06/12/2015 Sunday Politics London

Good morning, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Police say they're treating a multiple stabbing in London

as the the RAF intensifies its bombing campaign over Syria,

is this the latest sign of an evolving threat on British streets?

Labour scored a significant win at this week's Oldham by-election

but after a tough week for Jeremy Corbyn

there are more reports of smears, abuse and even talk of a purge.

And it's not just the Labour party that has its rebels,

we'll be talking to the Conservative MP Heidi Allen,

who hit the headlines after delivering a bombshell speech

against her own party's welfare plans.

Boris Johnson add cycling revolution is proving controversial, is the

mayor backing bikes over other road users?

And joining me for all of that, three journalists who've dutifully

battled through the wind and the rain to get here,

even without the threat of a telling off from Andrew.

It's Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott and Janan Ganesh,

and they'll be tweeting throughout the show.

that police are treating an attack at a London underground station

A man carrying a knife was reported to have screamed,

as he injured three men at Leytonstone station

making it potentially the first terrorist attack on British soil

since the murder of fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013.

Mobile phone footage shows police officers

wrestling with a man after he had been tasered.

He was later arrested and remains in custody.

The Metropolitan Police said one man suffered serious knife injuries

but was not thought to be in a life-threatening condition,

while two other victims received minor injuries.

Well, the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith

has this morning called the attack an "abomination",

and we can speak now to the local MP John Cryer

Your response? It is an appalling attack. And it is frightening, very

frightening for local people. I've been talking to some of the local

businesses this morning and obviously they are all very worried

about it now. What the background is, what the motivation is, I do

think it would be particularly helpful to speculate at the moment.

-- I don't think it would be particularly helpful. So I'd rather

not do that. But when something like this happens in your own area, it is

not something expect. Leytonstone is a peaceful area, a lot of

communities live together extremely peacefully and harmoniously, that's

one of the great things about this area. People will be scared and

understandably so, as you say, so what is your message to constituents

as they wake up to this news? I think the message is that we carry

on as normal, that we don't allow this sort of barbaric behaviour to

change our lives. And I think that's the important thing. And I think

people will continue as well. I'm not saying people will be blase

about it, people will be very concerned. But I don't think people

will allow this to change the way they live their lives on a

day-to-day basis, that's the impression I've had from the people

I've been talking to this morning. Now, this has happened just days

after parliament voted for air strikes in Syria, people are bound,

rightly or wrongly to draw a link between the two, what say you?

Welcome I was opposed to the air strikes in Syria, I voted against

air strikes in Syria, I think it will prove to be quite a major

mistake. I am not convinced that this will be connected to the air

strikes in Syria. Well I just don't know at the moment so we can only

speculate. But there doesn't seem to be immediately evidence that there

is a direct link. But we have to find out what the background is.

Police are investigating. I have been in contact with police this

morning. At I think it would be dangerous to say this is a direct

consequence of air strikes in Syria. And as I say I am a fairly major

critic of the government's activities. Thank you.

This comes after the so-called Islamic State

claimed a husband and wife who massacred 14 people

were supporters of the terrorist group.

So is this just the latest sign that the West faces a new type of threat?

Well, we're joined now by the security expert Will Geddes.

