

wasn't and we shouldn't oversimplify it. For some people it was about

sovereignty, for some people it was concerns about the economy, simply

wanting change but for a lot of people it was about immigration. I

think more widely, if you look at concern across the country, around

half of the people in opinion polls will say that immigration benefits

the economy but three quarters will say that they want the level to be

lower. A mixture of opinions, in favour of coming in and staying out.

You seem to have all of the information. The enquiry is going to

look at three things. On Brexit, what does it mean? What kinds of

controls do people want? What sorts of reforms could you have? Sometimes

people have talked about work permits, points-based systems,

controls on low skilled migration, free movement. There is a series of

different things. We know people want change, but what kind of

change? People don't have a voice in that because there is no government

consultation happening. We want another Trinity for people across

the country to get involved in the debate. -- and opportunity. When you

look at Brexit and its effects, is it about Loring the number of

immigrants coming here? It is going to be open to whatever anybody wants

to raise with us. If people across the UK say that isn't what we voted

for in the referendum, even if we voted Leave, and a lot of people say

we are happy with immigration, then that is what you advise the

government to do? I wouldn't expect that to be the conclusion but we

should have a chance to have the debate. Would you admit that you

didn't know what was going on in your own constituency and nor did

many Labour MPs. Your seat is in Normington. If you look at the vote,

63% voted leave, would you say that you are out of touch with your

constituents? No, because I knew people were concerned about

immigration. But you did nothing about it. And they were concerned

about the EU as well. That's one of the reasons why I thought, even

before the referendum, that we should have more restrictions on

free movement and I argued that before the referendum because I

think the real concern in an area like mine is immigration being

exploited by employers using it to undercut wages and jobs. This isn't

about one constituency. It is a place to start. It is about all over

the country. You are a Labour MP and it is a start and David Miliband

also said that you recognise the problem of too many low skilled

migrants from Eastern Europe but were not prepared to end freedom of

movement, were you? I called for reforms to freedom of movement

because I thought we should have that within the EU, that is

something I have always thought. David Cameron asked for that and did

not get it. We had that debate in the referendum, but we know that the

Brexit negotiations are going to start, the key thing is what our

people are going to want from it? My view is that we shouldn't be arguing

to carry on with free movement, there have been a series of issues.

We should be looking at what controls people want. I don't want

to prejudge what has to be a cross-party enquiry and a different

kind of enquiry. Select committees don't normally do this kind of

enquiry and we will go around the country listening to people's views

and see if we can build a consensus. Often it has been too divided. And

within the Labour Party because you say you recognise some of the

concerns and would like restrictions on freedom of movement but Jeremy

Corbyn, Diane Abbott and Emily form bree believes that immigration has

been hugely beneficial, they have the figures to back it up, so how

does Labour square that? You think the numbers should come down and

they don't. I disagree with Jeremy and Diane on that and that's

something I've said for some time. So does the party have an agreed

position on the issue on which you are doing the enquiry? Party has to

have its processes to make the decision and that is for the front

bench but what we are trying to do is a backbench select committee

enquiry where we are not driven by the front bench positions, whether

that's what the government says or the Labour front bench day. We

listen to evidence from around the country and try and pull together

what a consensus should be. I agree that immigration has benefited,

people coming from abroad, has benefited the country for centuries,

it just has to be managed so the system is fair. We've talked about

immigration for a long time, people may say that we have had a

referendum, not Mrs Willey on immigration but it was a big part of

it for many people in favour and against, so what will be enquiry do?

-- not necessarily. There are two processes, one where the government

gets a position on freedom of movement, it doesn't have one. The

government says it wants to restrict freedom of movement. It has not

given us any detail. Labour needs a national policy forum and must come

up with what it wants to replace freedom of movement. Freedom of

movement has gone, it is part of the Treaty of Lisbon, we will be out in

two years, so all of the parties need a replacement. The process of

democratic, liberal minded politicians trying to hear and also

heal what is coming from working class communities. We have this kind

of euphemism, concerned about migration. I come from a town where

there hasn't been a lot of immigration but it is now the target

of Ukip, they are apparently going to stand in the by-election. I know

how migration has played with my dad's generation. It seemed to them

that what was being said is that we have destroyed your union rights and

many services you rely on and here is the ideal worker, somebody with

no writes, no right to vote, and we need to be able to go to them and

say, we have an answer, a clear political answer that allows you to

be comfortable with what are inevitable high levels of migration

with or without the EU. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn has been

wrong to say he is not worried, relaxed about numbers, for those

communities you talked about? He specifically said, somebody put to

him, is there going to be a numbers thing? I think you don't start out

from a number. You would then have to go to a General Hospital across

the road in London and say which of the Greek, Italian or Spanish nurses

you don't want to be there. You start from the principle of

reengaging with people's genuine concerns. Thank you very much,

Yvette Cooper. Fresh splits have emerged

in the Corbynite campaigning organisation, Momentum,

which was set up in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn's election

as Labour leader in 2015. The power struggle has placed

a question mark over the future of the organisation and those

close to Jeremy Corbyn fear the emergence of what they call

a "parallel party". Momentum emerged just over a year

ago, following Jeremy Corbyn' elections. Now at the centre of a

power struggle t has over 20,000 members and tens of thousands more

on its valuable data base, currently in the hands of its founder. Join

Momentum, let's build our movement. It is a great campaigning tool and

played a crucial role in helping get Jeremy Corbyn re-elected in the

summer. But now, so-called younger movementists, complain of a takeover

by older sectarianists. After a vote last Saturday handed power to a few

dozen delegates, rather than giving thousands of members a vote in

shaping Momentum's future direction. One on the winning side was Jill

Mountford from the Alliance For Workers' Liberty. She is a member of

Momentum's ruling committee but was ex#13e8d from the Labour Party. What

direction does she want Momentum to move in? I want it to pryer

advertise a campaign against austerity, against social inequality

and a campaign that rises the idea that solidarity wants working class

people fighting for a better national health service a better

welfare state. For the public ownership of the utilities, of the

banks of the railways. These are the things that Momentum should be

campaigning for now. But some activists fear this could lead to a

takeover of Momentum. One member of Jeremy Corbyn's office told me,

"Momentum is starting to look like a parallel political party", describe

Saturday's result as "extremely problem attic." Momentum's women's

rep, Laura Murray was at the meeting and was horrified and wrote that the

"Magsal committee was like a doughnut with a desire for change

with a sticky centre of angry socialist stalwarts. She said the:

Professor Cecile Wright was also at the meeting. I'm not quite sure

whether we have lost a great deal. The thing is, members will still

participate in the activities. I would have preferred the greater

participation of one member one vote. Because, it's an in accord

with what Momentum stands for. So, without wishing to reference the

people's front of Judaea here, could this potential split of the

left-of-centre left, be good news for the centre left? I don't think

this is really good news for anyone in the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn

has said we are on general election footing and Momentum who have

brought in lots of new supporters in the party through Jeremy Corbyn's

leadership have spent six weeks arguing about a meeting about a

conference that is going to be taking place in two months' time.

Instead of focussing on the kind of issues that we should be foe cousin

on, in the lead-up to a general election. -- focussing on. How do

this develop? The left issues that there are involved in the national

committee, on this occasion, they want to be part of the mainstream, a

mainstream platform to talk about socialist ideas. Floss desire

whatsoever to be a Momentum party. But even the prospect of some

Trotskyists being handed power to shape Momentum is already proving a

contentious issue. We're joined now by Luke Akehurst

who is secretary of Labour First, And spaul with us. Paul it was

writeden in August that Trotskyists were infiltrating Momentum. And the

Corbyn said he was pedalling conspiracy theories. The person

there, Jill Mountford is not a member of the Labour Party. How she

could have been infiltrating Labour by Momentum is difficult to see.

