12/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Donald Trump says he won't come

to Britain for a visit

next month after all,

with claims he isn't

coming because of fears

he won't be made welcome.

We've been speaking to Momentum

founder Jon Lansman

about elections for Labour's ruling

body that could have a big impact

on the future of the party.

Nigel Farage says we should

have a second EU referendum,

but also says he doesn't want one.

We'll speak to the current

leader of Ukip and try

to clear up the confusion.

And there's speculation it could be

Oprah versus The Donald at the next

US presidential election,

so why have celebrities

here in Britain had less

luck at the ballot box?

All that in the next hour,

and with us for the duration it's

the journalists Rachel Shabi

and Tim Montgomerie.

Welcome to the show.

So, in the latest twist

in the will-he-won't-he saga

surrounding a visit to the UK

by Donald Trump, the US President

has confirmed he won't be

going ahead with at least one trip

planned for next month.

The story was broken

by the Daily Mail this morning,

which said that Mr Trump had gone

cold on plans to officially open

the new US embassy in London.

The paper says he took the decision

amid fears he wouldn't be welcome.

Mr Trump confirmed the story himself

this morning on Twitter.

He said, "The reason I cancelled my

trip to London is that

I am not a big fan of

the Obama Administration having sold

perhaps the best located and finest

embassy in London for peanuts,

only to build a new one in an off

location for $1.2 billion.

Bad deal.

Wanted me to cut ribbon - NO!"

That's a reference to the fact

that the US embassy is being moved

from Mayfair in London to Battersea.

Well, critics of the president have

been welcoming the news, with the

Labour Mayor of London Sadiq Khan

saying, "Many Londoners have made it

clear that Donald Trump is not

welcome here while he is pursuing

such a divisive agenda.

It seems he's finally

got that message."

But that response irked

the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson,

who in turn tweeted,

"The US is the biggest single

investor in the UK -

yet Khan and Corbyn seem

determined to put this crucial

relationship at risk.

We will not allow US-UK relations

to be endangered by some puffed up

pompous popinjay in City Hall."

Donald Trump dividing opinion as

always, not just in the US.

Are you relieved he isn't coming to

open the US embassy?

Amat for once

and for once I might be closer to

the Labour view on this than to the

Tory view and the UK have a vital

relationship and it is incredibly

important we invest in that

relationship. But there comes a

time, after so many outrageous

remarks by Donald Trump and we must

draw a line. I think we can make a

distinction between having a good

relationship with the United States

and having to honour a president,

who, contrary to your view about

devising opinion, I think he

actually unites Britain. I think

most British people find almost all

of his views and acceptable.

Apart

from Boris Johnson, it seems. In

terms of that relationship with the

USA, would you still go as far as to

say he should not come on any sort

of state visit or political visit?

He is obviously not welcome, isn't

he. I think this has shown the power

of protest on one hand and also it

is very heartening that the British

public will look at someone like

this misogynist, racist president,

and say no, we not having it. I

think that shows a real moral

clarity. I wish our PM could

demonstrate even an ounce of the

same moral clarity over Trump.

To be

fair,

fair, when he re-tweeted those

remarks from a far right group...

That went over a line for her.

It is

difficult for a sitting Prime

Minister to be difficult with our

most important ally. It is easy for

us as commentators from outside to

be morally righteous but for a Prime

Minister who has to work on a daily

basis on trade and security...

Other

world leaders have had to work with

Trump as well and they have been...

They have welcomed him. To France...

That they have not welcomed his

comments and they have been more

vocal in criticising his comments

than she has been.

Should the state

invitation be withdrawn? That is not

what Emily Thornberry has said.

Do

not think he is welcome here.

So

would you stand up and say, the

Labour Party would like his

invitation stopped.

If Jeremy Corbyn

-- Jeremy Corbyn has said that if

Trump came here, you'd take to a

mosque and show them our brilliant

diversity.

Why don't Labour say the

invitation should be withdrawn?

I

don't know, personally...

Ceremony

double standards. We have leaders

from the Middle East where women are

not just treated badly on Twitter by

the of state but are treated badly

by second-class rights.

I don't

think just women are treated badly

on Twitter by Trump!

And we had the

Chinese leadership, who represses

his people in multiple ways so there

are a lot of double standards from

people in politics saying that Trump

is beyond the pale when other

leaders are not.

That is the case,

we have had leaders from countries

which you and others would also say

are against human rights, committing

all sorts of abuses against their

own people. Yet they still come here

on visits.

There's always been a lot

of hypocrisy in politics, there is

no question of it.

Underlying

anti-American is on the left that

will always judge America more

harshly.

And must be enthused about

judging America more harshly.

That's

not even true. Listen to the way the

left talks about Saudi officials and

the British relationship with Saudi

Arabia. That is not true,

manifestly. Yet it is fine for the

British public to have this adverse

reaction to somebody as divisive and

as racist as some unlike Trump.

Why

march against him and not other

leaders?

I think people do much

against all sorts of leaders.

They

don't, really!

President Trump last

night claiming that leaders from

Africa and Haiti came from, I won't

repeat his word, but saying, not

very good countries. Has this

crossed the line of acceptability,

should the Prime Minister intervene

and save this is not acceptable?

And

is an extraordinary remark from the

leader of a country made up of

immigrants to talk in those terms.

He said, why can't we have more

people from Norway, apparently. As

somebody wrote on Twitter earlier,

Norwegians were among the first

settlers to America and also faced

discrimination. It is as if there is

no acceptable immigrant in the eyes

of Donald Trump about that is why

London has reacted strongly to him

because London is also a city of

immigrants. And for him to come here

did potentially offend many people.