At the moment it looks like a lone wolf, no accomplices, no

organisation in any major way behind it, is that how you read it? I think

pretty much so. It is incredibly difficult to say right now and again

it is dangerous to speculate too much until the police have

undertaken their investigations to determine how this individual was

motivated, under what particular an brother that might have been,

whether it was alone, whether it was a self radicalisation process --

what particular an umbrella that might have been. We have been

expecting an attack because we have had the Paris attacks, we have had

the attacks in Southern California, and there had been warnings about

it, and the terror threat is still extremely high. So we shouldn't be

that surprised. No, I don't think we are. And I think we are accepting

the fact that unfortunately we are at a very high risk level intervals

of these types of attacks. And this precedes the Syrian bombing

agreements in terms of the fact that there were seven significant plots

foiled this year. We have always been on the radar, it is just down

to the capabilities of the individuals. Sadly, certainly in the

wake of this most recent incident, it will be the platform of lone

wolves more than anything else. Do you think that is the case? That is

the most recent pattern, that might be what continues in, unfortunately,

capitals across Europe? I think we have to be pragmatic and accept

that. Ultimately we know that the individuals that are planning as

cells have a far higher chance of detection. So individuals working on

their own, whether it be in a very specific conceptual sort of agenda

and motivation or whether it be an individual that is simply aligned to

the ideologies of Daesh will add to the spectrum of Brett. Nick Watt,

what do you think the little reaction will be? We have had some

reaction from Jon Cryer saying stay vigilant but don't be blase. That

was an incredibly important contribution you had from John

Cryer, he is not just the local MP, E is the chairman of the

Parliamentary party. In that capacity Jeremy Corbyn invites him

to attend the Shadow Cabinet. He voted against air strikes and he is

being held up as how the majority of opinion in the Labour Party is

against air strikes. He was absolutely clear saying it would be

dangerous to say that this attack in Leytonstone is in any way linked to

the vote in parliament. The reason why that is significant is that

there will be some people and indeed we are already seeing some people on

Twitter saying that this attack in Leytonstone is as a result of that

vote. Well, the chairman of the PLP who voted against the air strikes

said it would be dangerous to make that conclusion. But people will

make those links and they will continue to do so particularly in

the light of Michael Fallon saying the bombing campaign is intensifying

in Syria and there are likely to be civilian cavities. They may well do

so but what strikes me about this attack, is awful and horrible as it

is for everybody involved, is that it is a rather pathetic and little

attack. Very happily the victim, as we understand it, is not going to

die as a result of this attack. What strikes me is, were we in America

and were the people who are prone to do these things able to get their

hands on guns, this would have been a mass casualties could well have

been a mass casualties attack. As it was, we're left with somebody just

randomly stabbing and not really getting anywhere. Do you think

people are ready for how long this campaign is going to go on for, and

we are going to live in the shadow indirectly or directly of a

terrorist threat? I don't know if people are ready for just Syria or

maybe five years worth of security being one of the top three issues in

the country. If you look at the issues index, most salient to voters

in recent years, it has been the usual economy, NHS, immigration to a

certain extent. I wonder whether, by the time of the next election

because of this fairly consistent terror threat, security is even

number one, two or three. We've got the investigatory Powers Bill going

through Parliament at the moment and I think that kind of legislation,

the presence of a terror threat, the kind of thing that is on the evening

news might overnight over five years will change what we consider to be

the most salient issues in British issues -- night after night. There

had been reports that one of the Paris attackers had travelled to

Britain earlier this year, and the chair of the Home Affairs Select

Committee said it is a real worry that people are able to get through

our borders without being detected. How worried are you by those

reports? I think we are playing a bit of a catch-up game and

unfortunately we have to appreciate it many capabilities in tens of the

border force a Metropolitan Police and police agencies across the UK.

Although there have been positive suggestions by the government in

terms of boosting numbers within the security services, for example, you

are still looking at approximately 18 months before those 1900 new

heads within GCHQ and security services will be operationally able

to fulfil their mission. Briefly on the police numbers, also a very

controversial issue in terms of the spending review, that didn't happen,

the cuts that people feared, the government will be relieved they did

not make those cuts? Iain Duncan Smith in condemning these attackers

as an abomination made that exact point, saying we kept those police

numbers and they will be important in terms of attacking the terrorist

threat. Now, the Prime Minister had hoped to

sign off his plans for a renegotiation of Britain's EU

membership later this month. have decided not give him an early

Christmas present, and that means the referendum on

whatever deal he does get Last month David Cameron sent a

letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council setting out the

EU reform demands. There were four main areas he once renegotiated.

Protection for non-Europe countries and safeguarding their rights.

Exemption from an ever closer union. And more powers for national

parliaments. Restore competitiveness in the EU which involves cutting red

tape and free trade agreements with other economies. And finally, the

one causing the most headaches, restricting benefits for EU

migrants. Under the Prime Minister's plans, EU migrants would

not be able to claim any in work benefits for four years. On Thursday

David Cameron abandoned hopes for an early referendum as early as May

next year after admitting he would not be able to get the deal he wants

at an EU summit in two weeks' time. Donald Tusk will on Monday published

an assessment of the British demands in a letter to the 27 other member

states. It follows a round of confessionals in which governments

have outlined their concerns. He said December's meeting will pave

the way for a deal in February. By then David Cameron will be forced to

decide whether to campaign for a Brexit or stay in the EU.

and committed eurosceptic Iain Duncan Smith

has been speaking on The Andrew Marr show this morning,

and he said the delay was a sign of strength, not weakness.

