02/06/2017 HARDtalk

a web permit. She said she always followed immigration laws

a web permit. She said she always followed immigration laws but

a web permit. She said she always followed immigration laws but has

followed immigration laws but has not

followed immigration laws but has not clarified

followed immigration laws but has not clarified the issue

followed immigration laws but has not clarified the issue --

not clarified the issue -- work permit.

Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk.

I'm Stephen Sackur.

Britain's opposition Labour party

is at war with itself, preoccupied with a challenge

to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership from within the Parliamentary Party

and riven by accusations of plotting, intimidation

and treachery.

And all this after the Brexit vote exposed the disconnect

between Labour and its core working-class voters.

My guest is veteran Labour MP, Frank Field, one of the few loud

pro-Brexit voices in his party.

Are we now witnessing the slow death of Labour?

Frank Field, welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you.

Here's a puzzling fact, it was David Cameron

who put his career on the line for remaining inside the EU

and it was David Cameron who had to resign after the Brexit vote,

the Tory party appeared to be in disarray but the party

which right now is suffering complete meltdown and chaos

after the Brexit vote is your party, the Labour Party - why?

I think there are a number of reasons.

The Tories clearly understand power and the movement of power rather

more than we do and they were rather quick in moving from one

Prime Minister to another.

There was a folding of the candidates in the Tory

opposition so that helped.

In the end Theresa May took over, it was quick and it was decisive.

And she has built a new government...

And your party, if I may say so, has never looked more useless.

No, not only...not even responding to what the government's new agenda

is - I mean, they have set an agenda in two areas,

the first one, which is a major one, is the acceptance that we are going

to leave Europe.

How and what we mean by that, it is of course part

of the debate, but we are a party of re-moaners, as we ought to be

called, we just...

Your party?

Yes, absolutely.

That we should actually have another referendum on this -

it is over, it is finished, we've moved on, we now

have the opportunity and the duty to seize on how we now shape

Britain's future, in friendship with the EU, but outside the EU

and looking actually to a world stage rather

than a much narrower one.

If I may, how could it be that just 4% of Labour MPs favoured Brexit

in that long campaign and yet 52% of the electorate favoured Brexit?

Why did that disconnect occur?

It is a long-standing one in that if you go back historically,

the Labour Party has always been this coalition between working-class

interests which were then thought to be represented by the trade

unions and what they called the intellectuals, the Fabianites

of the Labour Party, who joined together,

and there was a trade-off between the two of what the policies

would be, and if you look, certainly to the '60s,

when our vote began

to unwind, because you talked about sort of the slow death

of the Labour Party, my worry is that it will be a fast

death, unless we act decisively.

But the decline has been there, in the sense that those who once got

these idealistic objectives of what politics is about,

a crucial part that affects the flavour of any agenda of how

governments perform and so on, have become the dominant one rather

than actually trying to represent those class interests,

and now we have moved, really, for many Labour supporters,

which the Brexit vote showed - it is not a classist issue so much,

although there is, but we are fed up with having the big stick

of globalisation walloped on top of us, and our living

standards pushed down.

There is this huge new agenda which is about identity,

about country, about place, about borders...

And, a word you have not yet used, it is about immigration,

and many of your opponents inside the Labour Party

who categorically disagree with you about the future of Britain

and the future of your party say that you and others who supported

Brexit manipulated misleading arguments about the nature

of immigration in the UK today.

Well, if that is true it is because they were not listening.

I mean, I have been accused of being a racist from the early

2000s onwards by raising the issue.

We cannot have this level of immigration - the effect that it

has on the country and its identity but also on the labour interest,

which are generally speaking - not always - but generally speaking

the most vulnerable in our society.

That's my interest, standing up for those groups.

Right up to the last election when we staged a meeting

within the Parliamentary Labour Party over immigration,

and I asked Ed Miliband, "Do you not see a link between us

letting five million people in and wages pushed down,

shortage for houses, cannot go to your school and so on?"

And there was growling from some members who disapproved and Ed got

up and said he could not see any link at all.

So that is how related we were to the real world

and certainly the world where our voters are,

and half the voters were taken out in the election when we lost those

seats (CROSSTALK) and that's the future...

When you mention the core interests of working people surely

the fundamental core interest of working people

is to have a strong growing economy and if you look at the sorts

of indicators that come from business, from the CBI,

from Chambers of Commerce and from people who actually run

businesses, they all say that the levels of immigration

reflect the needs of British industry, British businesses

for workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, hundreds

of thousands of them that come from the EU and,

frankly, half of them come from outside the EU -

that is what has made the British economy successful over

the last decade.

