10/01/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Jeremy Corbyn has been giving us his new year's resolutions ahead

of his big speech on Brexit today - the Labour leader says he's "not

-- wants a cap on maximum earnings and wedded" to EU

But he also tells the BBC he stands by his view that immigration

The Health Secretary admits NHS services in some parts of England

were in an 'extemely fragile' state over Christmas.

to relax the four-hour target for accident and emergency?

We'll speak to his predecessor Andrew Lansley.

The power-sharing government at Stormont is on the brink

of collapse after Martin McGuinness quits as Deputy First Minister over

Is Northern Ireland heading for a snap election,

And we'll be saying farewell to Lord Biro, leader

of the Bus Pass Elvis Party, as he hangs up his jumpsuit -

and his bus pass - and says he's stood in his last

With us for the whole of the programme today, it's Phil

He's a columnist for the Times and he also used to be speech

although probably not one Phil was asked to help with -

Jeremy Corbyn is going to be talking about Labour's approach to Brexit

But he's already given us plenty to chew over in a series

he said he would like to see a cap on maximum income to address

inequality. On immigration it was suggested he would back the idea on

restrictions of EU nationals' rights to live a work in UK. This is what

he said BBC political editor. The freedom of movement is being

exploited by unscrupulous employers. That is what I want

to put an end to. But do you or do you

not want to end...? I want us to have market access

in Europe, I want us And that means continuing

with freedom of movement? Let's see what comes out of the

negotiations. Also the way the government approaches this ought to

be more open and reporting to Parliament about what they are doing

and we are working with Socialist parties in government and opposition

across Europe to build a good relationship with them for the good

of this country and those future negotiations. Barry Gardner is the

Shadow Secretary of State for international trade. Do you support

curbing freedom of movement in the EU. We have said we are not wedded

to the principle of free movement. We are wedded to jobs and economic

prosperity, which has to be any government's topline in the UK. We

want the continuation of jobs here and that means foreign companies

have to be able to invest in this country, and it means the

continuation of jobs in Europe. We have 2 million living and working in

Europe and these negotiations have to secure those jobs and that

prosperity which is what we depend on. The briefing overnight from the

Labour Party was that Jeremy Corbyn would signal a change in direction.

We know he has been wedded to EU freedom of movement, and he was

going to say today that was not going to continue. Why did he go on

to say he's still feels the levels of immigration are not too high,

from the EU, and he said the EU says access to the single market requires

freedom of movement, I would say economically we've got to be able to

trade in Europe, in other words he would cave in to Brussels demands.

It is not about caving in. Let's separate things that are distinct.

One is the negotiating we have to do with partners in Europe about a new

relationship and how we protect jobs and the British economy. They have

stated clearly the four freedoms, one of which is freedom of movement,

is a critical element of having unfettered access into the single

market. He said if that is the price, so be it. We will sign up to

freedom of movement. What we have said equally is we are not wedded to

free movement as a principle, we are wedded to getting the best access

that secures jobs and economic prosperity. There is a shift here.