Well the mood is actually very upbeat. I'm involved in putting

together the package that the Prime Minister wants to take to the

council. So we've been deep in discussion about that. The Prime

Minister has been pretty clear throughout that he wants to take a

package that supports the manifesto commitment. In my area for example

on welfare it is very clear that he wants to have that commitment,

people living here and contributing to the system, and that will be one

of the key elements. We did ask for a government minister

to talk to us about the prime minister's renegotiation plans

but were told none was available. we can speak instead to the

Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, of the eurosceptic Conservatives

For Britain group and he joins us

from our Westminster studio. Welcome to the programme. Are you as

upbeat and optimistic as Iain Duncan Smith? No. Ironic, really, because

he and I were elected on the same day in 1992 and we both opposed the

Maastricht Treaty. We both spare about the direction of the European

Union. -- we both despair. And while he is gamely supporting the Prime

Minister's negotiation in its centre is, I think he knows in his heart

that this is a very lame renegotiation compared to what the

Prime Minister was originally promising. I mean, there are a whole

range of things that the Prime Minister wanted, like getting out of

all the home affairs and justice revisions of the Lisbon Treaty, like

getting a complete opt out of the EU Charter of fundamental rights, which

is, for example, gives the power to the European court of justice to

decide prisoner voting and not just the European Court of Human Rights,

and so it goes on. But, you know, you know Iain Duncan

Smith well, he is not known as a raging Europhile, and if he is

optimistic and competent, certainly, publicly, the chances of a

meaningful deal of a deal with Europe, -- meaningful chance of a

deal with Europe, then why cannot you be? He is bound by his duty to

the cabinet, but I am free to speak my mind, Iain Duncan Smith focus

very narrowly on a very circular way, on his own, on the Prime

Minister's own terms of reference. The European Union has changed so

dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years, the question the British

people are going to have to face, do they want to carry on with this

journey? There is no status quo, is they want to carry on with the

journey of integration, because what the prime ministers negotiating

about, will not change the course of the European Union or the course of

the United Kingdom within the European Union. They are relatively

trivial, rather complicated, but relatively trivial negotiating

demands. He's going to get the deal by February. Even if he gets the

deal by February, it will not change the price of fish, it will not allow

the UK Parliament to determine our own laws and it will not restrict

the European court of justice, another of the Prime Minister's

demands that he has now dropped. It will not restore the opt out of the

social chapter, which was gained by John Major in the Maastricht Treaty,

it will not achieve any of these things. There was never going to be

enough concessions... I am glad you are making the point that this

renegotiation was never really going to address the fundamental

problems... Or, you were never going to be satisfied! The Prime Minister

was making these much tougher demands. He has dropped these

demands. I would be supporting the Prime Minister's negotiating

position if he had stuck to his demands. Which one in particular, if

there was one thing you would like to see him bring back which you

could sell to your constituents, what would it be? The fundamental

one, restrict the ability of the European Court of Justice to rule on

almost anything. Risen a voting, I mentioned, it is now moving to that

area. And the whole question of the relationship between those countries

that do not want to be in political union, do not want to be involuntary

union, do not want to be in the fiscal union treaty which has been

redesigned by the call Eurozone states. -- prisoner voting. What we

have got to face, this is not a status quo we are voting to stay in,

it is a continuing development of European Union integration, if you

want to have choices, you must vote Leave. It has been reported that the

campaign will campaign for Brexit. LAUGHTER

Would you welcome him leading the campaign from the out? You have

laughed... We would welcome him joining the vote to leave campaign,

but I don't think it is very likely, at the moment he is convincing

people he's being really tough but we know that this is what happens in

all EU negotiations, the government pretends to be tough, pretends to be

a showdown, and in the end, hey presto, rabbit out of the hat,

everything is marvellous. Game set and match for the British. Is there

any thing, do you think, that Iain Duncan Smith will be able to sell

once this renegotiation is done and dusted? Sell to the backbench... ? I

doubt it, I think... As Bernard has suggested, in January, 2013, when

David Cameron talked about renegotiation, he meant something

sweeping, even in addition to the thing is Bernard has mentioned, even

including flirting with the idea of some deep reform to European free

movement, that was what was being suggested two years ago. There is

not going to be anything approaching any of that in any deal that urges

early next year. As it stands a number of backbenchers will find

that hard to support. Tactic from Downing Street, to leak the idea

that David Cameron might conceivably support the leave campaign, slightly

misjudged, so transparent the obvious that he will not. If

anything, it was a message sent to other European capitals, " if I

don't do that smack if you do not do this deal, I may join the sceptics.

-- if you do not do this deal". I agree with Jan, nobody will take

seriously the idea that he will campaign for out because

fundamentally that is not what he believes, he wants to stay in and

has said seven the beginning. Bernard is right, there is a feeling

that the renegotiation will only achieve something rather cosmetic.

