03/12/2015 Question Time

We're in Birmingham tonight and this is Question Time.

And a big welcome to you whether you are watching on television,

listening on the radio, to our audience and to our panel. Tonight,

the Conservative Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan. Labour's

Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, Diane

Abbott. The Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas. The writer and forker

Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, Jill Kirby and a former

Islamist, who campaigns against extremism, Maajid Nawaz.

Thank you. Thank you very much. As always if you wish to get involved

in the debate. .

Gregory Hayes has the first question.

Was extending the bombing into ira the right decision? What do you

think? I think it was the right decision. I think it is a shame it

took this long until the decision was made.

Anyone else? I would agree it was the right decision. As we are

currently bombing Isis in Iraq it makes little sense to stop at the

so-called border which does not really exist anymore. Anybody else?

How will we ever know if it was the right decision, when there was

clearly no referendum. Anyone else? In the end you have to

confront an evil like that, you cannot leave it to grow like a

cancer. What about any of you who feel it

was the wrong decision? I think that the money should have been better

spent on educating our youngsters to not be radicalised by these people.

I find that these young people they are being groomed. If it is a young

girl and a man, that is grooming. But these kids that are being taken

over by religious fundamentalism don't get treated the same way. It

is a problem. OK.

I think more of a threat is people crossing the border. When there is

an E border database, falling down, it makes sense to replace the

system, and then tackle the issues in Syria.

This is part of a racist back lash after the attacks in Paris. David

Cameron's Foreign Affairs Select Committee and heads of Mike have

said that this will have no e-David Cameron said we had low collateral

missiles in reality that means we hope not to kill that many

civilians. Why are people in Syria clam ram damage and people in Paris

victims? It is racist. APPLAUSE.

You want to have a chance to argue with our panel as we go through the

debate. Nicky Morgan, you kick off. You

heard what the man at the back was saying.

Firstly, I think it was absolutely the right decision taken yesterday.

It was a difficult decision for all members of Parliament. Those

watching the debate will have seen people on all sides sfrning their

conscious as to how to vote. I don't think it was an easy decision for

any member of Parliament. The second is to pay tribute

whatever we think, to those who are now flying on the air strikes and

the pilots doing that and the families, no doubt, who are worrying

about them. To answer some of the questions asked. The lady here on

educating about radicalisation, she is absolutely right. That is

relevant to me as the Education Secretary, we have to do both, to

confront the clear danger to our country from Daesh.

It is not just to Paris, there have been attacks in Ankara, Beirut,

Yemen, the Russian plane blown out of the sky over Egypt. This

murderous death cult is a terrorist organisation, it is a danger to

people not just in the West but to people around the world it is now

time for us to play our part in confronting it.

APPLAUSE. Diane Abbott? ? There are different

views about this in my party. But I remind the audience, that for the

vast majority of Labour Party members, the majority of the MPs and

the majority of the Labour Shadow Cabinet believe it was the wrong

decision. I say that because I understand in the light of Paris

that a lot of people felt something must be done. The question is will

the bombing raids on Syria make the British people safer? First of all,

as Nicki said we should pay tribute to our armed force, putting their

lives in harm's way. We should also think of the people of Syria,

waiting in trepidation for the bombing in cities like Raqqa. But we

need to remember if bombing was the answer, the US have been bombing

Syria for over a year. Isis, the so-called Islamic State is

stronger than ever. They have captured cities like

palmyra, blown up their monuments, they are stronger than ever. That is

because you cannot defeat Isis dropping bombs from hundreds and

thousands of feet. One of the things you need is ground troops. Whereas

in Iraq, in Iraq you have the Iraqi Army, hundreds of thousands of

trained people. In Syria you have Assad and Nicki, and the Tories, are

not saying what we are doing about Assad, you have 70,000 people but a

raggle-taggle jihadis. I believe it is not a question, people are saying

we should do something. We don't want to do nothing, we need to talk

to allies like the Saudi and the Gulf States that are sending money

and arms to support icy, we have to talk to Turkey, allowing Isis troops

to go through its territory. We have the finest diplomatic services in

the world, why not do more with the big regional powers and why not do

more for the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War, the

Syria refugees, no-one is saying do nothing but the air strikes are the

wrong thing. I will be here a year later, the audience will know. We

have been warned it is a long war. It will be a further downward spiral

of violence in the Middle East. APPLAUSE.

Briefly. You mentioned Iraq. You and Jeremy

Corbyn voted against the bombing in Iraq. Is it still your position that

is also wrong? The original Iraq war? No, against IS in Iraq? IS in

Iraq. IS in Iraq is a different situation.

The Iraqi government invited us in. It is legal.