It is semantics, I think. Most people will say, Jeremy Corbyn is

saying exactly what he has said before, he said he had not changed

his mind about levels of immigration, maybe rightly so, but

that is not what we were told he would say this afternoon. It is

unravelling in his interviews when he says, although I am not wedded to

free movement I will support it if that's the price for each economic

jobs and prosperity. You are bundling together immigration

controls with specifics in negotiation about freedom of

movement as a principle and price in negotiations one has to pay to

secure economic prosperity. Is it a price you are paired to pay for

access to the single market? We have said we are not wedded to that and

when it comes to immigration controls, we have said we believe in

fair immigration rules and controls and properly managed migration. What

does that mean for viewers, they want to know what Barry Gardner is

saying, is he saying, in his fair managed migration policies that the

Labour Party will support that numbers will come down. Is

immigration to high? Let me answer both questions because there are

two. The first question is answered by saying we want to ensure

immigration policy works for the advantage of the people who are

currently living in this country, and not only for the advantage of

people who want to come here and the perception that the public have had

in the past is it works too much in favour of people who want to come

here and not in favour of people already here. That is the first

point, the second part of your question, it relates to the

management of migration. That is about ensuring instead of simply

applying as the Conservatives try to do under Theresa May at the Home

Office, an artificial number. And yet we now have record migration

into this country, we are saying, let's look at the real problem, what

is attracting people to come to this country? That is what Ed Miliband

said, he wanted curbs on the way... Let me completely answer. You have

not said if you want levels to come down. The way of ensuring levels

come down to reasonable levels is to ensure employers are not able to

attract people here, the workers directive that enables people to

come as agency workers undercutting wage levels and jobs in the UK, that

is what we want to stop and why Jeremy was setting out in the speech

today, setting out a positive view of how we can be better off even

outside the European Union. In your mind, has Jeremy Corbyn said

anything different, has he stuck to the script briefed to everybody to

say there is a shift in policy? My initial impression was there was a

shift to managed migration, I thought it was significant and I

take Barry's word it is. I think he is muffling the message, Jeremy

Corbyn, to put it mildly. When a Labour leader gets to the question

of immigration, they end up talking about exploitation of immigrants,

which I agree is a question, it is not the question posed by most

people, that is not what they are worrying about, particularly when

they talk about immigration and that question, do do you want immigration

to come down? It is difficult and hard for the Labour Party and this

is not a criticism of Jeremy Corbyn because the Labour Party is in a

strategic dilemma. Many Labour MPs, particularly in northern

constituencies, Hussein numbers have to come down. It is easy to give a

yes or no answer and Jeremy Corbyn on other occasions has said

immigration is not too high but the problem is the top 25 Remain

constituencies in the country are Labour and so are the top 25 Brexit

constituencies, which is a serious problem and the degree in model in

policy is probably to be expected given back to you are contending

with that. Do you accept he modelled the policy? That Jeremy Corbyn has

unravelled what was supposed to be the new policy? I don't and I do not

think it is muddled. The model is the government failure to articulate

a policy about how it will negotiate the new relationship with Europe. I

wanted to pick up on something Phil said. He said that Labour

politicians always retreat into talking about the exploitation of

immigrants. It is about the exploitation of workers in this

country who are being undercut by those coming in by the workers

directive, the agencies bringing them in and exploiting them and

using that to drive down standards and wages for British workers, which

is what we object to. Arguably Ed Miliband had these policies. And we

are with the current levels of net migration way beyond tens of

thousands, which is the government level and Jeremy Corbyn suggested he

would set a maximum earnings cap. Either you do a cap,

or you look at the levels Other countries have got some

policies developing this, and I think we need to consult

with them and learn Because it can't be right that those

who are actually doing the work are often living in work in poverty,

whilst the chief executive Barry Gardner, do you support a

maximum earnings cap? David Cameron first started talking about it. I

think you look at the public sector and you have to ask yourself the

question, why in the public sector you have chief executives of

hospitals and other public sector bodies that are earning not just

more than the Prime Minister but many times more than the Prime

Minister. This is public money going to subsidise huge levels of wages

and income, which I feel cannot be justified. You are talking about the

public sector. Jeremy Corbyn seemed to be talking in general. Do you not

supported in the private sector? The Labour Party is not against

people'saspirations. It is an important distinction, do you want

to see it in the private sector? We need to look at ways in which we can

make society more equal and a cap might be one way of looking at that

but it is not the way I would favour. I believe the way to address

issues of inequality are do as the Labour Party has said, increase the

national minimum wage to a reasonable level, ensure within the

public sector you have ratios of earnings. But what was Jeremy Corbyn

saying? In the private sector you address that through taxation and in

particular... You would like higher taxation in the private sector but

not a maximum earnings cap? Jeremy Corbyn did not make that clear. You

think he was talking about the public sector, not about the private

sector? Is that something you discussed with him in Shadow

Cabinet? He made these remarks in the interview this morning and I

have not been able to discuss it with him. This was something he has

felt for some time. What is your response to the idea? One Labour

Party source thought it was a bonkers idea and that Jeremy Corbyn

had come up with that off the top of his head. Even in the interview he

left himself plenty of room, saying an earnings cap all looking at

ratios so I do not think we can take it as Labour Party policy. I largely

agree with what Barry said but in defence of high wages in the public

sector, bomb way we can improve the public sector in the past 20 years,

and we have, is that people are paid a better wage than they used to be

and in large measure that is defensible. I am sure there are

cases we can pull out but as a rule I am pleased people can do public

service jobs and be paid well. I have to end it there. Thanks.

Yesterday, Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness resigned as Northern

Ireland's Deputy First Minister in protest against how

a renewable energy scheme was set up and funded -

what has become known as the "cash for ash" scandal.

Under Northern Ireland's power sharing arrangement,

his decision to quit forces the resignation of the Democratic

Unionist Party's First Minister, Arlene Foster.

This in turn makes a snap election more likely.

But how did a green energy policy lead to the collapse

Martin McGuinness said the DUP's conduct over

the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme was the main reason

DUP leader Arlene Foster set up the scheme in 2012,

But flaws left it open to abuse as claimants could earn more cash

the more fuel they used, with the overspend estimated

Mr McGuinness accused the DUP of refusing to recognise public

anger and damaging trust in the Northern Ireland executive,

adding that his resignation was designed to "call a halt

Mrs Foster had resisted repeat calls to step aside,

but Mr McGuinness's resignation means she automatically

Northern Ireland's power-sharing agreement is designed in such a way

that both nationalist and unionist communities must be

If Sinn Fein doesn't nominate a replacement

as Deputy First Minister - which Mr McGuinness says

it won't do - then it becomes the responsibility

of Northern Ireland Secretary James Brokenshire to call an election.