Vieia. Why is this happening? In response to this big bust-up that

happened in summer, Momentum was trying to gits act #20g9. The way it

was trying to do -- get its act together. It was two fold. One

member one vote and having an app, like on your cell phone to vote for

things that you wanted. What is it there to do? To avoid tiny groups of

he enactment Trotskyists from the 1970s taking over. That's their key

skill. Are they trying to do that? Well, look some are not Trotskyists.

What does that lady call them in the article there? You know a sticky

centre of older people obsessed with sectarian methodology. Socialist

stalwarts People who are obsessed with anti-Zionism, people obsessed

with what we call single issue politics. So it is not just the

small - some are not Trotskyists, some are rampant supporters of

Vladimir Putin. And a lot of them are not in the Labour Party. We

should - Momentum I'm a member of Momentum. The point if you are

infiltrating, you are not in the Labour Party but you want to get

into T The point of Momentum. It has a tiny apparatus and cannot police

itself the way a party K one of the reasons why people like me joined

it, is you have Labour First, you saw them there, we need an

organisation in Labour that broadly supports Jeremy's politics. I need

to bring him in. What due make of it? Well -- do you make? It is quite

extraordinary. For people on my moderate wing of the Labour Party,

we sat back, watching the spectacle of an organisation that just

delivered us a second leadership election victory for Jeremy Corbyn,

ripping itself apart over the most obscure issues of internal policy

making. I don't understand why an inTesche grouping within the Labour

Party needs -- an internal grouping within the Labour Party needs to

have conferences and policy making. That's the job of the Labour Party.

I don't understand why they didn't listen to what Tom Watson said in

the summer. He said "These Trotskyists groups up to this,

Momentum could straightforwardly say the Labour Party has expelled you

because you are a member of an entryist organisation, you have no

place in a group whose primary function is to operate inside the

Labour Party." They didn't listen and made a rod for their own back.

The daughter of the Unite Chief of Staff, Andrew Murray, a leading

member of Momentum, she said of trod skiism "We would be engaging in

collective self-denial if we were to downplay its prevalence in

Momentum." And goes on to talk bits vocal, disruptive, overbearing but

they have won key positions in the regional commented and comments "The

sectarian attitude taken by Trotskyite groups within Momentum is

destructive in our movement? I would say that's broadly right. What I

would finish is what you said, although slightly less VIP

dictively. Momentum needs to become ready to be an affiliated society

for Labour. Everybody has to be in the Labour Party, and confirm to

Labour Party rules, and if somebody breaks Labour rules as for example,

Jackie Watson was doomed to have done, so she's suspended from the

party. So a modern Tribune group? Yes but not like Tribune in this

sense, we need to be a network, observe, broad and diverse. Would

that satisfy you? Well, yes, I don't - I think it is fine for

organisations with particular left-wing policy stance that want to

take Labour in a particular direction to exist inside the Labour

Party, as long as they are not providing a bridgehead for people

whose loyalty is to another party. You think they are. . So Jill

Mountford she is a members of Alliance For Workers' Liberty, she

was expelled from the Labour Party for that. It was a separate

political party registered on the Electoral Commission. It is blatant

in its wish to enter into the Labour Party and recruit people and try to

take it over. Were you with David Aaron Viv, a former member of the

Communist Party of Great Britain. He said "Labour is just a carcass for

the trots to feast off." I don't think it is that far gone but if it

car advice on at this level that's had you it'll end up. I think the

party is in healthier state below the national level, where Momentum

as a whole is being pushed back. Being pushed back? Being pushed back

at regional conferences and constituency parties AGMs. The

people on my side of the party are in fine fettle. You are in Momentum.