You voted against the bombing? I think that the answers to the

turmoil that we see in the Middle East, is partly some of the work

that Quilliam is doing but partly to get the regional powers to step up

to the plate. Jeremy Corbyn yesterday would not

commit either to supporting air strikes in Iraq nor to continue the

air protection over the Kurds. You can say that in action... Nicki...

Let me tell you... Let me tell you the question about the Kurds...

APPLAUSE The question about the Kurds is

quite different. You have brave Kurdish troops there, who are taking

ground from Isis. Why not Jeremy Corbyn support the air strikes in

the UN intervention? Jeremy Corbyn was... Jeremy Corbyn is the Leader

of the Opposition. He was Baracked by your people, deliberately trying

to disrupt... Don't Barack her. Do you think it is right to be using

British air power in Iraq against IS? It is legal... Do you think it

is right? I think that the legality is important. It was legal in

September when you voted against it. If it is part of a broader strategy.

We need to hear more, then of course it is right.

Of course it is right? As part of a broader strategy. The notion that

bombing can solve anything didn't work in the ridge mal-Iraq war, nor

in Afghanistan and it will not work in Syria.

Maajid Nawaz? I understand the trepidation and the hesitation on

the panel and nationally. Of course. I opposed the Iraq war from my jail

cell in Egypt. I understand the observes vaguses, death is death. It

hurts the people as equally. I get that. There are a few principles to

establish and set out before the conversation. One of them is that

this should not be a left/right debate. Francois Hollande who asked

for our support is a socialist. The Kurds who are fighting Isis in Iraq

and Syria are left-wing socialists and some of them communists it is

important to recognise that there are different opinions from all

sides here. That is important so we don't end up polarising the

conversation. And to remember that some say that our military action in

Syria will lay narrative that this is a war against Islam and Muslims,

it can do. But our in addition has aided Isis narrative. It was our

inaction in Bosnia, and the genocide that led me to become an Islamist

and led me to join the group as I was furious against the genocide

been carried out in Europe. I think also we were bombing Iraq

anyway, as has been established. It did not make much sense to expand

that to Raqqa. Isis, you remember, caliph bag daddy descended from the

pup pit to give a public appearance, it was in Mosul, he has not popped

up since. The reason is that he is on the run since the bombings. So

where have they run to? They have run to Raqqa.

It does not make sense they have run to one side that is not policed and

then running to the other side. I think finally, that this is legal.

The UN has committed us to pursuing all means against Isis. All means

does not exclude bombings, so where do I stand? I agree with what Diane

said earlier it makes no sense to think we can shoot our way out of

the problem. It makes no sense to think we can legislate our way out

of the problem an we cannot torture our way out of the problem. What we

are dealing with. This is not world war three it is a global jihadist

insurgent. The only way to tackle that is to get at their support. To

undermine the ideology that they are using to recruit people, the

Islamist ideology, that is distinct from the religion of Islam. It is

not the same. Undermine that notion, and sapping the appeal. 6,000 or so

European citizens have gone to join. How would you have voted in the

House of Commons last night? I would have voted for the action.

The reason is for the strategy, as the UN motion says, all means, it

does not exclude of notions of bombing but bombing is not the

solution on its own. Now to the audience. I have to say I

agree with Diane. I think, I don't understand how the Government can

say that by bombing Syria it will make Britain safer. We are going to

isolate more moderate Muslims, leading to greater radicalisation,

there are extremists living in all cities across Europe, by bombing

Syria we will not remove the ideology into nonexistence. I want

to say about what Nicki said about it being a difficult decision, I

don't doubt but should the cheering and the lofter following that

decision not make the public question the manner in which the MPs

are acting. Whatever the decision, surely it is a sombre decision, the

decision to bomb people. Jill Kirby? It is a decision to be

taken sob Earl. The clapping and the cheering after Hilary Benn had

spoken was inappropriate. It was a divided House with Dwyereded

parties. It was a difficult decision to make. I personally think it was

the wrong decision to make. I would not support it. Mainly as I cannot

see the way ahead. Often we have become involved in foreign

entanglements not knowing what the exit strategy is or the next step. I

have heard of what I term wishful thinking from Government, from the

Defence Secretary, from others, from the Foreign Secretary, suggesting it

will be very nice, we will make life difficult for Isis in Syria, that

they will stop attacking us here, and elsewhere, that the trouble, the

fact that we don't support the Assad government out there is not a

problem as we are going to manage to support the rebels at the same time

as attacking Isis, while Vladimir Putin is arranging to bomb rebels,

also attacking Isis, there are factions involved here. I can't see

us negotiating through this, with a tidy settlement. David Cameron

realises this but I want him to tell us why we have committed to this

when we are supposedly going to sit with Vladimir Putin to come to anice

agreement, to keep Assad there, and then move him aside it is not a

plausible scenario. Therefore, we should not get into it.