The usual time period for an election campaign is six

weeks, although the law allows some flexibility.

But if a fresh election returns a similar result -

and Sinn Fein and the DUP can't reach a power-sharing agreement -

Mr Brokenshire has the power to suspend the devolved government

and effectively restore direct rule - last in place in 2007.

And within the next half hour the Northern Ireland Secretary

is expected to make a statement to the House of Commons

I'm joined now from Stormont by Sinn Fein Assembly

Why did Mr McGuinness choose yesterday to resign? This context

comes in the context of a number of serious financial scandals which

have taken place in the north of Ireland over a period of years,

known variously as red sky and under other revelations which have taken

us to the heart of corruption within the Northern business and political

class. RHI has been badly mishandled by the Democratic Unionist Party and

as a result of their reckless approach to this issue and many

other financial scandals which have beset the institutions, they have

dragged us recklessly to a tipping point. And all of this comes in the

context of a situation where the DUP have demonstrated utter contempt and

arrogance towards all sections of the community here in the north of

Ireland. In particular, the Republican and nationalist

constituency in the north, but this also extends to people who are gay,

people from the Lesbian and Gay community, towards women. We have a

situation now where the basis of the Good Friday agreement, that

principles and process have now been subject to absolute corruption. So

there has been a complete breakdown in trust as far as you are

concerned, and you have said that in the end, the financial scandal has

acted as a tipping point. But why was the DUP's offer of a public

inquiry into that scheme not sufficient for you? Because we

invited the DUP leader to reflect on this over Christmas and we said she

should step aside temporarily from her position as First Minister in

order to allow for a robust, comprehensive, judge led

investigation to get to the root of this scandal and ensure full

discovery of all of the facts and the evidence that has led to a

situation where the Northern executive faces the prospect of a

half ?1 billion being taken from our block grant from our public

expenditure settlement at a point in time when the British Conservative

government continues with unremitting austerity policies. And

the reckless decision to proceed with Brexit in relation to the

Northern economy. But as far as you are concerned, was that not a

counter-productive move for Martin McGuinness to resign? Now there will

be no chance of agreeing an independent investigation of the

type you have outlined, or recouping some of the scheme's losses, because

all the parties are likely to be in election mode. That is entirely to

miss the point. There is a huge and unprecedented public outrage in the

north of Ireland in relation to this scandal. But you can't do anything

now if you are in election mode. And there was a deepening angry about

the abusive, arrogant and contemptuous treatment that the DUP

have dished out to other parties and wider society. So now we are facing

an election, and that will provide an opportunity for the people to

speak and cast their verdict on this and tolerable and unacceptable

political situation. I hear your anger, and you say that that also

reflects great public anger, but the reality could be that once an

election is over, we are likely to be in exactly the same position,

because the two main parties will be yours and the DUP, and the terms you

have used to describe your partners in power-sharing have been pretty

forceful. How will you work together? It will change nothing.