Would you like Labour to condemn

Venezuela and Iran?

I just love the

way that that is crowbared into

every discussion!

Glad I didn't

disappoint.

You have an Venezuelan

leader supported by Jeremy Corbyn

who is causing massive misery...

There is a clarity over the politics

of Trump that there is not of the

politics of Venezuela.

And Iran?

Again Labour was asked to condemn

the abuses carried out in Iran and

they have not been clear on that,

certainly not from Jeremy Corbyn.

Meet him at the abuses over

protests?

protests?

-- the abuses over

protests? I think that the way that

the regime has clamped down on the

protests in Iran should be

condemned.

But not in Venezuela!

Let's leave it there.

A short while ago voting finished

in elections for new members

of Labour's National Executive

Committee.

That's the party's governing body,

which sets its strategic

direction and oversees

the policy-making process.

So what's at stake in the contest?

The NEC, as it's known, currently

has 39 members mostly composed

of elected politicians,

trade union representatives,

and members from constituency

Labour parties.

It has been finely balanced

between members seen as those

sympathetic to the Labour leader's

plans and those broadly sceptical.

At the 2017 conference Labour

decided to create three

new positions representing party

members,

in response to the membership rising

to more than 600,000

under Jeremy Corbyn.

Nine candidates are competing

for the three seats -

and it's expected that the more

pro-Corbyn trio will win.

They're backed by Momentum -

whose leader, Jon Lansman,

is one of the candidates,

and a long-time advocate

for a more left-wing Labour.

There's concern among some

in the party that this will entrench

the power of those most enthusiastic

about Jeremy Corbyn.

Separately today is also

the deadline for Labour members

to give their views on the first

phase of the party's

Democracy Review, which is carried

out by Jeremy Corbyn's close ally

Katy Clark.

The proposals will be discussed

by the NEC later this month.

Well, our reporter Elizabeth Glinka

sat down with Jon Lansman,

and asked him what his priority

was if he got on the NEC, and why

the contest was so hard fought.

My priority is to see that,

er, the party becomes

more of a members-led party.

With members empowered, trusted,

enabled to do what's necessary

to win the next election.

And you know, I think they've shown

in the recent election

what 600,000 members can do.

To have millions of conversations,

and turn around an election

campaign, the biggest turnaround

we've had in an election

campaign in British history.

So I think more of that is

what we need to actually

win the next election.

There's a debate, there

are independent candidates,

not all the candidates

are on slates, and there should

be a debate, that's democracy.

We're a democratic party.

Thinking about democracy of course

we've got the first proposals

of the democracy review

expected this month.

Is this review about making it

easier for your faction to dominate

and silence the people that

you don't agree with?

Not at all.

First of all, there have always been

differences of view.

I actually am delighted

that the Labour Party,

after two leadership elections,

admittedly, has now recognised that

Jeremy is going to stay leader

until he chooses otherwise.

So we are now uniting around a real

alternative to austerity.

Is this process about deselections?

When you talk about democracy

and the views of the members,

the new members being heard,

are we talking about deselections?

We will not campaign

to deselect anybody.

But it's right that the members get

to choose who is the best

person to represent,

to stand for election

and represent them in Parliament.

And we've got 600,000 members now.

Who know their communities,

and who know the people they work

with in their workplaces.

And they are in the best

position to make judgments

about who the right candidates are.

There are hundreds of

thousands of members

who are enthusiastic

about the change to

the Labour Party, and it's

brought them into activity,

it's tripled the size of the party.

How can you see that as anything

other than a good thing?

You signed that petition last month

calling for the process

for the selection of councillors

in London to be re-run.

Is that still a position

you would take?

Well, I do think that some

of the selections in London

and around the country have not

been properly run.

There has been confusion

between the people overseeing

elections and council leaders,

and it's as if, it's

about minimising the number

of dissidents in a Labour group.

But we actually need debate

amongst our elected representatives,

wherever we are in government,

locally or nationally.

And there should be a fair

and reasonable process.

That's all I'm after.

I want to see in all internal

selections and elections,

processes in which all sections

of the party feel that they can back

a candidate that they support.

And, you know, the person

with the most votes ends up winning.

But at least they can feel

they've had a fair process,

that's what I want to see.

That was Jon Lansman, and we'll find

out if he was successful

in the elections on Monday.

We're joined now by Stephanie

Lloyd from Progress -

that's a group within Labour that

has backed an alternative slate

of candidates for the NEC.

And Rachel Shabi is still here -

she's a supporter of

the group Momentum.

Welcome, Stephanie. Why are you

worried about Jon Lansman and the

Momentum slate being elected?

Our

big worry about this is, what is he

going to do with the power that he

will then get. So if you have come

at the balance of the NEC

previously, it's about challenge,

making sure that of their processes.

And what we are going to see is,

rather than the Labour Party

internally spending its time on

fighting a shambolic Conservative

government, it will spend its time,

rather than trying to elect Labour

MPs, electing Momentum MPs and

deselecting current ones.

Isn't he

just talking about democracy? The

party has swelled its ranks with

hundreds of thousands of new members

and they should have their say.

They

should have their say and that is

fine. One thing I find slightly

hypocritical from Jon Lansman at

best is the fact that there's been a

massive swell in our membership. And

that is only a good thing. But

rather than at the grassroots people

coming through as candidates it is

the leader of that group, Momentum,

supported, yes, but those people

often shuddered with the debate. I

don't think we can say Momentum is

particularly a democratic

organisation. You can see what they

did with their constitution.