Some of the points made by the audience and by Jill are the points

that were debated in 10.5 hours in the House of Commons yesterday. The

point is that there is no certainty about in the office, which is why it

was such a difficult decision for members of Parliament to make. But

there is a comprehensive strategy, both the military strategy and the

political strategy. Does the strategy involved putting troops on

the ground in Syria? Not UK. Which troops? Hang on a second. It is

about military but it is also about political strategy. You can't skip

over it and say that is the ground troops dealt with. It has to be

everything. There is a big difference because

there are ground troops in Iraq and not in Syria. Time and again

yesterday the Prime Minister was challenged about where were the

70,000 forces, the mythical forces, the bogus battalions, as the chair

of the Defence Select Committee called them, the equivalent of the

dodgy dossier. In a sense, they are Justin David Cameron's head. Even if

they existed, the idea that they will be willing to give up fighting

Assad, their primary focus, to helping us with fighting Eisele, or

Daesh, is unsubstantiated. -- Isil. I have not seen anything that has

persuaded me that if the UK joins the air strikes over Syria that we

will either be safer all make the region safer. Crucially, Maajid said

something important, he said we need to undermine the ideology. Yes, we

do. I think by entering into the bombing of Isil, we are feeding that

ideology. They feed on the idea that we are the kind of Crusader West

having this attack and they are the defenders of true Islam. That is

what they get popularity from and we are falling precisely into that trap

by doing exactly that. APPLAUSE

One little fact. A year ago, there were 15,000 recruits from 80

countries who had gone to fight with Isis. A year later there are 30,000

recruits from 100 countries, so our bombing is feeding that ideology. We

are walking into their trap and it is the wrong thing to do.

APPLAUSE I would like to go back to the

audience. I said at the beginning we have different opinions. We have

heard opinions against the bombing from jail and Caroline. I would like

to hear from people who have supported the bombing, or still do.

You, in the middle. This Great Britain, historically, was built on

British spirit to deal with evil around the world. This is the latest

challenge to us. We have to stand up and be counted on this. It is only

the fact that we are now in a reasonably peaceful stage that

people in Parliament have got this kind of pacifying view to do

nothing. It's only a luxury. You are going to lose it. We have to stand

up and be counted. Where you also in favour of the action Parliament

voted on? Can you say why? As negotiation does not seem feasible

with these terrorists, I would be interested to know what the panel

things we could do in replacement for the bombings, the air strikes.

Education alone of UK young people does not actually eliminate the

imminent threat of terrorist attacks worldwide. Caroline, your foreign

affairs spokesperson said that what Isis feared most of all was peace

talks. What did that mean? I don't know when they said that but I want

to speak about the fact that when you are saying there is some kind of

pacifist mentality, maybe some are driven by that we should look at the

fact people like John Baron, one of Nicky Morgan's backbenchers spoke

passionately, a front bench select committee Tory, a former military

person who served in Northern Ireland. He has come to the

conclusion this is not the best way of fighting this evil. Nobody

disagrees that Daesh are barbaric murderers. The issue is what is the

best way to get rid of them? You have the foreign affairs select

committee with a passionate report saying they do not think the case

has been made, that reaction. You have the chair of the defence

committee, another Conservative, saying the case has not been made.

When you talk about what we do, we need to address the Syrian civil war

first, because that is creating the chaos which allows Isis to thrive.

Let me finish and then you can come in. We need to redouble our efforts

with the Vienna peace talks and listen to the experts who gave

evidence to the foreign affairs select committee saying that

precisely our involvement in bombing Syria is undermining the role

Britain could be playing at the peace talks because we were not at

that point perceived to be allied with one side. I spend a great deal

of my time consumer by this question generally, extremism, and

specifically with Isis and Syria. It is factually incorrect, wrong, to

say the correlation of the rise of foreign fighters joining Isis is

caused by our bombing. The reason is if we go back to when and how Isis

was created and emerged, it filled the vacuum that the anti-Assad

forces who were fighting against Assad, and I am anti-Assad, it

filled the vacuum that was there precisely because we did not

intervene. They used the narrative, and I know because I have followed

it every day for eight years, they used the narrative that the West

does not care about Syrian Muslims, they have abandoned you, we are the

only ones fighting for you. That is just true. You can't just assert

that it is true. Let me finish, please. We don't know what the

scenario is, had we gone in, what would have happened then? I am not

saying they don't use our bombing and actions to recruit people, I am

saying they use our action and inaction. That is what happens when

you do not control the narrative. They have propaganda, they control

the narrative. We have not recognised this as an insurgency. If

we recognised there is propaganda out there, we seize the initiative.