What needs to happen on the other side of an election is a process

that ensures that we get back to an adherence to the faithful and full

implementation of the Good Friday agreement. But if it is you and the

DUP back together again, how would you do that? We need to have a

situation where the Democratic Unionist Party and political

unionism commit to equality, mutual respect and parity of esteem and

decent treatment of all citizens and propriety in government in the

aftermath of this election. Under circumstances where the DUP cannot

sign up to that modest agenda, we will not have institutions, mad

because Sinn Fein is not going back into a situation where the political

institutions of our peace process continue to be abused. Declan

kidney, thank you for joining us. We are joined now from the Central

Lobby of the Houses of Parliament by the DUP's Chief Whip Jeffrey

Donaldson. I am presuming you could hear the previous interview. You can

hear the strength of the anger. Why did Arlene Foster not resign before

she was pushed? Well, why would Arlene Foster resigned when there is

no evidence that she has done anything wrong? Why would she resign

at the behest of Sinn Fein when Martin McGuinness, the Deputy First

Minister, was under scrutiny in the inquiry into bloody Sunday? Did he

step aside during that inquiry, when it involved matters not about some

heat incentive, but people who have lost our minds on the streets of

Londonderry? He didn't step aside. So Sinn Fein and their double

standards are breathtaking. That sounds like double standards being

used as an excuse for her not to do what was the right thing to do as

far as Sinn Fein are concerned. If she had stood aside, you could have

avoided the resignation of Martin McGuinness and the bringing down of

power-sharing. It is Sinn Fein who brought power-sharing down. They

have torn up the Good Friday agreement and put the peace process

at risk. It is Sinn Fein who have abandoned people today in Northern

Ireland who faced welfare reform. It is Sinn Fein who have made it

impossible to have an independent investigation into the RHI

situation. All of these things have happened because Sinn Fein have

walked away from the table. When you're in government, you have to

take responsibility. You have to face the challenges. You don't run

away from them. The DUP wants an independent investigation. Arlene

Foster will cooperate fully with that investigation, but Sinn Fein

have blocked it. But that is because trust had completely broken down

according to Declan kidney. Do you accept his allegations that the DUP

are no longer committed to the principles and values of the Good

Friday agreement? You are not committed to equality and treating

your power-sharing partners equally, and that is what has led to this

state of affairs. That is absolute bunkum. Martin McGuinness, the

Deputy First Minister, is the former chief of staff of a terrorist

organisation that was responsible for the murder of thousands of

citizens of Northern Ireland. The attempted murder of the father of

the First Minister, Arlene Foster, they tried to kill Arlene Foster's

father, the IRA, at his farm in co Fermanagh. And despite all of that,

the DUP was prepared to move forward, to go into government with

Martin McGuinness. But have you treated them equally? Please don't

talk about trust. I am talking about what Declan Kearney said in the

interview. I understand the pain for historical context that you have

outlined. In power-sharing government, have you treated your

power-sharing partner, Sinn Fein, in the sort of way that was outlined in

the agreement? Of course we have. We share power. Sinn Fein have

ministerial office in that government. But they are the ones

who walked away from power-sharing. They are the ones who took about a

Conservative government imposing austerity, but they have just handed

power back to the very Conservative government that they despise. It

will now be direct rule from Westminster. And you think that will

now be necessary to break this impasse? I think we are in for a

long period of direct rule now, and big decisions are going to be taken

here at Westminster about Brexit, about the future of Northern

Ireland, about the likelihood of every citizen, and Sinn Fein have

just cut Northern Ireland out of that debate. They have removed

Northern Ireland's voice from the table.

There will be no devolved ministers at the table to speak for Northern

Ireland. The DUP will be at Westminster. Unlike Sinn Fein, we

take our seats here and we will use our influence at Westminster for the

good of every citizen in Northern Ireland. But the people that Sinn

Fein represent, whose livelihoods depend on the decisions that will be

taken about Brexit, they will have no voice because Sinn Fein have

abandoned them. They have walked away from power-sharing. They handed

the reins of power back to the director or ministers, so let's not

hear any crocodile tears from Sinn Fein about austerity or about

Brexit. They have given up on power-sharing and abandoned the Good

Friday agreement, not us. We will no doubt hear more from the Secretary

of State later today. What is your reaction to what has happened, the

crumbling of power-sharing? It really is a crumbling. It is a good

principle in disputes like this that both sides are right. There is

always something to be set on either side. Clearly, the DUP have not

managed this well. One thing you can do early on with a dispute in

politics is to concede a little bit and then try and move on. Clearly,

something has escalated, so we have the pretext of an energy initiative,

but it is a proxy for a series of other things. Do you think if Arlene

Foster had moved aside earlier, it would have prevented Martin

McGuinness from walking? It may have done. It is about trust. There is

also a domestic situation, because the dish government now has to play

an honest broker in the election, but the British government is

heavily reliant on members of the DUP in British government affairs

with its very small majority, so the trust in the British government to

play that role is not as good as it needs to be. Let's leave it there.

Let's turn now to the pressures on the NHS in England,

and accident and emergency departments in particular.

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt acknowledged yesterday that in some

trusts the situation was "extremely fragile".

He also seemed to indicate that the target of seeing 95%

of patients in A within four hours may have to be

changed to exclude those not in need of urgent care.

Let's have a listen to Mr Hunt in the Commons.

This Government is committed to maintaining and delivering

that vital four-hour commitment to patients.

But since it was announced in 2000, there are nearly nine million

more visits to our A, up to 30% of whom NHS England

estimate do not need to be there, and the tide is continuing to rise.

So if we are going to protect our four-hour standard,

we need to be clear it is a promise to sort out all urgent health

problems within four hours, but not all health

Is he now really telling patients that rather than trying to hit

that four-hour target, the Government is now in fact

If so, does NHS England support this move, and what guidance has he taken

from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine that this

is an appropriate change to the waiting time standard?

In Scotland, we face the same problem of increased demand

and shortage of doctors, yet 93.5% of our patients

were seen within four hours in Christmas week,

and the president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine

estimates that in areas of England it's between 50 and 60%.

That difference is how it's organised.

It's the fragmentation, it's the lack of integration.

Will he confirm that he's just announced another significant

watering down of the four-hour A target following a watering down

by the coalition in their first year in office back in 2010?