Do you

understand the fears by Stephanie?

I think the party has this

historically high membership, over

half a million, looking at Western

Europe, that is a lot of people. To

some people, what Momentum and the

Labour leadership has said they are

doing and wants to do, through these

NEC changes proposed, the Democratic

review proposed, it is democratising

the party. For some people who are

used to a more polished centralised

version of politics, that huge

number of people getting into

politics is going to look unruly. It

is going to look messy.

And I think that is what has

happened, but I think it would be a

mistake and a disservice to people

who are engaged with politics in

such a positive way, for the first

time, people reconnecting with the

Labour Party, and they want to bring

it to power, and to induce them --

accuse them of behaving in an

undemocratic way does them a huge

disservice.

I think there is a huge

difference between the people who

have got engaged in politics,

particularly a lot of young people,

and how I got involved was to the

youth movement and campaigning, and

the leadership of momentum, and they

are two different things, and I

think what we have seen, even if you

look at the democracy review, the

party on the NEC, as soon as it had

its control over that, rather than

the normal process electing the

Utrecht, rather than any

consultation with youth members are

waiting on the democracy review on

how the new NEC would be elected, in

contradiction to what the current

group wanted, it was whitewashed

over in a way that was purely

factional to get their candidates

and their slate people elected, so

my concern is not to get our party

elected, I was out doorknocking with

fantastic young people involved, but

the other one is constantly shadowed

by the leadership when it comes to

the next stage of this.

But it is

not what they are saying.

But they

shut down their own youth movement.

We saw Momentum shutdown without any

consultation there on his movement

that supported them.

Do you think

there is a risk here that actually

Jon Lansman, although he said in

that interview we don't want to see

these elections or reason elections,

but he did say that with some

selection of councillors in London,

he felt that there had been

collusion, and he did want to see

those rerun and represent the

membership at large. In the end

isn't Jon Lansman on the Momentum

wing of the party complaining about

exactly the same thing as Stephanie.

Nobody likes dissent and wants

people to disagree with their

version of what the party should

look like?

This is messy, and a lot

of people, trying to claim what is

going on, you know, the things that

have been going on with councillors

for example in Haringey -- I am

trying to explain what is going on.

A lot of people are really angry

with her that council has behaved.

And therefore they have a right to

say they don't want them.

Veto,

but...

The apparatus or they don't

want those policies that are

materially affecting their lives,

damaging their lives, and that is

absolutely fine --

they do.

But it

is being portrayed as some sort of

takeover by a cult, which has not

been the case at all.

It may not be

a cold, but is it a takeover, an

attempt rightly or wrongly to

entrench the power of Jeremy Corbyn

and Momentum? -- it may not be a

cult.

If people have joined the

party because the politics of Jeremy

Corbyn resonate with them and they

feel good with society and they are

democratically getting engaged and

involved in politics, what exactly

is the problem?

Rachel is

representing what Labour Party

members actually want to see, and

they support the policies of Jeremy

Corbyn. You are just not doing it

well enough, you are not keeping up

your side of the Labour Party, just

not doing it as well as Momentum?

That is definitely a part of that,

and I think what Jeremy and Momentum

captured in terms of engagement and

hope is not something anybody should

scoff at and I certainly never would

do so. My problem is what you then

take people's aspirations with, and

what they want in terms of the

future, and make it into pure

factionalism, about control and

controlling the entire party doesn't

my worry is, and I was sat at my

local Labour Party meeting last

night in Stratton, one of the most

deprived areas in London and I would

say the whole country -- Streatham.

And this was almost the best

depiction of it. The most upwardly

mobile and young white university

educated woman beats a 16-year-old

local activist because she didn't

have the right kind of politics or

didn't know the right people and was

not introduced onto the slate.

Doesn't that go against everything

you and Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn

believe?

I have no idea because I

have no idea of the context of what

you are describing, but what I do

know...

We see councillors

up and

down the country who are

representative of their own

communities being deselected.

No, we

actually have not seen that. Up and

down the country we have seen an

upsurge of people getting involved

in politics, whether at constituency

level or at a local level, and they

have every right to do that and they

have every right to decide whether

their candidate represents them or

not. As it happens, in most cases

across the country, the candidates

that the... This Labour candidates

that stood for the general elections

are not being kicked out at all. In

fact, the opposite is true, because

they forged nice relationships, the

constituency and the candidate, they

develop good relations during a snap

election, and they are not being

kicked out.

What do you say about

the criticisms and accusations

levelled about intimidation, about

behaviour that has become toxic

within the party against different

factions, that come from Momentum,

so the accusations go, on Twitter,

social media or at meetings?

I mean,

I am not here to defend people being

obnoxious. But I am here to say that

sometimes some of this is going to

look angry. People in Haringey for

instance have every right to be

angry at what that council tried to

impose on their behalf with that

sell-off of council housing. That is

an entirely legitimate reaction to

have.

Even to have that sort of

behaviour as you see being expressed

in an unruly, messy and intimidating

way.

I'm not there to support people

being intimidating or obnoxious but

what I am saying is that is not

representative of what is going on

up and down the country, and this

tactic of horning in on, you know,

obnoxious examples to try to make it

representative of the entire

movement, it does that movement at

the service -- this tactic of honing

in.

I will bring you in. Looking

from the outside, the Conservative

Party have a lot to be envious

about, the membership numbers.

Talking about how low Conservative

members are.

And you're failing to

get answers from your Tory guest...

LAUGHTER

We are talking about 600,000 in

labour and the Conservatives are the

fourth biggest party. A worrying is

that?