-- and has said so since the beginning. David Cameron may pull a

rabbit out of a hat and pretend that he has got a concession but people

will not be convinced. I leave it to Nick to stick up for the Prime

Minister in this particular instance, what would the rabbit in

the hat, the rabbit coming out of the hat, be, for David Cameron, once

this deal is done and dusted. It will be examined as rabbit, because

we will know about it! He cannot go beyond what he wrote in the letter

to Donald Tusk, the rabbit that he takes out of a hat which says, isn't

this amazing, isn't opt out from the historic commitment to ever closer

union, he will say it is significant... He will say it has an

impact on the European Court of judgment rulings, but the point is,

first, we know that is what he wants to achieve, and also, people like

Bernard, and we can see he is nodding (!), he will say this is

just a cosmetic change, it is not going to change the fundamental

privacy of EU law over EU law. -- fundamental primacy of EU law over

UK law. If there were a concession on in work benefits, many people

feel that is impossible, bearing in mind the laws, would that satisfy

you? It would not, in the end, the European Court of Justice will

always have the power to overturn Teva has been agreed, the problem

the Prime Minister has got, he started at the beginning with

grappling with quite some big things, but refusing to argue with

the overall architecture of the European Union. -- grappling with

some quite big things. If you do not change the architecture, nothing

will really change, except that the European Union will carry on

morphing into a state and we will be part of that, whether we are in out

of the Euro, ever closer treaty in the treaty -- ever closer union in

the treaty, not in the treaty, whatever. Thank you very much for

joining us. The real substance being debated

by MPs in the Commons on Wednesday may have been whether to extend air

strikes into Syria but it was the conflict inside

Jeremy Corbyn's party that ended up

grabbing just as many headlines. Even when the party finally arrived

at a position, it couldn't heal the rift between

the leader and some of his MPs. The party received

a much-needed boost with a comfortable majority

in Thursday's by-election. So when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn's

Labour, just what do the voters

make of it all? Labour won the old by-election and

comfortable, there are majority was reduced but they increased their

share of the vote, Jeremy Corbyn says it shows that Labour is

electoral. We, with the help of the pollen company populace, have

gathered together a group of people that once voted Labour but did not

at the last election. We are going to hear of what they think of the

new Labour Party and behind this screen, we have two seasoned Labour

advisers to pass comment on what they hear. Vets get started. --

polling company Populous. -- let's get started. All of the former

Labour voters are from London, and at the general election they spread

their approach to Ukip, the greens, conservatives and Lib Dem, all of

them felt Labour lost their vote over the economy, Ed Miliband and

being out of touch. What do they make of Labour today? -- Greens.

They are moving in the right direction, with a charismatic

leader, whose policies seem to be standing up for the average man. I

disagree, no disrespect, for me, I am quite a middle ground person,

going from the left to the right, they have gone far too left for me.

For me they are unelectable. He is very principled, I respect him for

that but I do not agree with his policies, particularly defence.

Initial impressions? Did people know who he was before he became the

Labour leader? I had not. Had you heard of him? I had heard of him...

He seems principled, compassionate... He has used a term,

the new politics... Have you heard that? Yes... Do you know what he

means? Not specifically, I presume he means a different attitude

towards leading the party and the way they make decisions perhaps.

It goes back to the same problem, if you have a vague catchphrase and no

substance behind it... Maybe I am not seeing the strong leadership --

leadership capability, I understand he's principled, but as a leader of

the country, I am not convinced. Does that sound like a good way of

changing things, giving them more freedom in the way that they vote?

It brings a more human feel, does not feel like everyone is a robot,

all of us in this room, we could all be voting for Labour but we would

all have different opinions on things. That is... That is a human,

you know, that is human nature. I think the fact that is being

respected, that is good. But, keeping it in line, how he's going

to manage that, that may be a problem. That woman has some up the

nub of the problem! That is pretty much their position right now. This

is a video clip... I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy in

general, I think that is quite dangerous. That is woolly. You

cannot go from principled to Willy and evasive, that is a problem. --

woolly and evasive. You need crystal clear clarity on security issues.

You need to give somebody a bit of time, let them lace up their running

shoes (!), they find their own pace, and they get a little bit of time.

It is early days, he has just started in the job. In time, he will

show, you know, a lot of strength will stop courage, I think. Why not

vote Labour this time? -- a lot of strength and courage. Labour was

giving benefits left right and centre, if somebody needs them,

fine, but they were in so much debt, the country was getting further and

further into the country was getting further and

to it. Do you know the if Jeremy Corbyn and John Madonna's government

would spend more money, would they put up taxes? -- do you know if they

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell government. I bet there is not a

single specific about how it is different. Despite the debate about

austerity. They have not mentioned that word once. The fact Labour have

not articulated anything... They have asked a leading question, so

not to give that response, that suggest, well,... We will not make

up our minds... We do not know... These people are not the British

electorate, nor can they alone give Labour a victory, but there will be

plenty to note, as lost Labour voters, they seem prepared to give

Labour and Jeremy Corbyn time to bed in.