If we don't, they seize the initiative. How would you seize the

initiative? Bombing is part of the armoury, not the solution. All of us

should recognise there are heroes on the ground, champions who have

defeated Isis time and again. They defeated them in northern Iraq, they

defeated them in Kobane, and recently when Isis enslaved the

women. Who are these champions? Kurdish warriors. There are

political reasons why we cannot say that, because our allies in Turkey

and the Iraqi government do not want the Kurds to have a state. If the

Kurds got a state, it would be a beacon, the Muslim majority secular

state in the region, and it would set a great example by the one else.

They are defeating Isis as we speak. APPLAUSE

So often we talk about Syria, but that Tigger issue a couple of months

ago was about the refugees. I would like to ask, we don't hear much

about them now. -- the bigger issue. I know the instinct is to want to

help refugees, but in made people voted that they did not want

immigration in the country, and we saw that by the rise of Ukip and by

the policy of the Conservatives, so where do you stand on where the

refugees are at the moment? Yes, well I think it illustrates the

problem is when you seek to get involved and destabilise regimes

without working out what will replace them. This has been a

problem throughout our recent foreign policy, because it is fine

to get on the side of the revolutionaries, a particular

faction who seem more moderate, could be better news than a despotic

government, but once you have actually thrown in the match and set

light to the whole thing, you then have great movements of people. It

is not like the days when the West could move in on an unstable country

and say, OK, we will take over here, we will settle in and run it like

part of the Empire and ensure that democracy takes charge and everybody

has, it is a free country and we impose our laws and Western

standards and you live under that and everybody settles down and does

as they are told. That model went with the Empire. But if we now move

into situations where we really don't know what will replace the

current regime, unpleasant though it may be, we end up with shifting

people across the world, risking their lives to come to Europe in

search of shelter. This is wrong. We have to answer for some of this. It

is, Nicky. What is wrong is the fact that you have a Syrian civil war in

which 10.5 million people have been displaced from their homes, 4

million people have fled the country. 200,000 Muslims have been

killed. I voted for action in 2013. Had we removed Assad, what would

have been the result? I have no brief for him. He was dropping

barrel bombs. But what was the alternative?

The alternative has led to the situation we now see where we face a

clear and present threat in this country and others. The security

services said they had disrupted seven plots in the last year. We

have ten times the number of IS plots around the world. We are

involved. We have to join, with the international coalition, to deal

with this murderous death cult. APPLAUSE

I am not clear, Jill, what your prescription is. You, sir. Nobody

should go into military action clapping with joy, but we have to

learn from history. All of the despots and dictators the world has

created have happened because somebody let it. But there are

different ways of stopping it than militarily. If the advice is that

the military way is not going to work, lets, for example, be

encouraging the government in Iraq to reach out to the neglected Sunni

minority where Isis is recruiting. Let's do what Diane said. Why are we

selling arms to Saudi Arabia which are getting used in places like

Yemen? Hilary Benn yesterday said these people were fascists, and the

Labour Party has always fought fascism. Was he right to put it like

that? I am asking Diane. Whatever you think! He was right as far as it

goes, but that was 50 is ago. This is the 21st-century and we are

facing global internet based jihadism. It is not as simple. You

could smash rack to smithereens, killed tens of thousands of people,

but that would not lessen the threat on the streets of Birmingham, Paris

or London. We are in the 21st-century. We need a broad

strategy. It is so wrong to encourage people to believe that a

short, sharp bout of bombing will do with the problems we face. And let

me just say this. Let me strike an uncharacteristically conciliatory

note. This is not a left, right issue. Some of the best speeches

against bombing in the house yesterday were John Baron, a former

Army man, Julian Lewis, the chair of the Defence Select Committee. Their

point, and it speaks to people saying we have to do something, that

in military terms, in military terms what Cameron is suggesting makes no

sense, there is no endgame and we could easily get dragged into

sending troops into a land war in Syria. You, madam. The first thing I

would like to say is I take huge offence to being labelled as a

terrorist sympathiser just because...

APPLAUSE Just because I have a different

approach to this. I personally believe we are pursuing a course of

action that has no proven track record of long-term success. And I

am looking long-term. You are talking about going in, attacking

oil tanks, whatever. I totally agree, Diane, that there are other

actions we should be taking. We should be taking a far more divisive

hand with Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, countries that are funnelling money

to Isis through donorship, through buying oil, through whatever. It is

an uncomfortable truth that needs to be faced, and blanket bombing Syria

is not going to solve the problem. APPLAUSE

Do you think the Prime Minister should have apologised to talking

about a bunch of terrorist sympathisers going through the

lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn? What he made very clear in the debate... He

did not apologise. Why not? Surely you should say he should apologise.