Tell us what it is like. Buzz Feed published an account of a meeting,

it involved 18 members of the national committee, including the

fire union boss, pretty much on the hard left along with for people on

the Trotskyite group, Mack 2, which you have referred to. How many are

---ing Mc-2. How many are in this appliance, I don't think you would

need a double Devon and Cornwall bus. -- Alliance For Workers'

Liberty and Labour Party Marxists. I think that's Red Labour. I have

tried to research. My short answer, I have no idea. I have never been to

a meeting. Why did you join them? Out of solidarity. The majority of

new members, the energy that they brought, whilst you are right, that

some of our local constituency party is increedably vibrant and include

people from all parts of the country but to get things done you need to

have some form of local organisation. But I can tell you

this, if Jill Mountford is not allowed into the Labour Party and I

cannot see her in short order being allowed to be in it and remains an

expelled member of the party and remains in Momentum I will not

remain it and nor will, I can tell you thousands of us. This will be

sorted in the direction of party loyalty, discipline and a moving on,

very quickly. Well, I hope it is sorted. Because it is really

confusing. Me, too, actually. It is like the People's Front of Judaea.

What does PC stand for? Provisional committee. Even they said it was a

coup I looked it up. People need to look at the other faction of

Momentum and the background of people. Certainly in terms of family

background but Laura Murray's dad, is or was on the Poll it Borough of

the Communist Party of Britain. There is an element of Stalinists

Trotskyism going on here. That is not yet a crime. Final li, I would

suggest interestingly, finally, I would suggest it is interesting,

maybe from Mr Corbyn's position is Len McCluskey and him standing again

for election, as I understand t you are a member of Unite. What do you

make? You shouldn't underestimate the strategic pornces of this, if

Len was to lose to injury articled Coin who will probably be the

moderate candidate. -- Gerard. Do you think he will? I think it is

possible. That it is very important in ter with the big blocks of vote

that is come with Unite and I the push lined

jeered Coin will be the push on labour's rights and stop interfering

in the policies of the Labour Party so much.

Our MPs are all elected by a simple majority in one

But across the Kingdom we will now use a variety of electoral systems.

But now Conservative MP, Ranil Jayawardena, wants first past

the post for every election in England as he told

It is first-past-the-post that gives our constituents the certainty

of knowing who their representative is in this place and this is widely

understood by the people of this country as well.

In the referendum of 2011, first-past-the-post was strongly

supported by a margin of more than 2-1.

Its greatest strength, of course, is that every person has

one vote and the candidate who gets the most votes wins.

It does not unnecessarily burden the taxpayer with equipment

and administration costs and the results are declared

quickly, which provides additional certainty,

And the Conservative MP Ranil Jaywardena joins me now.

And we're also joined from Cardiff by Katie Ghose

from the Electoral Reform Society, which campaigns for more

Welcome to both of you. What are you so worried about? The way that

people voted in 2011 was very clear, 2-to-1, they want to keep first past

the post and bit by bit it is being chipped away. We should listen to

the people. The problem with first past the post is that you can't turn

the clock back, we have a range of different systems used for different

elections and it gives other parties a chance. We are turning the clock

back according to the wishes of the people in terms of the European

Union, the people have said that we should leave, why don't we listen to

what they said in 2011 by more than 2-to-1 and allow people a clear

choice? What was the turnout? You have that data, not me. 67% of

people voted. The turnout was lower than we would like because it wasn't

a local election day. Another part of the bill was to increase turnout

in local elections. What do you say in response to the idea that this is

listening to the people? It is unusual to have this conversation

about turning the clock back. This proposal would be a big step

backwards for democracy just at a time when people are wanting to

support more parties than ever before and to have a real choice.

Downgrading institutions and officeholder elections that are

important to the most archaic voting system would actually denied people

a choice in the vote that counts and there's a reason why every new is

the Jewish in an office like the police and crime commissioners have

adopted a fairer system -- white is a new institution and office.

Is there grounds for the voting public to change the system even

further? There is definitely growing support for the growing principle

that votes should be fairly reflected in Parliament. But

changing the first past the post system? What's the evidence that

people want change it? The latest research shows three quarters of

people believe there should be a much better reflection of votes cast

in the number of seats that parties get in parliaments and assemblies.