I think the Tories have

massive problems with the grassroots

and I am very happy to dissect

those, but I do also worried

about... Before the election there

was a huge number of Labour MPs who

objected to Jeremy Corbyn's

leadership on the grounds of

principle, and their silence since

the election has been an

extraordinary thing, a desertion of

duty. I think part of the reason is

that they are intimidated by too

many activists in the Labour Party

who are unfortunately extreme, and I

think it is good to you this

discussion between these two Labour

activists, lifting the lid lately on

what I'm afraid I'm not just

isolated examples of intimidation

and obnoxious behaviour, but I'm

afraid there are too many people

amongst that 600,000 membership who

do seem to be behaving in ways that

on Twitter, and we see it all the

time, are well beyond the limits of

decent comradely behaviour.

What you

say in response, Rachel?

I see the

Labour Party has got that many

members and Momentum is doing so

well because it has inspired people

to get involved in politics in a way

that we haven't seen for decades.

Do

you think MPs have not stood up

since the election because they feel

intimidated about standing against

Jeremy Corbyn's position?

I think

they have been silence because they

have seen that Jeremy Corbyn's

politics was successful.

It is one

thing to accept he might be an

electoral force...

The increased the

majority in many cases.

Sorry I did

not give you another say, Stephanie,

but thank you for coming in. We will

have to leave that one there.

Should there be a second referendum

on our membership of the EU?

Until now that's an idea largely

only supported by keen

Remainers such as Tony Blair,

and so yesterday many people

were surprised to hear former Ukip

leader Nigel Farage say this:

The Cleggs, the Blairs, the Adonises

will never ever ever give up.

They will go on whingeing

and whining and moaning,

all the way through this process.

So maybe, just maybe,

and reaching the point

of thinking that we should

have a second referendum, because...

On what?

On EU membership.

The whole thing?

Yes, of course, of course.

Unless you want to have

a multiple-choice referendum.

No, no, no, I'm amazed...

I think if we had a second

referendum on EU membership,

we'd kill it off for a generation...

So that's what Mr Farage

had to say yesterday,

but he went on to write an article

for the Telegraph in which he said:

"To be clear, I do not want

a second referendum,

but I fear one may be forced

upon the country by Parliament."

I'm not sure that was clear at all!

"The best defence of our dramatic

referendum victory," he went on,

"is to be alive to the possibility

of having to do it all over again."

So what are we to make of that?

Well, I'm joined now by the current

leader of Ukip, Henry Bolton.

Welcome to the product. Have you

spoken to Nigel since he made his

remarks?

I have. -- welcome to the

programme.

What did he say?

Nigel's

point, whilst the party does remain

opposed to a second referendum, for

a range of reasons, we may well be

confronted with it in the future.

And there is a need to mobilise the

entire Leave campaign with all the

different elements to unite and

actually ensure we do move this

whole Brexit thing forward, because

otherwise it will not be delivered

in any meaningful form. That is

really what he was talking about.

What did you think when you heard

him say the comments, and reaching

the point of thinking we should have

a second referendum on EU

mentorship?

Yes, to an extent, and

what he is saying...

What was your

reaction?

That was my reaction. I

know Nigel, I know what was behind

what he was saying, so how it has

come across, yes, he was supportive

potential of a second referendum,

but that is not actually what he was

saying.

That is what he was saying!

"I am reaching the point of thinking

we should have a second referendum

on EU member ship."

But this needs

to be sorted out because the

Government is not delivering on

Brexit.

Patrick O'Flynn, colleagues,

says he is as wrong on this as Tony

Blair. Is he wrong right? -- a

colleague of yours.

Let's put it

like this, the question.

No, I could

elect that.

LAUGHTER

If Nigel believed we should have a

second referendum, and I agree that

is how it came across, but if he

believed that I would say he was

wrong, but the point is we do not

want a second referendum, absolutely

clearly.

Is that UK policy?

clearly.

Is that UK policy? Did he

miss speak?

To an extent, yes. If

the Government forces one on us it

would give us the opportunity to

decisively put the whole thing to

bed and say, you know what, you have

to deliver a proper exiting of the

European Union.

That is what he

meant? You've had a discussion sense

and decided that as the line you

have to put out because he has said

something deeply because what

evidence is there from the

Government they are even considering

one? -- he has said something deeply

unhelpful, because what evidence is

there.

There is a debate, as you

well know, Jo, about should we have

another referendum, should we have a

vote on a future agreement, or

should we not?

Can I put it to you

that actually before it was never

really being discussed as a viable

option apart from the Liberal

Democrats who actually were not sure

about a second referendum and now

are, until Nigel Farage Paul

Thorburn said, I think we should

have a second referendum. I don't

remember any of the other ministers

-- until Nigel

-- until Nigel Farage popped up.

This is a call to arms for the Leave

camp. If indeed the Conservative

Government was delivering a Brexit,

moving to appoint where we had a

meaningful leaving of the European

Union and the picture as to how we

were all going to emerge from it,

then indeed this would not be

necessary. But what he is saying,

that the Leave camp as a whole needs

to unite, mobilise and needs to make

sure that Theresa May and the

Government deliver Brexit, and they

are not doing so at the moment.

But

he has normalised it now, the issue,

and it will now be debated. He has

handed to people

like Andrew Adonis, Tony Blair, and

others within the Labour Party, the

parliamentary party, the Remainers,

he has handed them a gift?

I would

see if we have a second referendum

now I would agree with Nigel, we

would win it, hands down. So we are

not worried about that. We have had

a democratic mandate...