I wasn't at the meeting. Do I look like a terrorist sympathiser to you?

No, but Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell do. Nicky has a point. I

do not like being called a terrorist sympathiser, however Jeremy Corbyn

and John McDonnell have been photographed shaking the hands of

Gerry Adams and others and making it quite clear that they will support

what certainly I would regard as terrorist factions.

Are you saying that the leader of the Labour Party supports terrorism?

Is that what you're saying? What I am saying... No! Are you saying

that? I have seen him sporting terrorists. I have not seen him

recant... Jeremy Corbyn said in June of this year, talking about our

friends of Hezbollah. John McDonald talked about the bombs and the

bullets and the sacrifices made by the IRA and Ken Livingstone talked

about people on 7/7 who gave their lives, what about the people that

lost their lives? Exactly, Nicki! These are old smears and they do

not... They are not smears, this are direct quotes.

They don't detract from the fact that in my view and the view of

millions of British people, the House of Commons made the wrong

decision yesterday. It is a perfectly honourable decision to

have, to vote against the motion. The Prime Minister made that clear.

But they are two statements and another that Ken Livingstone made

ahen this programme last week. I think people want to hear is a

debate on the issues tonight and on the debate that we had for

ten-and-a-half hours yesterday. So it is right to call them a

terrorist sympathiser but not her? I have made it clear, the Prime

Minister made it clear that members who don't support military action

were perfectly honourable in holding that view.

I would like to bring up a point not discussed yet. One of the reasons we

have taken this action is that one of our closest allies, France,

pleaded for our support. I was thinking if this happened in London

it was our friends, our family, would we not expect the same support

from France and how would you feel without that support? The point

makes is that what you want is for your friends to do the thing that is

effective. If by getting involved in military action, to have a

propaganda coup to Isis, that allows them to recruit people, putting more

people at risk, I don't think so. But there are many things we can be

doing. My answer to France is of course our hearts go out to you. But

people caught up in the Bataclan chaos, people from the UK, who

themselves have said that they don't want this as a response. They want a

response to work. The position we are taking here, Diane and I and

Jill is not that we are squeamish about it, is that this is not

effective... APPLAUSE.

The world's facing possibly the greatest crisis ever, possibly, what

about the United Nations, are they no longer relevant? What do you

think? They are not making a statement. There is no movement. I'm

sure that there are but there is no lead from the United Nations. There

are so many different angles from different countries, that is what

the United Nations was there for? They passed a resolution saying that

all necessary steps should be taken. Yes but they are not taking much of

a lead. We heard from you. I don't see United Nations leaders talking

about it, giving speeches, letting the public know what is going on?

Well, this leads on to what I was going to say, I don't think anyone

who supported the vote yesterday is saying that this is a solution to

the problem. Often we set up strong men and blow them down. No-one who

supported the yes vote is suggesting that the strikes will rid of us of

this thing called Isis. They are suggesting it is adding to the

options that we have. Yet still people on the panel, including

myself, is that we need a global strategy to deal with this. But look

at the allies that we are supporting, the UN says that all

need to help in dealing with Isis, the Iraqi government says that they

need help. The rebels inside Syria, anti-Assad, they are pro-the

strikes. Everyone wants this to happen. If you speak to those on the

ground to ask what affect is this producing, speaking to the rebels,

the Kurds, fighting Isis on the ground, they will tell you. They

have been able to kick out Isis from sinna, Raqqa as a result. It helps

them activity. It does not solve the problem but it tactically helps

them. APPLAUSE.

I want to come back to yesterday in the House of Commons. We have had

half of the programme on this. But there were a lot of questions on the

next topic. It is a question from Angela Griffin, please.

Has Hilary Benn's speech in the House of Commons weakened Jeremy

Corbyn's leadership? There was comment on the way that Hilary Benn

was applauded. You mentioned it at the beginning, has it weakened

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership? I think what it showed to the Labour Party

is that there was another person capable of being leader. It was the

most extraordinary speech. I don't know how it came to those watching

on TV but standing in the chamber, regardless of views it was spine

tingling. The reason that the lady spoke about the cheering at the end,

because it was so extraordinary, the debate had been so intense, that is

what led to the applause and the cheers. I take your point about it

being a sombre day and motion. This is for the Labour Party to deal

with. I saw the look of fear on some of the Labour MPs in the lobby. They

were worried about the consequences. We have heard Ken Livingstone

talking about the deselection. This is a matter for the Labour Party.

But all I would say is that it is important, regardless of what we may

thing, as a government minister, having a strong opposition is

something that the country needs. I think that was Hilary Benn showing

he has shown extraordinary qualities in that speech last night.