The success has been bought at a price about pushing down wages.

I'm actually after the whole cake, not half the cake, and clearly

the idea that you can put walls up and nobody comes in is absurd

but moving into a system where one has, like the Australian system,

you are actually designated what you need and you fill those

vacancies, and you just don't have a rush.

We've had the rush here in this country.

On these sets of figures you've given, of real success

in the British economy, it is great to hear,

God, no one is more pleased than I am

to hear the success news on the economic front but there has

been a real economic price to be paid and that is being paid...

The further down the ladder you are, the bigger the price

and the more higher up the ladder you are, the bigger the advantages

of being in this open market.

The interesting thing is, when you described to me

what you believe are the lessons of Brexit for the left in the UK,

you know who you sound like?

You sound like most of the senior figures in Ukip, you know,

when you talk about an Australian points system to control

immigration, when you talk about culture and identity

and national sense being at the heart of Labour's political

future, you are actually using the language of Ukip.

Is that where you want Labour to go?

No...well, first of all, I think you are being really kind

on Ukip, because looking at the state they're in now...

They are in about the same sort of state as the Labour Party.

Which gives us some relief.

The thing we must fear is the revival of Ukip.

And Ukip, I say took, but it's wrong to use this language,

they weren't our people, but these are people who previously

had voted Labour, almost a million of them, crossed over to support

Ukip last time.

If they get another million of our voters, we are finished

and they begin to move into pole position, and I think the danger

for us is that they begin to talk...

I do not recognise anything that I've said that they have been

saying,

but I am not playing the game, if you say guilt by association.

I am interested in the ideas, what's moving the electorate,

what the electorate are actually after, the form of representation

they wish, and if Ukip does reform itself about identity,

place, about borders, which is controlling the numbers,

as you rightly say, and then becomes the English party,

the outlook for us is grim beyond belief.

Labour needs to compete on that territory?

Yes.

To itself identify as the English party?

We have never done it in the past for crude, feeble...

It could not run more counter to the ideology of,

for example, Jeremy Corbyn, your party leader, who is,

if anything, he is an international socialist to his core.

That's the weaknes of Jeremy's position, which needs to be made

plain during this contest for the leadership, that he has

ideas about the effects of globalisation on poorer

working-class people in this country.

He has made a really good stab at that and it is part of the debate

but because, as you say, he is this internationalist,

there is no way he could deliver protection for those very groups

he says are so hard treated.

So while half of Jeremy's story is a good one and he has begun

to shift the agenda, there is no way that if he had

power, he would actually satisfy our vote or,

given his stance, win an election.

You made that very plain.

You are being rather polite with me but you said recently there is not

a cat in hell's chance of Labour winning with Jeremy at the helm

so we better get into this burning issue for Labour of the leadership

challenge and where the party is heading.

There are many people inside the party, let alone outside

it, who believe this leadership challenge represents the death

throes of Labour.

You have already said that there is an existential crisis.

Is Labour dying?

Yes.

I think the main parties themselves are dying...

Let's leave the Tories to talk about it for themselves...

I am not trying to move it around.

And, of course, we are.

You only have to look at the long-term decline of our vote

and the unwillingness of those who are called leaders to actually

pay some attention to why our vote goes down rather than up.

The aim of political parties is for the vote to

increase not decrease.

When it goes down you think there is something actually wrong

here, and that is the long-term crisis for us which has been

disguised at the last election.

If you look at the results of the referendum, we have now got

a Parliamentary party which I think is backward-looking, which has

fantasies about being what Europe should have been about,

all the old stuff we get from them but it is backward looking politics

and we have a dozen Labour MPs, who have seats.

If you take Stoke, it has three or four Labour members,

Stoke voted by 72% to leave the EU.

And this is just typical of huge swathes of Labour seats,

what are Labour MPs who were then candidates, going to say to those

voters when, in fact, on this fundamental issue,

which is about reorientating the direction of the country -

what are they actually going to say - that I am still a Europhile,

I want to go back?

Are you suggesting to me that Labour Party politics

in the immediate future is going to be completely defined

by this Brexit issue?

I think politics generally, we are going to have

to respond to it.

To reshape the machinery of government, to begin to respond

to what the results of that referendum were.

So of course a lot of the stuff coming down the chute,

so to speak, towards the House of Commons for us to be debating,

and hopefully shaping and reshaping, is going to be about the nature

of our exit from Europe and how serious we are.

How do we actually protect people?

Can we, actually?

And I think we should start from the idealistic goal

that we want, actually, control of our borders,

therefore free movement.

But we also want access to the free market.

People say it...