But he has

actually raised the whole prospect

of this being debated further. Do

you accept that? Big E ago against

-- did he go against party policy

when he said this?

Not in that

sense. If he had said, I want, or

our policy is to have one...

Are you

going to take any action against

him?

No.

It is not official UK

policy. Do you think it has confused

the issue for Ukip borders and

others?

I think he has confused a

lot of people and Henry is doing a

valiant job of trying to defend the

remarks of his predecessor, which

seemed to me to be all about Nigel

Farage needing to be in the glare of

publicity. He can't go a few days

without getting the attention, but

David Cameron, Nick Clegg, all sorts

of people before the last Brexit

referendum, they said this is your

one chance to decide your future in

Europe, and whatever you decide, as

the British people, we will

implement the decision. That is what

counts. I'm glad to see Henry

nodding, and I think any attempt to

revisit that decision now will upset

people's faith in democracy, it is

not just the wrong thing to do for

Brexit, I think it is dangerous for

public faith in our institutions.

Should the Labour Party be thinking

about making a policy to offer the

idea of

second referendum on the

deal?

Possibly, yes.

Possibly yes. This idea of rerunning

the referendum is a kind of assault

on democracy. What is this, Brexit

referendum, the final showdown? The

last battle? How long will it go on?

But I think there is a case to be

made potentially for having a

referendum on the deal.

Should

Labour be clear on that?

Our concern

on a second referendum is, and in a

broader context, it sets a

precedent, we've had a democratic

exercise, a decision from it and

Amanda date has effectively been

issued -- mandate has been issued.

Wait a minute, some people don't

like it, let's revisit it.

Democratic decisions...

People will

never trust the leaders again, they

didn't like the decision, don't...

Nigel Farage, in the referendum,

said if the result was closer to be

unfinished business. He implied at

the time that there would and should

be another referendum if it was

close, although the other way.

I

think we could quote Nigel Farage to

find support for most eventualities.

Your private life has caused

headlines recently and Nigel Farage

says it is good for Ukip publicity.

Do you agree?

This week has been

quite quiet, so I've had a lot of

time to think about that subject.

Tell us your thoughts.

Quite

honestly I would not have wanted in

any way the publicity this has

attracted. I would like it to die

down. I've got things to sort out in

my private life. I want to do it and

focus on the job in hand which is

the sort of stuff we've been talking

about.

Does it affect your job as

leader of Ukip? Some have called for

you to quit.

Somehow but and

receiving a huge amount of support

as well saying this is his private

life, let's get on with his agenda

in turning around the internal

workings of the party so that we

have a firm solid base for exactly

the sort of mobilisation we have

been discussing.

Henry Bolton, thank

you.

Thank you very much.

Social media is having a big impact

in lots of areas of society,

and politics is no exception.

But how are the parties adapting

what they do in that traditional

forum, the House of Commons,

to this new electoral battlefield?

Here's Emma Vardy.

These days the parties just love

delivering short sound bites to your

social media feed.

Each Wednesday after PMQs it doesn't

take long for what's happening

in there to pop up on here.

The Prime Minister needs to

understand that it's her policies...

And they're getting

rather adept at it.

Mr Speaker...

Almost every week, Jeremy Corbyn

asks a question which to those

watching PMQs might not sound much

like a question at all.

They have one eye on what

soundbite's going on Facebook,

and, packaged in the right way,

it has the potential to get hundreds

and thousands of views.

Add some bold subtitles,

a punchy headline graphic...

And share.

They're hoping their leader's big

moment will go viral.

Isn't that an admission that

under his captaincy this

ship is indeed sinking?

Could they even be pre-scripting

the perfect 30-second

social media rant?

I'll leave you to decide,

but just look how far we've come.

Parliament was once reluctant

to even make debates public -

before the first radio broadcast

of the House of Commons

began in 1975.

I refer the honourable

gentleman to the reply

I gave some moments ago.

Fast forward to the mid-90s,

and most newspapers contain

straightforward reports of political

debates, until that died out.

Now this, it seems, is political

communication evolving once again.

So I think that they have

desperately tried to change the way

they actually try to communicate,

especially trying to reach young

people, and trying to make it more

sensationalist and more adversarial,

and really a very very

simple single message.

Twenty-three thousand...

APPLAUSE

The Conservatives successfully

targeted voters using Facebook

in the 2015 election campaign,

helping them to an

unexpected victory.

But last year Labour appear to have

done far better online.

Well, I think politicians are trying

to reach people on social media

who are exactly the opposite,

frankly, of those who watch

Daily Politics on a Sunday.

They're younger, they've got

a changed media diet -

they're not actually necessarily

watching much television,

and certainly not necessarily

consuming much political content.

Sound bites are nothing new.

I think now what we are simply

seeing is sound bites

being weaponised for social media

as much as they've been used

in mainstream media up until now.

Is it really even worth anything

for the electorate in terms

of understanding the party

or what their real

intentions and messages are?

I mean, I think there

is a fear that, you know,

having to fight above all these

algorithms, fight above all the

unbelievable noise of social media,

is actually simplifying a message

down to something that isn't

even a message at all.

You know, it is simply a wham-bam,

really reducing politics even more

than PMQs itself down to a kind

of Punch and Judy show.

But, you know, the digital

world is an amazing

new form of engagement.

It's where plenty of people go

to to learn about politics,

and where some people only learn

about politics, and of course

if we are actually going to get

successive generations to actually

care about politics and have

something to do with it,

politics needs to transfer

onto the digital world.

We are putting record funding

into the NHS and record funding...