APPLAUSE. Diane Abbott, is Jeremy Corbyn's

position weaker as a result? You know, let's just say, Hilary Benn

made a bravura speech. If you have shut your eyes, you could have

thought it was Tony Benn speaking. But as for him having great

qualities, fortunately in the Labour Party we have many with great

qualities. Jeremy Corbyn has faced a lot of sneering from the London

elite. I have known Jeremy Corbyn a long

time. It has long been my view that Jeremy Corbyn invests in a decent

suit, for instance. But he is a very begin win person with genuine

beliefs. He is different from the regular run of politicians. He is

not a 40-year-old guy who went to Oxford and wears smart suits. He

believes in what he believes with the biggest mandate of a Labour

leader. So, is he acting as a strong leader?

This idea, what constitutes a strong leader, Jill. What I am saying is

this: What Jeremy was saying about the air strikes, supported by the

overwhelming majority of Labour members, the majority of Labour MPs,

I believe in less than 12 months, the public will come round. I think

that the air strikes are ill-feated. And Jeremy will surprise all of you

despite the sneering. He stands for certain values that the British

people value. This Tory Party is going to hit very rocky waters. We

have defeated them on tax credits, on police cuts, taking the right

position on the air strikes and I believe that Jeremy Corbyn... Can

lead the Labour Party to victory! Can I put to you something you said

three or four days ago, a party of government has to have a position on

a matter of peace and war. The problem about a free vote for

Labour, is it hands victory to Cameron. Is that what happened to

and should he have stuck with a whipped vote, telling Labour if you

go against the vote you are out of the Shadow Cabinet? It is no secret,

my view is that we should have whipped the vote. The Tories whipped

their vote. If not, there would have been more people voting against.

Is that right? No. How do you know, that is why you

have a whip. If you had voted against, you would

have lost your job. 100 or so people? I don't think that there

were people. There was a small minority in the party who did not

want to support the government. But the overwhelming mood was one of

supporting the Prime Minister. You did have a whipped vote. We did.

The result would have been the same. Just on my whip, I made no secret I

wanted a whipped vote. But Jeremy's concern is to bring people together.

Let me finish... I'm trying to ask a question, you think he should have

told the Shadow Cabinet to get in line or get out? No. It was

ridiculous that a man of conviction, which is what everybody tells us

that Jeremy Corbyn is, that a man of conviction could not tell his party

to fall in line than those who would not. He could have replaced Hilary

Benn with you because he would have had somebody to sum up who would

have agreed women him and shown... It is a different kind of politics.

It sounds radical. But a different kind of politics.

I think if we gave him a chance he may be able to deliver it as well.

APPLAUSE. What he is talking about... What I

think was a mistake, I think on issues of going to war it is

appropriate to have a free vote. There was a free vote about

fox-hunting, it should abfree vote for something as serious as this.

MPs must examine their conscious but also to examine the evidence. What

happened during the Iraq war is that MPs in a sense, could outsource

brains to the whips, not look at the evidence, therefore going with the

whips to take us into the catastrophe that was war. So

formatters of war there should not be a whipped vote. But Jeremy should

have positioned from the start as something he said as a position of

strength, that he would do something differently. To look to have a free

vote. Coming back to the original

question, Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. I think he did, listen

to the speech, the way he articulated the point clearly and it

changed my opinion on it. So I do think he has weakened Jeremy

Corbyn's leadership. So you changed your mind listening

to Hilary Benn? It was a difficult choice. But after listening to the

speech, it did sway my decision, yes.

I think being a leader you must show a position of strength. In answer to

her question, I think yes, it has weakened his position. I was one of

the people that applauded that speech of Hilary Benn yesterday. He

really stood out amongst that party. Angela Griffin, what do you think,

you asked the question? I think that the Conservative have now found a

good opposition in Hilary Benn. You think he could become the leader

of the party? Yes. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. We

are talking about Hilary Benn, and this particular speech was, I think,

fantastic. I would salute Hilary Benn. I would salute Tom Watson, I

would salute stella Creasy, and all of the 66 Labour MPs who went with

conscious and voted as they thought it above party politics. I find with

the issues of Liverpool leadership, I don't want to blame Jeremy Corbyn,

I think he does unfairly get a raw deal, about the mood, and what I

mean about the mood is that on this programme last week, Ken Livingstone

suggested that those who murdered people gave their lives in protest.

Murder can never be a form of protest. But phrasing it in that

way, I have been through the grievances that he spoke about. I

have witnessed torture in jail, imprisoned, detained without a

charge. Had my DNA taken but I have not killed people. We cannot justify

terrorism. Ken Livingstone then goes on, he is making excuses for

terrorists, he wants to say to understand them but he is not

willing to understand the motives of the 66 MPs of his party, that voted

for intervention in Syria but is saying that he is should be

deselected. We are sympathising with terrorists

but not with our own MPs. It is that mood... It is incomprehensible. This

is not just about Jeremy Corbyn but to admit with what Ken Livingstone

said last week, with the remarks yesterday, do not defend him please.