I've today recommitted the Government to that four-hour target.

In just the answer before he spoke - maybe he wasn't listening -

but I actually said that I thought it was one of the best things

about the NHS that we have this four-hour promise.

But the public will go to the place where it is easier to get in front

of a doctor quickly, and if we don't recognise

that there is an issue with the fact that a number of people who don't

need to go to A are using those A, if we don't recognise that

problem and try and address it, then we won't make A better

We did ask to speak to a health minister, but none was forthcoming.

We're joined now by the Conservative peer Andrew Lansley,

Jeremy Hunt's predecessor as Health Secretary.

In 2010, the NHS had record levels of patient satisfaction and low

waiting lists. How have we gone from that to a health system being

described by the Red Cross as being in a humanitarian crisis?

Waiting times came down after 2010 but now, six, seven years in from

the NHS living with cash increases in resources nearer to 2.5%, where

previously they got cash increases year on year in the order of 9%.

It is a money issue? There is a resources issue and organisation and

efficiency issue. The NHS was required in the last parliament to

deliver efficiencies and did so. It is being asked in this Parliament to

deliver 22 billion. That is too ambitious. -- 22 million. When you

look at accident and emergency in particular, money is being directed

towards improving community services and hospitals are being left to live

with what resources are available to them, which are inadequate. The

resources in the community are not producing demand of hospitals. You

have to reduce demand on hospitals. You conceded money is an issue and

they are not getting increases in the way they used to get and there

is less money around. To be fair, they are not asking for increases on

that scale. They are asking for increases on what is being given and

you have Tory MPs saying there is a sleight of hand on funding claims

being made by the government, that's not as much money is going into the

NHS is claimed. I understand that. In that sense, when I agreed the

ring-fence with George Osborne several years ago, it included

things like public health and education and training. So, I do

agree to that extent, but we are talking about A and the issue is

there was good information in the statement yesterday but I don't

think it addressed the three things that matter, one is we have been

looking... I can remember trying to do it for more consultants, senior

doctors in A We should put senior decision makers at the front door of

A A consultants, GPs, who can see patients quickly and determine

what the nature of the response should be. Secondly, we need to

improve social care, the ability for people to be discharged from

hospital and that is where the NHS is asking for more money, to go into

the social care system so patients can be discharged and looked after

better in the community. Thirdly, in the community, the 111 system in

particular, and there are other specs, is already receiving

three-time as many calls as the old NHS Direct -- other aspects. Is

Jeremy Hunt considering relaxing the four-hour target? I don't think he

is. I think he is trying to get across people constantly talk about

it as four hours to be seen, but it isn't. To be discharged? Treated and

discharged. Do you think you should relax it? I relaxed it to 95%. It is

missing the point to talk about moving the goalposts. More relevant

is let's say there are 30% who should not be in A The point is

to create a system at the front door, preferably outside it, where

people do not feel the need to arrive at A, or if they do, they

are handled in a GP setting, primary care setting, not become part of the

statistics. Jeremy Hunt has called people who use A drug selfish and

the crisis one of public responsibility. Is this the public's

fault? Where else can they go if they do not go to A at night? One

reason the demand for A has risen over 15 years is because they can

rely on it to be open and be looked after there and in 2004, the last

Labour government, through the GP contract removed the requirement. We

are in 2017. Isn't that the point, the reason A is for with people

coming is because there is nowhere else to go because social care is

not dealing with elderly people with chronic conditions, but is it just

about money? It is not just about money at it is about money. Andrew

is right to say social care is crucial in the health service and it

is fair to say the GP contract took away a service that meant people

when they are worried go to A It is understandable they do. Plenty of

us have done it. At a system level it makes no sense. The NHS is going

through its busiest days it ever has. It needs money but to get near

the 22 billion of efficiency savings, it needs reform. The

appetite for reform is not great. Sometimes it feels in the NHS there

is no money and they say we cannot reform or there is money and they

say they don't need to. What is the solution? Did Jeremy Hunt offer up a

solution in Parliament? He didn't. Inside the NHS and with its many

stakeholders, there has been a substantial consultation on urgent

and emergency care and I think the results will be published shortly

and on things like the 111 system and how it could deploy a response

in the community and provide clinical support may well have an

impact. We need to get, like with the major trauma centres, more

high-quality doctors into A Is Theresa May taking this issue

seriously enough? I think she has taken it seriously, but, when you

look at yesterday, she took seriously the mental health issues.