So next time you spot a certain kind

of rant over the dispatch box,

you'll know they're speaking

to the people who might just come

across it later on Facebook.

Have you noticed the strategic

change in Prime Minister's

Questions, in the Commons in

particular that the messages to go

out on social media, no longer the

TV bulletins, no longer a message

beyond the chamber, it is to the

core support.

Definitely there has

been a change. People have clocked

that very few people watch PMQs live

except through your show. Our

hundreds and thousands of viewers!

Apart from those. I think Labour has

been working quite closely with its

social media team said they have

figured out that a bit of Jeremy

Corbyn's PMQs can be shared, and it

will be something quite generic,

something that is not time specific.

And they do very well on social

media. As we have seen during the

last election. Also it has been

shown, I think the BBC survey showed

that people who consume venues of

the Internet are more likely to vote

Labour and Labour voters are more

likely to share social media

content, so they are obviously

taking advantage of those things as

well.

A conscious decision there,

the Tories playing catch-up.

Definitely getting better but a long

way behind. I think you can

exaggerate this. There's always been

a sound bite element to PMQs. The

six o'clock news can only give 20 or

30 seconds. The difference is now,

sometimes the clips on social media

are longer than the TV gave to them.

And of course it's not Laura

Kuenssberg or the director of the

producer of the news deciding what

clips go out there, it's the

political parties. So we are seeing

a transfer of power, the old

gatekeepers to the media no longer

have the control that they used to.

Not a bad thing.

Let's leave it

there.

The Government had a big-ish

reshuffle at the beginning

of the week, and Labour will now

have to have a smaller reshuffle

of its own after the departure

yesterday of the Shadow Fire

Minister Chris Williamson.

Mr Williamson's resignation

was reportedly a mutual decision

reached with leader Jeremy Corbyn,

and came the day after he suggested

council tax bills for the highest

value homes in England

should be doubled.

Well, Chris Williamson

himself can tell us more -

he joins us now from Derby.

Chris, did you resign or were you

sacked?

No, I stepped down because I

wanted to spend a greater amount of

my time campaigning and to give

advice ordinary party members.

Labour is now a mass movement. You

probably saw Jeremy launch the

Community Action Units the party has

established. He's also been clear he

wants to give party members a

greater opportunity to influence

party policy. I want to be a

conduit, to be the members champion

so that their views can be

aired. And being on the front bench

constrains what you can say. And

given the varied ideas that are sure

to come up from the grassroots it

would have been more difficult, I

think, to give voice to those...

Clearly because you have had to go

as a result of it. So clearly it was

proving difficult. Quite a few of

your colleagues have suggested that

you were sacked. Wes streeting said

doubling the council tax which is

what you proposed will never be

Labour policy, swift action by

Jeremy Corbyn. And Clive Lewis said

your fate and that of Toby Young

demonstrates that with both parties

neck and neck and in further

parliamentary long haul, the war of

attrition will see each side picking

of those around their two respective

generals. They obviously thought

that you were sacked.

that you were sacked.

Wes has

misunderstood the idea of looted.

Its Tory party legislation

introduced in 2012 that provides the

opportunity for local authorities to

offer variable discounts to council

taxpayers in their local area, and

also give them the ability to raise

the council tax above the threshold

which is specified by the Secretary

of State at any given time. Of

course this whole idea would have to

be agreed by the electorate in local

areas. So it's not a question of any

local authority deciding

unilaterally to double council tax

and it isn't about doubling council

tax, there's a range of

permutations. In actual fact what

this would do if any local authority

to get forward would be to protect

the vast majority of householders,

certainly those on the lowest

incomes would have their council tax

frozen, possibly reduced, and the

burden would therefore be carried by

those with the broadest shoulders. A

budget for the many not the few.

Yet

you haven't convinced those in your

party and at the top of your party.

Andrew Quinn, let me just ask you,

he says it isn't the party policy

and it conflicted with the party

manifesto pledge not to raise taxes

on 95% of the public and you are

freelancing. What do you say to him?

People probably haven't fully

understood the idea I have floated,

initially, the six months ago.

He

should know... He is Shadow...

The

point I am making is that I'm not

suggesting it should be party

policy, it's already the law of the

land.

So what were you suggesting?

I

am simply suggesting that local

authorities can, if they wish, seize

back the initiative. After eight

years of relentless austerity and

cuts, which has put people in a

position where they are struggling

to meet their basic obligations,...

How many Labour Party members

support this idea?

Any local

authority could take it forward if

they wanted to stop the cuts which

have been relentless over the last

eight years. It is an opportunity

for local authorities to do it if

they wish.

Is that they haven't

supported it. Is it correct that

people on the front bench should not

contradict party policy?

Jo, you are

getting confused. It is not about

party policy, this is already a

Labour policy...

I am asking, do you

think members of the front bench

should stick to party policy and not

hand ammunition to the opposition?

I

don't think it's about handing

admonition to the opposition, that's

the last thing I'd wish to do.

But

you have done it.

Hold on, any local

authority, if they were to take this

on board, would come I think,

potentially find this to be

something which is very...

Let's

show our viewers what the Tories

have done with what they see as the

ammunition. It has now been put up

on screen. Chris Williamson of

Labour has put forward plans that

could see council tax doubled. I

know that you say this should is not

what you said, but this is what they

have said, and has not helped

Labour's campaign ahead of the local

elections this year?

You don't

expect the Tories to tell the truth

and clearly they are misrepresenting

me. It is interesting that it is

worth reinforcing the point that

this has only been made possible

because of legislation that the

Tories are brought in. It was the

Conservatives that introduced the

local government Finance act in

2012, allowing local authorities

this flexibility. Let's also

remember the Tories have imposed

huge swingeing funding cuts on local

authorities. They're in an

impossible position now.