Ken does not need me to defend him. On Caroline and whipping, gently, I

would say that Caroline can afford to take her position on whipping,

there is only one person in her party, the party leader, the whip

and the backbencher. I can have a view. It is relevant to say that

people should be looking at their consciouses, and not just going

through the fodder. In the 28 years I have never been

described as lobby fodder. But the thing about the Labour Party and the

collapse of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. Yesterday I had lunch,

half voted seriously against the action, half of them voted for the

action. Actually, as Labour MPs we have more to unite us than to

#2kw50id us, basically protecting our constituents from this Tory

Government. All of this sneering at Jeremy and his leadership, Hilary

Benn made a brilliant speech in the moment but I am telling this

audience that Jeremy Corbyn will be proved right about the Syria air

strikes. APPLAUSE.

Let's abandon Jeremy Corbyn for a moment. I speak as a member of the

Labour Party. I actually thought Hilary Benn's performance yesterday

just showed how poor a leader Jeremy Corbyn was. His performance

yesterday was very bad. I personally think that there is a civil war in

the Labour Party at the moment and I think the actions of Jeremy have not

helped things. He has been very divisive, appointed controversial

people and gone behind the back of his Shadow Cabinet and MPs. I

personally think that the Labour Party is bombing in the polls. I

think Jeremy should do the honourable thing, put his party

before his ambitions and resign as leader of the Labour Party. And you

here. I would probably say that what Hilary Benn said last night was

quite astounding and the Commons will remember it, but Jeremy has the

biggest ever mandate of his party. That is something that everybody

across the political spectrum has to respect and take into account. And

if they don't, that is unfair politics right there for you. We

only have ten minutes left and I think we will go on to another

topic. Next week we are in Bath and the week after that, in Slough. We

will give the details again at the end. This question from Dylan

Gibbons, please. Why did the government appeared to be so

aggressive and ill informed in its negotiations with junior doctors?

The junior doctors' strike which was called off. 97% of doctors voted for

a strike. Why was Jeremy Hunt so aggressive and ill informed, and the

government so aggressive and ill informed, Jill Kirby? It is a bit of

a mess. We have to be relieved that junior doctors are not striking and

hope that this gets sorted out. Some of the difficulty is that the

government has not been clear about the objective here. We are told it

is about seven-day working. Seven-day working in the NHS, and a

seven-day service means different things to different people. We need

to be confident that we could all see a GP when we desperately need to

at the weekend and can be looked after in hospital at the weekend,

but hospital doctors already work weekends. GPs do not. Do we want GPs

on duty in the surgery for routine appointments for seven days a week?

I am confused as to what the government really seeks to get out

of this. I don't think most people really do expect every part of the

NHS to be seven-day working, but they do expect that in hospital they

will be properly cared for throughout the weekend. In tangled

with this is the question of whether junior doctors are paid enough

already or not, whether restrictions on their working hours have led to

them losing out in terms of their pay, their overtime and so on. What

is your interpretation of it? Their position is clear, they say it is

phoney that they are getting 11% pay increase and they are going to lose

30% of their salary, according to their union. I don't know the truth.

A lot of them are fed up but many junior doctors did not get involved

in the action at all. What worries me in the long-term is whether we

will be able to afford to pay our doctors enough to keep them in this

country working in the NHS, and whether the NHS model is totally

bust anyway. You, sir. RU doctor? I worked in the health service for a

long time and I think one of the big problems is that there is still fat

and wastage in the NHS. They're absolutely isn't. Apart from the

Greek model of economics, which pervades through the accounting

process of the way the NHS is run, on the shop floor there is little

but the smell left on the bone as far as the slack in the system is

concerned. There is not any more cutting that could possibly be done.

I have worked with doctors, midwives, nurses of all different

professions, and the professions are absolutely on their knees as far as

keeping the health service going is concerned.

APPLAUSE You asked the question, you also

work in the NHS, as what? I am an NHS manager. One of those! I'm

afraid so. I am teasing. What is your view? It has been gross

uprising. It seems to be quite confusing. -- it has been very

surprising. I think it is ill-advised to imply that the lack

of junior doctors at the week and was causing very large increase in

the number of deaths. I don't think that is as clear-cut as it is laid

out, although there are some issues that need to be addressed for the

weekend. What do you think of the handling of it, aggressive and ill

informed? That is right. It was surprising. I spoke to a national

clinical leader and she said the advisers at the Department of Health

were not giving good advice to the Secretary of State. Nicky Morgan. I

don't recognise the characterisation as aggressive and ill-advised, but I

agree there are reforms that need to be made. The BMA have been calling

for modernisation of this contract since 2008. There is a need for

different parts of the NHS. But there is evidence that shows that if

you are admitted and need an operation at the weekend, your

chances of survival can be less. There is huge pressure on the NHS.