But did not put much money behind it. But there was a considerable

additional... The wider issue? Generally with the NHS, she and

Philip Hammond are in the position where they have been responsible for

large public services, who circumstances are different but

actually delivered large reductions in spending and maintained service

levels and improve satisfaction. For the NHS, it has never been that

simple. Theresa May will have to move from thinking about it in those

terms to thinking about the NHS in its proper terms. You are not

surprised to see nothing for social care in the Autumn Statement? I was

surprised because I cannot imagine any MP in any constituency is not

aware of the fact a significant proportion, in some places as many

as half of the people who used to rely on local authority support, not

accessing it any more. What happens? Those people have a crisis and end

up in A and in the past with social care support from the local

authority they might have been looked after in the community.

Now, whatever happened to the Blairites

is a cry you're unlikely to hear at many local Labour Party

But at one point, Tony Blair, who you may remember led the party

to three general election victories, was all the rage - referred

to as the Master even by political opponents like David Cameron

So why did Tony Blair and his third way fall out of fashion

There's some flash photography now as Mark Lobel looks back

to when we were told things could only get better.

But now many big names from Tony Blair's former inner

circle are in the Lords or out of party politics altogether.

At this restaurant in Westminster last month, that Blairite anthem

was resurrected for karaoke by nostalgic Labour MPs

Jeremy Corbyn had already left by the time his colleagues took

centre stage to hark back to election-winning days.

Tony Blair's former flatmate Lord Falconer was at the party,

but assures me he didn't choose the song or sing along.

He once sat in Tony Blair's Cabinet and, until recently,

Hilary Benn, Rosie Winterton, Andy Burnham, Charlie Falconer,

Now, we've all gone, because we all left in the June

We're also all getting old, so it's time now for younger

Looking back, Lord Falconer thinks the beginning of the end

of New Labour came in 2008, when the financial crash

suddenly changed voters' priorities from jobs,

fair wages and better public services.

People believing that the Government is not just not delivering for them,

it's delivering distinctly worse than it was before,

that's the landscape in which the Labour Party has now

Things also got worse for Blairites when David Miliband lost

to his brother in the battle to lead Labour following Gordon Brown,

after which first Ed Miliband and then Jeremy Corbyn distanced

The whole Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon is just a reaction

against Tony Blair and everything he stood for and is built

on the assumption that everything New Labour did is some kind

of compromise with the Tories, it was in effect a Conservative

government for 13 years, and needs to be rejected,

And as if being a Blairite wasn't getting hard enough

as Labour drifted left, after Britain voted to leave the EU

in June, divisions emerged between Tony Blair and some

The split in the Blairites over immigration is completely

I think it has ended the idea that there is a sort

As for Tony Blair himself, he is now preparing for what he insists is not

a return to frontline politics with a ?9 million personal war chest

frustrated by where Jeremy Corbyn has taken the party.

Mr Blair wrote in his autobiography of another adversary, Gordon Brown,

saying it was far better he was kept inside the tent and constrained,

than outside and let loose, or, worse, becoming a figurehead

for a far more damaging force well to the left.

Now, it seems, it's Mr Blair and his supporters that find

Our guest of the day Phil Collins is lucky enough to be one of that hardy

band, the Blairites. A diminishing number, why? This is your answer to

what became of us, we are on the Daily Politics. A good endeavour.

Where did it all go wrong? Why did it fall so spectacularly out of

fashion? It always does, nothing ever lasts for ever. Anyway I would

like to question the idea they did disappear. Simon Stephens 's chief

executive of the NHS and Andrey Vdovin this, government

infrastructures are. Alain -- James Purnell. They have gone into what

you might call organisations connected to politics but in terms

of Blairites, what happened? Two things happened and one is

political, a party tires of it. The Blair mission in the Labour Party

was hardly ever welcomed by the Labour Party, it was doing something

difficult and over time the mission got stale and the party tired of it,

but also intellectually, things shift, questions change, things that

brought you into power different and the combination, the way people got

tired of it and of course Iraq was important in fostering that mood,

but also the fact things change. If Blair or the other Blairites were in

politics now and some still are, things they will be talking about

will be different from 1994. Would it be different on the issue of

immigration, which you said at the beginning there is no coherent group

in labour who believe the same thing on immigration? I think it would be

different. The Labour Party is in a difficult place on immigration

because it has a split in the vote and does not know what to do

politically and intellectually. I do not think the category of Blairite

is useful for thinking about immigration within the party. Do you

blame anyone for the disappearance of that political movement, the

social Democratic movement? It depends whether you talk about the

Labour Party's predicament, or the absence of a wink after Tony Blair.

Wider, there are a series of guilty people and it has to be shared. The

party moved from a winning position on to Gordon Brown and again under

Ed Miliband, and has ended up in a place of catastrophic defeat under

Jeremy Corbyn. He denies that and says he will stick as leader

whatever the polls say because of his two successful leadership

campaign wins. He is at 28% in opinion polls with a government that

has problems, a precedent for a catastrophic defeat. What do you

think of his campaign announcement that they are going to campaign war

in the style of Donald Trump, much more aggressive against mainstream

media, along the lines of antiestablishment, a more populist

style? Will it help in? I don't know. It probably cannot get worse.