Apparently

you have a new role. What is it?

Jeremy's asked me, I've been

conflicted about this for some time

because I wanted to speak on a range

of issues and push the envelope as

far as possible although it has been

constraining to some extent being on

the front bench because you are

constrained by collective

responsibility, is not to say that I

was seeking to move away from the

Fire and Rescue Service because it

is something I feel passionate about

and I will still be a active member

of the group, the Jeremy asked me to

think through some of our future

policy agenda on that regard and in

addition to draw up a policy

programme for consideration in

relation to animal rights. That's

something I've been passionate about

all my life, I've been of Cregan for

40 years and I am a hunt saboteur.

It is something I'm keen to do to

support the party in taking that

Ford -- I have been a vegan for 40

years.

So you are still on good

terms with Jeremy Corbyn even though

you've parted company on this.

He's

a close friend of mine, a good

comrade and in my view the best

leader this party has ever had. And

I include in that Clement Attlee.

And he will be the best Prime

Minister, not just the best Labour

has ever produced but the best this

country has ever produced if we win

the election because he will

transform the country and change the

balance of power for ever. I

genuinely hope he gets that

opportunity and I am sure he will

with the policies we are developing

out.

You couldn't be more clear with

that. No hard feelings, then, thank

you, Chris Williamson.

Not at all!

Theresa May's position on Brexit may

have won her plenty of admirers

among Conservative supporters,

but those don't include

the nightclub owner

Peter Stringfellow.

He's been a donor to the party -

here he is pictured last year

with the Prime Minister.

But now he says he's

ready to ditch the Tories

over their support for Brexit.

And Peter Stringfellow joins us now.

Why are you prepared now to ditch

the Tories? I don't like the word

pitch.

OK, say quitting.

I don't

like what is happening. I don't

believe that Theresa May is a

Brexiteer. In her heart, and I

believe that the hard-core

conservatives are all Remainers. The

only chap you have had on who is a

real Brexiteer, nice chap, you just

had him on, Henry...

Bolton.

This is

something people simply do not want.

I am a European, British European,

and that is where I see our future.

Right, secure quitting the party.

You will no longer be a member or

donate money to the party?

Not

unless they change. You spoke about

the referendum, all this stuff about

democracy come a forget about that.

Let's just have another general

election, Labour parties be honest.

You seem to be honest. I have been

speaking to you. Let's be honest,

totally, and let's have a general

election when all parties see where

they stand.

We have had that

already. You didn't get the answer

you wanted.

No, it was a sham, a

total sham. £360 million going every

week to the National... Of course it

was a sham! Immigration is another

one.

But when did you have this

moment, in your mind, that said,

that's it, I've had it with the

Tories. Because we have a picture of

you with the Prime Minister, and you

were certainly supporting the Tories

at the election, weren't you?

I was,

yes.

Before that, you supported

Ukip, and you get as far as I

know...

No, no. I just supported a

counsellor, in Westminster, and I

would do that again tomorrow,

against the...

But they are the

party wanted out of Europe?

Not in

Westminster council they didn't!

Forget that bit. I am and have been

longer than the majority of

politicians now a conservative, from

the early 60s. When I was in

Sheffield I was probably the only

guy who voted Conservative.

And you

still supported them in the

election? But in the general

election she made it clear...

I woke

up and you're right, wait a minute,

this is all wrong, it's not going to

change. It's not going to change

unless people like me stand up and

say, it's got to change. And we need

more change now. Let's have a

general election referendum,

whatever you want to call it, and

let's get it straight.

You want to

persuade Peter Stringfellow to stay

within the Conservative Party?

Not

particularly.

That is honest, I

suppose.

We will all cope and you

are concerned with your businesses.

I think what we are seeing

post-Brexit is a huge re-juggling of

the British political landscape.

With the last election year at the

extraordinary thing where Theresa

May was basically winning as many

working-class voters as Labour was,

and a lot of more middle-class

people were voting for Jeremy

Corbyn. Something is changing.

People like Peter Stringfellow,

perhaps more metropolitan, moving

away from the Tories, and lots of

people who are the victims of

Europe's immigration policies, there

are cultural policies, they are

saying enough is enough.

People

don't care about agricultural

policies...

They might not get in

London. Answer me this. As a staunch

conservative like I have been, do

you honestly believe that Theresa

May is a Brexiteer? I think she has

docked the question when she has

been asked! I think she is someone

who is seizing the opportunities of

Brexit.

Who are you going to vote

for now? Peter Stringfellow, if the

party...

Vince Cable

right now and I

don't know much about the Lib Dems.

They always held a slight interest.

In the old days, David Steel, had a

great respect for him. Vince Cable

is the man who is totally honest at

the moment and for me...

You are

supporting the idea of a second

referendum and a general election?

Right, so you are going to support

the Liberal Democrats? Will you give

money to them?

Why not? I'll give

them a few pound.

Are you aware

whether

they want your support,

Peter?

LAUGHTER

'S Heiton go I love everybody, and a

nightclub owner! You walk into my

club, I love you --

well, I love

everybody.

Do you think Labour will

have to be clever very soon about

the Brexit it once, whether we stay

in the Single Market or the customs

union?

You know, I am looking

forward to Peter joining the idea of

creating a society for the many and

not the few, and then maybe we can

welcome, read Stringfellow to the

project!