My constituency in Leicestershire has the busiest Accident Emergency

in the country, and clearly that whole hospital has to be working

effectively seven days a week to cope with the demand from patients

on it. But the important point is that the parties are now talking.

This is also about a safer NHS in terms of working hours for junior

doctors. Under the change in the contract, their working hours

maximum goes down to just 72 in a seven-day period, so it is important

that contract is modernised. Both parties are talking, we will get

there and we can go forward to the NHS that we want. If it works out.

Do you believe their claim that they would lose 30% of their salary as a

result of these measures? I don't. The contract changes, what Jeremy

was saying was that no one would lose out and 75% of people would get

more when working the legal hours. I can hear junior doctors around the

country throwing things at the television and screaming, because

the kind of description you are hearing from Nicky Morgan does not

match up to what I have been hearing from junior doctors in my

constituency and beyond. They are speechless about the contempt with

which they have been treated by the government. Not just them, but

nurses whose bursaries are going to be cancelled and will have to pay

for their training, too. This is a government that does not care much

about the NHS, and also a government that does not mind launching a

campaign of misinformation about what junior doctors do.

APPLAUSE They were willing to take the

action, being forced to take the action that they were because they

care about their patients and they want them to be safe. That is why

they were focusing on this contract, and let's not forget it was being

imposed upon them until the very last minute. At the last minute,

thank goodness, Jeremy Hunt blinked. Until then he was trying to say, if

you don't agree I will impose this contract on you anyway. What kind of

ways that to treat professionals who do not go into the NHS to make loads

of money but because they absolutely care about it? We have to speed up

because we are coming towards the end. I have a friend who works in

the NHS and she could not believe that doctors were wondering out in

their scrubbers, over infection lines, going out and speaking to

patients. She said the biggest reason they spend so much money is

because they get infections, and yet if they did not wonder over in their

scrubs, that would take a load of the junior doctors. But we don't

talk about the waste in the NHS ever.

Caroline, you talked about the government not caring about the NHS

but can I take you back to May when the Conservatives proposed ?10

million to put into the NHS, far more than any other party? How can

you say that this government does not care about the NHS when it is

investing more than ever before? I will redirect that to Diane Abbott.

Inflation and population. My mum was a nurse, so full disclosure, I know

how hard and committed NHS workers are. I could not believe Jeremy Hunt

begin and again going into meetings and saying, in effect, people were

dying at weekends because junior doctors did not work at weekends.

Andrew Lansley was their first home -- Health Secretary. He fell out

with everybody. Jeremy Hunt was brought in to be Mr nice guy and he

has fallen out with everybody. There is a systemic problem between Tory

health ministers and the NHS, because if you work in the NHS you

know they do not mean the NHS any good. It is systemic. Maajid. OK, go

on. Patricia Hewitt ruined life for junior doctors. Under Labour. Mr

Hunt is doing the same thing. He has lied about weekend mortality. There

is no increased Jeff at weekends. I work in liver transplant. Eric

Ashman patients do not want to come in at the weekend for emergency

transplants because they believe Jeremy, I will not pronounce his

surname because I might mispronounce it deliberately, because they think

that by having a life-saving transplant operation they will die.

Given his profound incompetence at this junior doctors' contract issue,

as well as previous Health Secretary 's, is it not time for a cross-party

Health Care Commision to save our NHS?

APPLAUSE You stole the words from my mouth. I

was about to say that you sound like a doctor and you stole the words

from my mouth. The only solution to this, as with MPs salaries, is an

independent commission that looks at the future of the NHS. As it stands

it is unsustainable. All I am going to say is that if my father goes in

for surgery and is in the operating theatre and anaesthetised and they

say, sorry, we have no beds but we have to take you back, this is an

unsustainable situation and we need an independent enquiry. Our time is

up. Can we talk about climate change next week, David? I can't believe we

have the UN climate conference happening now and we have not talked

about it. We might have got to it if we had not spent so much time

talking about Iraq and Syria. We're in Bath next week with

Mary Beard and Quentin Letts We'll be in Slough the

following week. To join the audience for either

programme, Bath or Slough, go to our If you are listening on Radio 5Live,

you can continue the debate My thanks to our panel and apologies

for not raising climate change. Next time, I promise. My thanks to our

audience, to all of you who came to Birmingham. Until next Thursday,

from Question Time, good night. What do we do

with something like this?