You are in a bind.

Because I want to get to the mechanics of where Labour

goes from here, and the mechanics right now are that there

is a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn coming from Owen Smith.

He says that he isn't really ideologically very far

from Jeremy Corbyn, but there is a question of competence.

He is competent, Jeremy Corbyn is not competent.

You have a problem, because you have just told me that Jeremy Corbyn

doesn't have a cat in hell's chance of appealing to the British public.

But Owen Smith wanted to remain in Europe,

and you are telling me that Europe defines the party's future.

So you haven't got a candidate you can back in this race.

Yes, but surely at some stage reality will break in,

and the Labour Party will realise we are going to leave Europe,

and get down to that policy.

You have talked about Europe, and what Labour need to do to react

to the result of the referendum.

But you are a member, you are a veteran MP.

There are people in constituencies across the country having fierce

arguments, accusing each other of treachery,

of intimidation, of plotting.

The party is at war with itself.

What is going to happen to give Labour a semblance

of competent leadership?

Nothing immediately.

This will go on for some time.

And then I do believe, before the election,

the trade unions will move.

Sadly I think the stewardship of Jeremy's, interesting

from lots of ways, about wielding social protest, and so on,

will then be brought to an end.

You think Corbyn will beat Smith easily, do you?

I think, on the showing at present, I will be voting for Smith,

but I think Corbyn will win.

I hope I am wrong.

This is the absurdity of Labour today.

Everything you have said in this interview suggests you couldn't vote

for Smith, because on a key issue, which as far as you are concerned

is Europe, he is on entirely the wrong side of the fence

from you.

And get you're saying you are not going to vote for him because Corbyn

is even more useless.

True, but the key thing is that Smith actually wants to win.

Not just this contest, but the general election.

He won't be able to win the general election holding the views

he currently has.

He will shift, if he serious about winning, and I am interested

in having somebody who is actually interested in winning.

Never mind winning, you may find yourself out of a seat.

Because Momentum, a grassroots movement on the far left

of the party, which backed Jeremy Corbyn, has made it plain

that those MPs such as yourself who have turned

against Jeremy Corbyn and want him out, you will face a challenge

in your constituency.

Some neighbouring constituencies of yours are already at war

over this issue.

How will you react if your own constituency tries to topple you?

Well, we will do our best to prevent that happening,

as a group of people.

I have been down this road before.

In the '80s.

In the '80s, and all the polls show that if I actually stood

as independent-Labour, joining the Labour group

in Parliament afterwards, I would win on that basis.

Hang on, so if there is mandatory preselection,

and you don't get preselected, you are saying you'll stand

against the official Labour candidate?

Providence willing, and I am here to stand in the election,

I will be in that election, whatever happens.

So you are - even though you have been a loyal Labour member for many,

years and in the '80s you stayed in Labour when others left,

you are saying you are prepared now to contemplate a split.

No, I am not.

What I am saying is I am prepared to actually win the Birkenhead seat,

and join the Parliamentary Labour Party in Parliament.

Yes, but you are also saying if you're not going to stand

for official Labour you will stand for something else.

This is the absolute number where Labour is today.

There are many people like yourself who are saying if Corbyn wins,

and his cronies and associates dominate the party, we will have

to create a sort of de facto split.

We will become an alternative Labour, a sort of -

I don't know how you would put it, semi-official Labour.

Is that what is going to happen, a split which isn't called a split?

I have no idea what is going to happen, and what people

are plotting, because I am not involved in that.

According to the papers there is lots of plotting going on.

Have you not heard any of these rumours?

Well, I have heard the rumours.

What I am interested in is the source of them.

The key thing is, if we were going to be elected in Parliament,

and claimed that we should have the short money,

because the vast majority of Labour MPs re-elect their own leader,

is whether the Speaker would regard our leader

as the leader of the opposition, and therefore to in a sense stand up

at Prime Minister's Question Time and lead the attack on behalf

of the opposition parties.

Would it be our leader, or does that legal advice

to the Speaker say that it has to be Jeremy Corbyn?

If it is us, and the Parliamentary Labour Party

is in a much stronger position...

For a man who claims he hasn't thought about this very much,

you seem to have a great deal of the detail of what might happen

if you and the Parliamentary party did decide to disassociate

from the official Corbyn leadership.

But I don't want to get hung up on legalities.

I just want to ask you this one final question on this point.

In the 1980s you saw senior Labour figures like David Owen,

Shirley Williams, walk away and set up the SDP.

In the end, after a short burst of optimism, it failed.

Do you think, even if it is not you, that some of your colleagues

in the Parliamentary party will try a similar manoeuvre over

the next few months?