Is labour-saving will stay

in the Single Market and the customs

union would you support the Labour

Party? -- if the Labour Party say

they will stay in the supermarket.

Possibly! The country is divided on

the medal. My answer, stay with the

EC, the British EC, whatever you

want a to see or call it.

PU.

--

The EU.

The burning question in American

politics this week has

been will Oprah Winfrey

run for president?

The talk show host gave

a well-received speech at an awards

ceremony in Hollywood at the start

of the week and, perhaps in a sign

of the impact of that other TV

celebrity-turned politician

Donald Trump, her appearance

was followed by a flurry

of speculation that she could run

as a Democrat against

Donald Trump in 2020.

In a country that's

elected Ronald Reagan

and Arnold Schwarzenegger,

the idea of celebrities running

for office isn't that unusual.

But here in Britain,

why have famous names largely failed

to break through at the ballot box?

The pub landlord stood

against the Ukip leader Nigel Farage

at the 2015 general election

in South Thanet.

Not everyone was impressed.

You're making a mockery of Thanet.

Why are you doing it?

Well, Farage lost,

and so did Al Murray.

International drug smuggler to MP -

it's not the usual career

trajectory, but that's

what 'Mr Nice' Howard Marks

tried to do in 1997.

He stood for the Legalise Cannabis

Party in four different seats,

and didn't win any.

Also in 97 former glamour model

Katie Price, then known as Jordan,

ran for election as an independent -

she lost her deposit.

It's been a great experience, and

it's been a memory I won't forget.

Celebrities in politics

are not a new thing.

In 1963 health scare to Prime

Minister Harold Macmillan resigning.

With Mr Alec Douglas-Home

taking over the reins.

The problem was he needed

to resign his seat in the Lords

and find a safe Commons seat.

Actor and Private Eye founder

Willie Rushton was so disgusted

at the Conservative machinations

that he stood against the PM.

He polled just 45 votes.

And, as you know, here

at the Daily Politics

we take our public service

obligations very seriously,

so when Bez from the Happy Mondays

stood as an anti-fracking candidate

in Salford and Eccles, we made sure

to hold them to account.

in Salford and Eccles, we made sure

to hold himm to account.

in Salford and Eccles,

we made sure to hold him to account.

On this platform of free food, free

energy, free anything.

If we don't

move away from that, then the

consequences are dire for us

consequences are dire for us poor.

There have been some success

stories. The MP for Clacton in 2017.

I have stood on many stages across

45 countries in the world, but this

has to be the finest.

And we're joined now

by the entertainment

reporter Emma Bullimore.

Welcome to the programme. What do

you think about Oprah for President?

I think it would be really exciting

but I have to say I think it is

wishful thinking at the moment. I

think everybody got excited when

Obama left the White House, Michelle

2020, and then she made this great

speech at the Golden Globes, and

people thought, just maybe, a great

speech, the way she presented it,

but I think at the moment it is a

bit early.

It may be early, but

there is a history, is not a

tradition, certainly a history of

liberties succeeding in politics in

America in a way that they do not

here. Why?

If you go into a ballot

box in America you have those

presidential names, but here you're

supposed to be voting for the party.

Theresa May, whatever your opinions

on her, she is not dripping

impersonality, it is about her

policies, whereas there is a bit

more about who you are as a person,

and if you are having this big

campaign that lasts for a long time

and requires financial backing, why

not pick someone who manages their

image, is good at social media, and

has a following already?

Is it just

about the system and the money here

that we don't have the celebrities,

the likes of Oprah Winfrey and

Donald Trump succeeding in getting

to the top of politics here?

I don't

know. Maybe we prefer actual

political expertise...

I thought

experts were out at the moment!

I

don't think they should be out. It

is a very disposable approach as

well, not just celebrity culture but

disposable culture, rather than

looking at why politics has gone

wrong and why it is alienating so

many people, we have just gone, just

get rid of it, let's bring

celebrities in instead, which seems

a very shallow approach.

Do you

agree?

It is not possible to have no

political experience and become

elected, you would need to be

elected locally and so on and so you

comment not as a celebrity but a

politician but in America it is

different.

Would you like to see

more celebrity input? Glenda Jackson

became an MP, did go through the

system and did that in the Comments

and left relatively recently and she

was probably quite well known before

that as an actress.

-- the Commons.

Yes, she was, and I think this might

involve Oprah Winfrey, however good

they are, because Donald Trump

promise to make an impact of the

working class people of America but

all the things he passed, the

massive tax cuts, they have really

benefited exactly the same kind of

people

benefited exactly the same kind of

people, the better off, that the

Republican Party has always

benefited. My hope in America is

that there will be a swing back to

more conventional politics where

people are judged on their policy

agenda rather than their

personality. Perhaps we have

learned, and the American people

have led to this episode, that

personality isn't necessarily the

answer.

We have at the cult of

personality with Jeremy Corbyn, even

if he did not start out as

celebrity, Rachel Shabi. He has

become a bit of a cult personality

at things like Glastonbury?

That was

not really a cult of personality but

it was people engaging with what at

Labour leader had to say for the

first time in a long time. There was

a lot of playfulness there, a lot of

irony. It's not really the same as

progress is saying Oprah for

president, that is an entirely

different proposition.

We turned

politicians into celebrity, look at

Boris on Have I Got News For You?

Yes, but it is very different view

in other ways, although perhaps not

such a dissimilar place. Thank you

for coming in. Thank you both for

being our guests of the day, on a

very lively programme.

No quiz of

the day?

I can't believe you brought

that up! We will do an especially

big one for you next time.

That's all for today.

Thanks to my guests.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.