There are always two aspects to a successful movement and one is the

message you have got. I did not notice him trying mainstream

proestablishment politics so far but you have the question of the

messenger. Can he carried that idea? I am not sure. The interesting

question is if the left found a charismatic brilliant leader who

tried that kind of politics. You think one of the problems for Tony

Blair and Gordon Brown, in good times, we can afford to be social

Democrats and you can spend more on health and education. It becomes

tougher and less popular as a political brand when things are

tight, hence the crash. Without question. The Labour parter never

really got to grips with the question of what social democracy

means when they haven't got any money. -- the Labour Party. That is

why the movement, a good times movement, and to some extent you

have to give credit to Gordon Brown, to them for those good times, you

cannot detach them, they were running the economy, but it was

something easier to be in government with a lot of money around, without

doubt. Now, let's talk about

the centuries-old English It's a tradition that's

still going strong, but it seems not More than a dozen Morris groups,

or sides, as they're known, were dancing in Birmingham this

weekend to mark the start But the Alvechurch group,

which features dancers with black painted faces,

was forced to abandon its performance after onlookers

accused them of being racist. Here's some mobile phone

footage posted to YouTube. We're joined now by Conservative

MP Michael Fabricant, And by Lester Holloway, a campaigner

with the race-equality think-tank, Lester Holloway, you spent some time

researching the art of vacuuming faces when dancing. Do you believe

it has racial connotations? -- blackening faces. Yes, I do. There

has been enough research to show that there has been overlapped with

the minstrels from the United States and has connotations with

representation of and characterisation of black people.

Having said that, not all Morris dancers do black up, only a section

of them do. There are a lot of different theories as to how the

tradition came about. But I think if you are going into the centre of one

of the most multicultural cities in the case of Birmingham, they need to

understand how people feel about the whole concept of black facing, that

it is offensive to black people, because it comes

it is offensive to black people, going through history. So it may be

traditional and part of the heritage of some Morris dancing, but you can

see how it could be offensive. I could understand it if we were

talking about the Black minstrels, who were deliberately making

themselves out to be slaves and Afro-Caribbean is, but these are

not. These are guys who don't paint their hands. They wear blonde hair,

a bit like me, really. There is no intention to dress as a black

person. But they are still blackening their faces. Only their

faces. I am a Morris dance. I do it in Litchfield, and there is no

intention to make out that you are a black person. When people black up

their faces, do they know what the purpose is? I know what it is. It

was set up in the 15 50s, when people went begging, and they did it

to disguise their faces, because it could mean death if you were

begging. What is happening now is nonsense. There was a case about

three months ago where the MoD pulled a photograph they were going

to use in an advert of a Royal Marine with his black camouflage

paint on, and they thought that would be offensive. Let's get real

about this. This is not entirely correct. There are different

theories as to how black facing came about, but if you take the example

of Padstow in Cornwall, they don Afro wigs and are used to sing songs

which have the M word in it and are used to teach them in school in the

1980s. They have changed the name of the day, but the traditions of the

same. As a country, we are becoming more multicultural. The whole

concept of blackfacing is offensive, so I think there has to be a

recognition that this is something which is out of step. For example,

if you take the depiction of Jewish people in the character Shylock, or

indeed Fagin in Oliver Twist, the negative portrayal of Jewish people

has been downplayed, as a result of our changing society. But that is a

stereotype, which is slightly different. Are you saying the Morris

dancers are intentionally upholding a negative stereotype of black

people? I am not saying that, because many of the Morris dancers

themselves do not believe that that is what they are doing. Is that what

this is about? I think the authors such as Jill Buckland and Patricia

Baker have chronicled the link between portrayals of African people

and Morris dancing. Michael Fabricant, in 2017, should we really

expect people blacking their faces for whatever reason, even if there

is no racist intent, and it seems from what you're saying, there

isn't, but they should still be able to come out at in public and dance

in this way? If they are trying to make out that they are black people,

that is wrong and offensive and I would find it offensive. But no one

knows the history. But the Alvechurch lot, whom I know well,

they don't look remotely as if they are being Afro-Caribbean is all

black people. They do it roughly in the streets. As I said earlier, they

don't cover their hands or legs, because part of their legs are

showing as well. There is no intention by them... At the end of

the day, we got some traditions. We shouldn't be racist in any way. We

are multicultural and we should rejoice in that fact. But come on,

we have got to be realistic. England is England and we should allow for

that. Why can't we have historical traditions in the way the Morris

dancers are portraying it? I don't think people are arguing that it

should not carry on. So you are not calling for it to be banned?