We live in a multiparty democracy whichever way you luck at it,

although Labour the Tories dominate. In 2011, they got two thirds of the

vote. This is about whether we want political parties to be able to

stage deals up, like, sadly, the coalition, which is thankfully a

rarity. Was the coalition a mistake? I want a majority government so that

the people know... That was first past the post. It is a rarity.

People need a clear choice. People knew what Tony Blair was going to

achieve, they can make a clear choice and kick out a government and

they can't do that with PR. That is simple, everybody understands first

past the post. When you look at the other ways of voting, the

alternative vote, single transferable vote, I'm not sure I

could give you a definitive expiration of each of them. People

understand first past the post. People understand and are coping

extremely well with a variety of systems that we have in place in the

UK and I don't think it would be for any of us to say to Scottish or

Welsh voters and people who voted in the London assembly elections that

they can't cope. I didn't say they can't cope, they may say they prefer

a simple system. There is no evidence and certainly not a

groundswell for people to stay with the status quo. The two choice

system, supplementary vote for the mayor and police commissioners. If

you have quite a lot of executive power, it is important to have the

broad support of your community and that is why the two choice system,

the supplementary vote system, was introduced, so people could have

legitimacy. So there is no evidence? The Electoral Reform Society is

supposedly a charity but they are not very independent at all. Bernard

Jenkins looked at this before as chairman of the public

administration committee. Not independent, based on what? Katie

has previously sought selection as a Labour Party candidate. Most Labour

MPs support first past the post. It is important not to allow the

society to speak for the whole country. The people who spoke for

the country are the people who spoke in the referendum. You must answer

that point that you are not independent. I am proud to be the

chief executive of a nonpartisan organisation, every day of the week

we work with parties from all just make people from all parties and

none. We are concerned about voter choice. People have changed voting

patterns for a long time, wanting to support a wider range of parties

than ever before. The problem is that we are trying to cram what

worked for a 2-party system when most of us voted for Conservative or

Labour, doesn't work any more. People are wanting a real choice in

their politics and that's what myself and my organisation are all

about. Why do you think it would be particularly appropriate in these

turbulent times? People want to be able to decide on a host of issues,

how the country is taken forward and how their local area is governed. We

haven't discussed giving people a super Thursday, a chance to shape

local government across every area of government, which works in other

countries and we would save over ?20 million, and it would give people a

decisive decision over how the country is governed. That's it,

thank you. Interesting development being reported by Bloomberg, the

McDonald's Corporation saying is going to create a new holding

company based in the UK, moving from Luxembourg and paying tax on the

royalties it receives from food sales everywhere in the world

outside the United States. Interesting development. HMRC may be

opening the champagne. Now, it's that time of year

when the pundits get out their crystal balls and start

making predictions for But if you'd bet this time 12 months

ago on Britain voting to leave the European Union, or

Donald Trump being elected President of spare cash to enjoy this

Christmas. So, what could the new

year have in store? For instance, could 2017 be the year

when we see Jeremy Corbyn walk We'll be discussing that with our

Guest of the Day in a moment. But first here's a look back on some

of the more unexpected Just as warning, there's some flash

photography in the mix. Good God. I will be advocating vote

lead. -- Leave. The British people have spoken and the answer is, we're

out. Extraordinary moment. Brexit! I think the country requires fresh

leadership to take it in this direction. I no longer have

confidence in his leadership and he then dismissed me from the Shadow

Cabinet. I don't think Jeremy is in a position to provide the leadership

we need to be able to offer the voters and the country. Keep Corbyn!

Jeremy Corbyn is elected the leader of the Labour Party. After just 18

days in charge it is reported that Diane Jaynes has quit as leader of

Ukip. There's never been a US presidential campaign quite like it.

OK! They have just called Florida for Donald Trump.

An amazing evening, it's been an amazing two year period and I love

this country. Thank you, thank you very much. You don't often hear that

in American presidential candidates, loving America!