STUDIO: And I'm joined in the studio now

by the Shadow Work and Pensions secretary, Owen Smith.

We have had plenty of evidence from the pollsters, you saw and heard

some of it, at the last election Labour was not trusted on the

economy, particularly when it came to managing the welfare bill, do you

think you are on the way to learning that trust? If you take the evidence

of the poll that matters, the poll with the people, looking at Oldham,

then perhaps we are winning back trust. There is no doubt we did not

have it at the last election, that is why Labour lost and lost badly,

but we did win a victory on Thursday in Oldham, up 10%, the Tories were

down 10%. Perhaps we are in the foothills of starting to win back

trust. I recognise and Jeremy Ross recognises we have a long way to go,

almost five years until the next election and we will have to put in

place policies and ideas to win back trust fully. -- Jeremy recognises.

It was a Labour victory but that is a Labour heartland, you should not

be surprised that you did well somewhere like Oldham, that is

despite the policies of the national party, you could say, it you could

say it is because of a strong Labour parliament, that is not a Nuneaton

which you need to win back. But in the media we were talking about lots

of suggestions that Labour was going to lose that seat, or if we win, we

would win only by 1000. Labour MPs themselves were saying that! That is

my point. But the pollsters were certainly saying in their view, we

were likely to struggle. For us to hold it as well as we did, increase

the share of the vote from last time around, 11,000 majority, you cannot

say anything other than it was a good victory for Labour. I think it

has to be a vindication both of Jim McMahon, the excellent candidate,

now the MP for old, a good local guy who has been a council leader, very

well respected. -- Oldham. The kind of community-based politicians that

we produce in labour. -- community rooted politicians. But also a

vindication of Jeremy Corbyn and the rebuilding of trust. Nobody in

Oldham can be in any doubts as to who is the leader of the Labour

Party right now! Let's talk about welfare, we heard

the lady saying Labour was giving benefits left, right and centre and

leaving the country in so much debt, how do you address that? Well, I

think we've got to start by doing what we did not do well enough under

the last parliament which is call out the line from the Tory party

that the dead this country were in and are still in, let's not forget

the Tories have practically doubled debt. Let's talk about welfare

specifically. Happy to. The Labour Party under Harriet Harman clearly

felt it should move closer to the Conservatives on welfare and not

further away, the party did not vote against their bill introducing ?12

billion of saving and Harriet Harman said she was sympathetic to lowering

the benefits cap. You did not vote against the limit on child tax

credits for two children. In that vote we definitely were wrong and

that's why Labour has now voted against the welfare bill, and the

reason for that is the reason many people in this country, I think,

have started to turn against the Conservative Party. Because the tax

credit changes that were at the heart of that bill, and the heart of

the ?12 billion savings. At you knew about the tax credit bill and you

were still in favour of a benefit cap, at the time you were still in

favour of lowering the benefit cap and you wanted to limit it to child

tax credits to two children. So was that all a complete aberration?

Well, as I said, I think those were the wrong decisions. I actually

argued within the Shadow Cabinet at the time against our abstaining on

that vote. I said in my conference speech a couple of months ago that

this is no time for the Labour Party to be abstaining on whether we make

poor people, working people, poorer, in this country. People want the

Labour Party to stand up for working people. What is your evidence for

saying people want you to do that? Harriet Harman announced that Labour

did not oppose limiting tax credits to two children because she said, we

simply cannot say to the public that you were wrong at the election. So

who is representing the people here? We might point to Heidi Allen, who

you have got on the programme later, or any of the other 20 or 30 Tory

MPs who stood up against their own Prime Minister just a few weeks ago.