They would be foolish to do so.

They should do what I am doing.

We should actually fly under Labour colours,

even if there are two of us actually in the ring,

and win the seats, and come back and reform

the Parliamentary Labour vote.

And in the process, of course, we will get a new leader.

Now, I do want to ask you about something rather specific,

and in a way it is impressive you have managed to make a lot

of noise in Parliament about one specific issue,

even when your party is in total meltdown,

but you have.

You have led a Parliamentary committee which has been

at the forefront of the issue of the collapse of the retail chain

British Home Stores, BHS, and the role in that collapse

of Sir Philip Green, who owned it for a long time

and then sold it for the princely sum of ?1.

It now turns out the company is riddled with debt,

and can't afford its pension scheme.

You have described Sir Philip Green's role as indicative

of the unacceptable face of capitalism.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Unfortunately it is not my phrase, I wouldn't mind having it.

It was a joint enquiry.

Iain Wright, the Chair of the Business Select Committee,

and I join together to do this because we have common interests,

which actually do - these initial stages overlap.

What I mean by that is that, since the fall of the Berlin Wall,

the only show in town is what people call capitalism.

And therefore it is very important that capitalism, so-called, works.

Is it actually as the Prime Minister says, she wanted to work

for the many, all of us?

Or is it for the actual few?

And I think, both in Sports Direct and in BHS, we got examples

here of corporate behaviour which most people out there think

is totally unacceptable.

And therefore we are doing a report, a follow-up on our reports,

so it's not going to go cold in any way.

But of course, it does also shift to the Prime Minister,

and her great strength is actually thinking about concrete issues.

She isn't, thank God, somebody who wants to spend her time

thinking what the nature of capitalism, and how

would I define a fair system?

She will be concerned about making the present system,

shoving it along, with all her authority, to make it

a fairer system.

And she has now got on her desk two reports, both about Sports Direct

and British Home Stores, saying this is a challenge

to what you said, the sort of society your administration,

your stewardship, is actually going to create.

The big point, about what it says about capitalism,

in a minute.

But just on the specifics, you and Sir Philip Green are now

locked in a pretty jarring war of words.

And he has listened to what you have said about him, and he has actually

now got his lawyers involved, accusing you of defamatory and false

allegations, demanding a full apology.

So here's your opportunity.

Are you now going to apologise for the things you have said about...

No, I am not.

He says he is going to sue me, I'm really happy to discuss it.

He knows that if he wants to pursue this we will go to court.

The first thing I wish - I will ask for is trial by jury.

So it won't only be me on trial, and that would therefore be another

front open to put pressure on him to do the decent thing.

Which is, given the unbelievable amount of loot that he and Lady

Green and their family have out of BHS and the Arcadia Group,

that he stumps up handsomely so that no pension is made worse off.

That is the goal.

But isn't the point, like he says, that this war of words isn't helping

the pensions regulator get a deal, which Sir Philip Green has said

he is ready to be a part of, to actually get some money to those

pensioners who have lost out big-time?

It is appropriate that New Labour gave him his knighthood,

because it is spin, it is wonderful staff.

He talks about it as voluntary, it is voluntary engaging

with the regulator.

The regulator is investigating.

By law, she is compelling him to actually talk to her.

She is demanding access to accounts and movements of money,

of capital, since 2002.

I mean, the screws are on him,

big-time, from the pension regulator.

The idea that somehow it is terrible old me shouting in the wings,

and he is voluntarily running around trying to get the pensions,

if you want to believe that, do believe that.

At the end of the day, we will see what the agreement is.

Yes, well, what I want to do is actually reflect,

at the end of this interview, on what we might tie together

from the discussion we have had about Brexit, and indeed even

the collapse of British Home Stores.

You introduced this notion that what is at stake here is the nature

of capitalism in Britain today.

It just seems to me that the Labour Party,

the party of the left, the working classes,

has abdicated its role in that debate.

It is ironic, is it not, that Theresa May walks

in Number Ten Downing Street talking the language of defending the many

against the privileged few, defending the workers' interests

against the overpaid corporate losses, and Labour,

today, isn't even in the argument.

No.

I mean, the weaknesses that most people would have cheered if she had

been a Labour Prime Minister, I am not disagreeing.

I'm just underscoring the importance of the question,

how desperate our position is.

That we are so irrelevant to the conversation going

on with the electorate, but also how power is exercised

in this country, that a Prime Minister has got the total

freedom to shape what her stewardship will be about.

Frank Field, that's it for now.

Thank you very much for being on HARDtalk.

Much appreciated.

Hello there, good morning.