Absolutely not. But when you are coming into the centre of Birmingham

and blacking up, it is not surprising that there will be a

negative reaction. So you want it banned in big metropolitan areas

where it could cause offence if there is a diverse population? We

know it causes offence and any blackfacing that takes place in a

multicultural area will do that. I am not in favour of banning it, but

am in favour of Michael think you'd think it is ridiculous. What is the

point? I could live without this tradition, if I am honest. If it

causes offence, why not voluntarily think, I may not do this? We have in

Lichfield the green man Barrett, and it is led by a man with a green

face. He is a pagan. Then we have Lichfield Cathedral, and I could

imagine if we go by your argument that the Bishop of Lichfield and the

Dean of Lichfield Cathedral might say, I am offended. Anyone can be

offended about anything if they choose to be. We have got to be

sensible about some of these things. Which is what I am asking you to be.

It should be done by a voluntary transaction, I don't want to ban

anything, but why not just not do it? Because it is a tradition and

they are not blacking up fully. And I agree with Lester Holloway with

what he was saying about the Padstow people, who do try and make out that

they are back people. But the Alvechurch lot don't even remotely

looked like black people. Now, you do Morris dancing. Do you black up

your face? No, I belong to a different group and I am afraid I am

a whitey. Thank you both for coming in.

Now, I have bad news for fans of the more

found standing at parliamentary elections and by-elections,

often with little hope of winning, but high hopes of wearing silly

Yes, Bus Pass Elvis, otherwise known as Lord Biro,

leader of the Bus-pass Elvis Party, the Elvis Defence League,

the Militant Elvis Anti-Tesco Popular Front

and the Militant Elvis Anti-HS2 party - amongst others -

is planning to hang up his bus pass and his jumpsuit

Let's have a look at a few of the elections where he has tried

Bishop, David Lawrence, Bus Pass Elvis Party, 67. Bishop, David

Lawrence, Bus Pass Elvis Party, 87. Bishop, David Lawrence, Elvis loves

pets party, 72 votes. Bishop, David Lawrence, Bus Pass Elvis Party, 61.

Bishop, David Lawrence, Bus Pass Elvis Party, 85.

And David Bishop - or should I call him Lord Biro -

of the Bus Pass Elvis Party joins us now from Nottingham.

Why did you decide to stand for the first time back in pattern in 1997?

I was fed up with sitting in the pub, moaning about what was going on

in the outside world and all the sleaze in cash for questions. So you

put your money where your mouth was, literally. What was it like? That

was an exciting election. It opened my eyes up to what was going on and

it was probably the most exciting election I have ever stood in. I met

Neil Hamilton not long ago, a couple of years back in Eastleigh, and he

said to me, you look more respectable now. And I said, so do

you! Somebody said to me, you should have said, don't go by what you see.

But it was nice to see him again. For old times sake. Did you buy him

a drink? No, he ought to have bought me one! He has more money than I

have got. He is an MEP, isn't he? Or in the Welsh assembly. He is the

leader of Ukip in the wash assembly. Have any of your policies been

picked up or used by the main political parties? I think it has

made people think about saving public lavatories from extinction. I

think it has made people think, but I don't think the major parties have

picked up on the things I stood for and I still think they are

important. Which once? Well, saving public lavatories from extinction,

saving rural buses from extinction, banning airguns, because pets get

shot every day. I have been shot by an airgun where I live in

Nottingham. Obviously, some of them are more frivolous, like banning the

builder's bomb because it upsets old ladies. That made people laugh in

Newark. Why are you giving it up? It all sounds like too much fun. Well,

I am getting old, plus I don't want to become part of the electoral

wallpaper, not him again and the rest of it. But I am still

registered with the electoral commission. I am still going to

campaign on issues that I believe in, like when I stood in Sleaford

recently. I found all the red telephone boxes were going to be

closed. One council so that everybody has got a MOBO and I

thought that wasn't true, so I will still aim to go out to Skegness and

a bit of campaigning. So you are not giving up. What was your highest

voting tally? I got 320 votes when I stood for the militant Elvis

anti-Tesco popular front in the local elections. That was the high

point. Tesco were going to open the second biggest Tesco in the East

Midlands, and there was an outcry from the local traders, so I decided

to have a go with the slogan, Alvis wouldn't be seen dead in Tesco. And

I got the most votes I have ever got. David Bishop, would you be

sorry to see him go? Absolutely. The public lavatories policy is an

absolute winner. David Bishop, enjoy your retirement and thanks for

coming on. The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be back at 11.30 tomorrow

with Andrew for live coverage told through recordings

he made over decades. Troubled, tragic,

utterly compelling. Everybody's got a story to tell,

something they're hiding.