What memories, and that was just the short version.

Paul Mason is still with us and we're joined now

by Philip Collins from The Times who was also a former

Have the odds improved on Mr Corbyn becoming Prime Minister? I don't

think so, unfortunately. If you are 16 points behind at this stage it is

probably not likely. To be fair to Mr Corbyn, you must say that

Labour's problems go back before he was the leader, it is going to be

difficult for Labour to win if it can't regain a significant number of

seats in Scotland and it lost that before he became the leader. Indeed.

So the task is very difficult. The polls don't have a great track

record but they have often been wrong within a margin of error, like

the US election and they were not that inaccurate on the popular vote

there. They would have to be really wrong about Mr Corbyn for him to be

the next Prime Minister. I don't think they're wrong, but they may

underestimate Labour support in England and Wales by a bit. At the

moment that spy will be where we are. -- that's probably where we

are. Britain leaves the European Union, that is big and we are in a

new crisis which is going to get worse next year. What Labour then

has to do is basically come to power as an insurgency and say that we

have a solution, if the Tory government falls apart. They are to

be screaming at each other in number ten over this Boris Johnson thing.

As soon as they try to do anything positive they fall apart. That's how

I see Labour getting into a position to form a government. In order to

suggest that Labour could form a government you have two postulate

some kind of catastrophe for the Theresa May government over the next

year or so and the obvious way to do that is to say that leaving the EU

will be a disaster for the country. I don't take the apocalypse view, I

don't think it's going to be a disaster and even if there is

economic detriment come I don't think it is going to be a decisive

event like black Wednesday, I think it will be incremental and slow, so

the political consequences when to be as slow and -- as immediate. Can

we see Mr Corbyn in the same anti-mainstream vein as Donald

Trump? I wouldn't put him there because if you look at immigration,

he hasn't made a single attempt to be populist about it. I don't think

the left in general is populist at the moment but it has answers about

what Britain must become as a post-Brexit society and in a world

where globalisation falls apart and the European Union, our closest

market, is falling apart and we have a security situation with Russia, we

will need parties that can embody social justice and have historic

links with working people. The idea that we had a recession, that the

answer to that would be... We're going to have a recession. Let's

assume we do, extraordinary to suppose that the answered to that

will be Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, when they are 20 points

behind the Conservatives. It wasn't the answer in the 1930s. It seems

unlikely that any... I don't think any leader, any leadership team has

come back from the kind of deficits that Labour is running against the

Tories. The reaction against what you could call recessionary levels

of unemployment in Italy, Spain and Portugal, especially places like

France, has been a move to the right, the hard right rather than

the hard left. That's been because the social Democratic party in

France for example has proved incapable of moving to the left.

They tried when they came to power and then they gave it up. They tried

with Francois Mitterrand in 92. Places where radical left solutions

have been tried, like Greece, they may have been defeated by the IMF

but they won two elections and remained in power, an important

shield for the Greek people. 20% for the radical left in Spain, three

major cities are being run well by them. That is what Labour would have

done if Jeremy were not in power. Is Jeremy Corbyn a transitional figure

for Labour to something else, something on the left? Very

probably, it is probable the next leader will be on the left, not

quite where Jeremy Corbyn is. If I was 67 and if someone suggested

anything other ban me being transitional why would be surprised.

We will need decades to reinvent Labour as a radical left party.

Decades? You said that there is a recession coming. The recession is

predicted next year by the OBR. No, they didn't. Much more important, we

should have an election as soon as possible. Labour have to keep saying

that, I believe we can win it. Thank you.

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

I can't remember the? Back -- the question!

What is the correct answer? I don't know where it is. Just about

managing, the Jams. You should have told me! That's the point of the

quiz. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. I am on This Week tonight

with Liz Kendall, Michael Portillo, Dermot Murnagan and

Miriam Gonzalez Durantez. He's a scientist.

Brilliant, apparently.