On tax credits? Saying that they got it wrong on tax credits. The Tories

describe that as welfare spending, that was part of their ?12 billion

at the election. It is entirely legitimate for me to talk about

that. Of course it is but it is not just that. You said people want us

to do this and I am trying to get from you the evidence for that. Yes

on tax credits but more broadly on Labour's perception of people on

Labour with welfare. We have seen leaks from polling from Labour's

learning the lessons task force chaired by Margaret Beckett in which

people said Labour was in full to the undeserving, it needs to be for

middle-class voters not just down and outs. And a Labour win would

have been good for people on benefits and immigrants, anyone

claiming money. How will you win an election if people only see you as

representing those groups? Well, we've got to win an election because

those groups and low and middle income earners in Britain, the very

people being hit by tax credit cuts and now the universal credit cuts

that are coming down the stream next year, need a Labour government in

order to introduce fairness. They also want to know that we are in

favour of free-form. There is no doubting that. Where is the evidence

for that? -- in favour of reform. This is your own polling and it is

not in line with what the public want or how they view you. That's

what I just said. In addition to supporting in work benefits for

people who are in low and middle income jobs, like tax credits and

universal credit, we also need to be making an argument for reform. Do

you accept you are not doing that? Well I think we are only just

starting to do that. I'm going to be announcing in the New Year a big new

commission by the Labour Party to look at Social Security, to try to

present a Labour alternative, reformed social security system.

There is no doubt that for generations people have increasingly

become Miss trust for of the social securities system -- distrusting of

the Social Security system. We need to win back people's trust. It

should be a massive positive for our country that we have a generous

welfare state, it is a positive. Which policy decisions so far are

going to back up that idea of reform rather than people's idea that you

are only four people on benefits if you are trying to your appeal? And

you have talked about tax credits, but if you want to lower the benefit

cap, if you now don't want to limit tax credits, which policy areas now

back up what you've just said about reform? Well, we've said very

clearly that we support the government in capping the overall

spending on social security. And the benefit cap? Well, the benefit cap,

interestingly, I think we've reserved judgment on. But it was

only two weeks ago... That wasn't your view. Let me finish, if I may.

Two weeks ago we had a legal opinion from a judge in London that the

benefit cap was discriminating against disabled people. There is

further evidence that the benefit cap is not doing what the government

set out to do, it is not saving money because it means local

councils are having to spend money on discretionary housing payments to

support people being made homeless as a result of it. It isn't helping

people back into work. It's only around 4% of people seem to be

getting any benefit. So the question is, what is this benefit cap for in

individual households? Yes we need of course to have a limit on the

amount of money that people can have individually and as households but

it has to reflect need. Well, that's important, because listening to you

there, it sounded like you wanted to drop the idea of a benefit cap in

principle. So you still support the idea of a benefit cap at ?26,000 per

year? No we don't. But you did at the election support it? At the

election we did, and since the election we have changed our view.

Our view is that cutting it to ?23,000 and ?20,000 which is what

was included in the welfare bill, I'm afraid it is a congregated lot

of numbers but we've got to get into them, that would mean that we would

affect literally millions of people across Britain and it would have

resulted in hardship and would have cost money. What should the cap be?

We need to get back to a principle that people use to understand which

is the connection between the sorts of support that you might receive

from the state, the amount of money you contribute, so getting back a

connection between contribution and reward, but also your need. So if

you've got three children, or if you fall pregnant in a period where you

lose your job, you don't get penalised for having that said

child. It seems to me extraordinary that the government is penalising

children. You are not supporting a cap at the moment? You cannot say

?26,000 was right, you are now reviewing the whole policy? You

agree with Jeremy Corbyn that it results in social cleansing? I have

been saying that for the last two months, there is nothing new that.

We said we would oppose the reduction. When I spoke to you last

time on daily politics you said you would stick to the principle of the

benefits cap. I did not. You said in September that you wanted to have a

benefit cap, in principle you did not agree with lowering it to

?23,000, and Jeremy Corbyn was against it. What I said very

clearly, we were opposed to the reduction to ?23,000 and ?20,000

outside London. I said we were reviewing the concept of a benefits

cap across the board. But that we do accept that there have to be limits

on the amount of money that an individual households can get in

benefits. And what we need to do is get to a point where we've got a

much fairer set of criteria to now analyse and understand why we should

be giving family X amount Y, and that should reflect their need. The

number of children, the nature of work they are in, and the relative

security of the family. The fundamental principles we have

always adhered to. Most viewers out there will not understand a

government that says we penalised children we take money away from

them on the basis of how many children may have. You abstained on

that issue earlier, but as you said, you changed your mind. Should

colleagues of yours be worried about being sacked after voting against

the leadership on air strikes? No, I don't think they should be.

Obviously I'm not in charge of reshuffles, that's a job to Jeremy,

but I just think this is newspaper tittle tattle. What I've seen in the

way in which Jeremy has handled this in Shadow Cabinet is that he has

been very keen to stress that we've got to be respectful of the

different views. I voted against, others voted in favour, I don't

think there is any reason, and I think any abuse that anyone has been

subject to as a result of decisions taken in good conscience and good

faith is disgraceful, and we should not settle for it or allow it in the

Labour Party. Owen Smith, thank you. It's just gone 11.35, you're

watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in

twenty minutes, we'll be talking to the Conservative MP who used her

maiden speech to rebel against her First though,

the Sunday Politics where you are. Welcome to the London part

of the show. Coming up, Boris Johnson's cycling

revolution, and the so-called Cycle Superhighways are proving

controversial. Is the Mayor backing bikes

over other London commuters? Joining me, Meg Hillier Labour MP

for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and Bob Neill, Conservative MP

for Bromley and Chislehurst. First up, the Wednesday vote

in the House of Commons which took Britain to war in the skies over

Syria, a decision that has caused In London there were 31 MPs who

voted with their leader Jeremy Corbyn

in opposing air strikes, whilst 11 All 27 Conservative London MPs

voted to support the bombing. Amongst those who voted not

to bomb was London Mayoral His Conservative rival for Mayor,

Zac Goldsmith, A point

of difference that may well play a significant part in the build-up

to the male election next May. Bob, you voted in favour of the

air strikes with the government. What makes you so sure it

will make us safe in London? Because we are already a target, we

are already in the very front line. And if we don't degrade Isis in its

heartland where it has its training camps, where it gets its resources

and money from, if we don't do that they will come for people in London

just as they did in Paris. What happened in Paris could

as easily have happened in Clerkenwell or Hackney or

Islington or Camberwell. They hate us because of not what we

do but because of who we are, So we are in the front line,

we've got to make sure that we Would you describe Meg Hillier,

as somebody who voted against air I think there are some people

in Meg's party who in the past may Is it inappropriate, using the

language, for the Prime Minister? It is not a party political issue

as far as I am concerned. Everyone votes upon

their own conscience. I think everybody took

it very seriously. I took my view very seriously that

we needed to protect citizens in the UK, I believe that this does,

with our resources, the brimstone missiles and so on,

we can make a difference. It is not the whole picture,

of course there has got to be political solutions as well, but it

will be part of the security issue. Bob Neill says it is a very serious

issue and of course it is, So what is going on in the

Labour Party where you've got a Shadow Foreign Secretary that

holds a completely different view to Firstly, I do agree with Bob that we

are target anyway, whatever vote would have happened on Wednesday and

I don't think that bombing Syria will make us less of a target, so I

think there is a real issue but we both agree

about the need to keep London safe. Look, in terms of the Labour Party,

it is not unprecedented to have a free vote

on difficult national issues. If you look back to the 70s

and the referendum on European If you can't actually forge

an agreement then a free vote is a reasonable alternative,

and we had some very reasoned and sensible discussions within the

party, in fact cross party as well. And that's what lead

in the end to the vote The Shadow Cabinet could not agree

and on that basis the free vote... You say it was unprecedented in

terms of previous votes in the 1970s In terms of going to war,

when has there been a case of a Shadow Cabinet divided

like that in having a free vote? I'm saying on these national

issues there has been precedents. But not on the issue

of going to war? I can't think

of one right here right now. But I do think if the Shadow Cabinet

couldn't reach a point of agreement, it would have been more damaging

for the Labour Party to go in As Bob rightly highlighted, it is

very much a matter of conscience. People thought long and hard

about these decisions. And some of those who voted

for are still anguished about the Prime Minister's lack

of really convincing suggestion The after plan is something

that worries a lot of people. How have you responded to claims by

your parliamentary colleagues within the Labour Party who said that they

had been intimidated, they had received abuse from people who said

they should have voted against air strikes as you did, and calling

for them to be deselected? In a democracy, we are not

delegates, we are representatives, people really worked and were

anguished in making their decision. They made that decision on the basis

of what they thought was right. It is just not acceptable to have

bullying of anybody, least We expect comment and discussion, we

expect people to be robust in their views, but threats and bullying have

no place in the Labour Party as Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson, our

deputy leader, have made very clear. Do you think they should

do more to stop that? Well it is a difficult thing,

isn't it? Many of these people hide

anonymously behind things. I was on the speaker's digital

democracy commision, and we looked at and made a recommendation

about reducing cyber bullying, and If it were,

it would not be happening anywhere. It is such an emotive issue that

there are many people who are wanting to influence their MPs, some

of them Labour Party members who feel that some MPs who voted for air

strikes don't reflect their views. As soon

as you make a decision you upset sometimes as many as half or more

of the people that you represent. We're not delegates, we have to

weigh up on the basis of information and analysis that we do, we have

access to a lot of briefings from One of the things that led to me

voting the way I did because I was not convinced about

after plan which the Prime Minister With just six months left in office,

Boris Johnson is putting in place the final touches to what

he hopes will be his legacy. One such scheme is what he likes

to call a cycling revolution. A key part of it,

a series of new segregated so-called cycle superhighways is proving

deeply controversial. With the mayor accused of handing

over a disproportionate amount of London's road space to bicycles

at the expense of everyone else. Andrew Crier has been taking a look

at what all the fuss is about. VOICEOVER: The very first cycle

superhighways looked like this, strips of blue at the side of the

road which some critics called death

traps. This morning in rush another cyclist

died here, she is the third cycling She'd been using the mayor's

cycle superhighway, too. with a fundamentally different

approach here. The superhighway now segregated from

other traffic with a raised curb. The move from this blue strips

on the side of the road to these new fully segregated cycle lanes

might be safer, This is the mayor's vision

for a cycling revolution. A series

of new segregated superhighways that are in the process

of being finished all round town. The result has been sometimes

horrendous traffic. I just want to apologise to

people for the days they I know that there are many people

who think that we are giving too I think that sometimes

a great city has to do things that are not easy, but not always

immediately, people do not In the long run, people will

understand the vital importance. But even when the construction

of the lanes is finished, some say London's roads will be

slower forever. We found this broken

down lorry causing huge backups in one spot where a lane

of traffic has been removed and a new superhighway put in its

place. Instead of two lanes to get around

the lorry there is now only one. This is

the brand-new cycle superhighway They have narrowed the road

in order to get the cycle lanes in, and as you can see, the traffic is

backed up as far as the eye can see, and the cycle lane, well,

I cannot see anybody on it at all. You could have cycled,

they would say? There may be very few cyclists using

parts of the new lanes at the moment,

but City Hall say the new safer, segregated routes will eventually

encourage new cyclists onto them. Chris cycles almost every day

in London We took them both for a ride

on the superhighway from a blue strip to

a fully segregated route. Do you think you're any more

likely to cycle in London? The risks entailed where

there's public transport, buses and tubes,

it is sufficiently good for me. Not too dangerous but dangerous

enough not to be worth the risk. I think it is terribly important to

have cycle lanes In this instance we have

a solid kerb alongside a market. In some cases,

bins block the cycle lane. I think probably a series

of bollards The lane here also leaves

the bus stop stranded between While they might have made the road

better for cyclists, have Transport For London really just made it

a worse place for pedestrians Having been low down the pecking

order for many years, some would argue it was about time cyclists

were given greater priority. STUDIO: Joining me, Andrew Gilligan,

the mayor's Cycling Commissioner, and from Copenhagen,

Camilla Van Deurs, who is a partner in the

globally-renowned Gehl Architects, who have pioneered the concept of

shared open spaces. Andrew Gilligan, first of all,

some have described, as you will know, the original

cycle superhighways as deathtraps. seven people died on the roads where

we are now installing The death rate is actually very low,

a quarter of what it was 25 years ago, but nonetheless, there was lots

of criticism of the level Is it an admission of failure

because you have had to now erect boundaries to separate cyclists

from motorists and vehicles, an It is a reflection of what is

happening on London's roads. Anyone can go out

and find a time when the cycle lane is empty and the road is full,

but a quarter of all traffic in the morning rush hour is now bicycles,

tens of thousands of journeys every We have just got to provide

for that. We've chosen the routes

of the superhighways with very high volumes of cycle

traffic already, more than 50% of all

the traffic on Blackfriars Road and We just have not been providing

for it until now, with the consequences you described at

the beginning, deaths and injuries. Camilla, do you think it is

dangerous having cycle superhighways that do

not have a clear physical separation

from the rest of the traffic? First of all, I must congratulate

you that London is finally doing something, it has taken more than

a decade of promises before proper Secondly, yes, segregation in terms

of a kerb is always a better idea. We know that 20% more cycle

if there is a kerb. In terms of safety,

this is absolutely going to have an impact, particularly for those

who are not prone to cycle today, That is the problem, encouraging

more people to use cycle lanes, but we saw in the film,

they are empty. For large spaces of time they are

empty and we see traffic building That was the same

the same argument used when we People like you showed pictures

of empty bus lanes It is not cynical, it is happening

because I travel on these routes but we took out space in the early

noughties to give to buses and everyone said the same

as you are saying, the bus lanes are What that did was encourage people

to move onto buses, it caused a reduction in the amount

of traffic and that is precisely

what we are doing with bikes. We have 10,000 new people joining

the population of London every month and there are only two ways to cope

with that, build more roads, politically and physically

impossible, or make better use of