08/12/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles