13/12/2015

Download Subtitles

Transcript

:00:36. > :00:40.Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

:00:41. > :00:47.After suggestions that David Cameron was diluting his EU negotiation

:00:48. > :00:49.demands, Downing Street insists he's still pushing for curbs

:00:50. > :00:54.But is there any evidence that the rest of Europe is listening?

:00:55. > :00:57.Jeremy Corbyn says Stop The War is "one of the most important

:00:58. > :00:58.democratic campaigns of modern times".

:00:59. > :01:07.And why all the fuss that he went to its Christmas fund-raiser?

:01:08. > :01:08.Yvette Cooper - one-time Labour leadership contender -

:01:09. > :01:11.says Britain should be doing more for refugees and migrants

:01:12. > :01:17.In London, yet more hesitation over Heathrow.

:01:18. > :01:20.Does the latest delay make it more or less likely that there will be

:01:21. > :01:35.And with me for this final Sunday Politics of 2015,

:01:36. > :01:38.Tom Newton Dunn of The Sun, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman

:01:39. > :01:41.and Sam Coates of The Times - the Dasher, Dancer and Prancer

:01:42. > :01:47.They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

:01:48. > :01:49.Downing Street insists that David Cameron will still push

:01:50. > :01:52.for curbs on in-work benefits for EU migrants in the UK,

:01:53. > :01:57.despite earlier briefings to the contrary.

:01:58. > :01:59.The Prime Minister will head to a crucial summit later this week

:02:00. > :02:03.to make his case for a reformed British relationship with the EU.

:02:04. > :02:05.However, several newspapers, citing official guidance,

:02:06. > :02:10.report that Mr Cameron has failed to convince other European leaders

:02:11. > :02:15.and is already preparing a fallback to replace his original demand

:02:16. > :02:20.for a four-year wait for in-work benefits.

:02:21. > :02:22.The Sunday Times headline says "Prime Minister 'caves in'

:02:23. > :02:28.The Sunday Telegraph describes it as "Cameron's climbdown

:02:29. > :02:34.And the Independent on Sunday goes for the same metaphor,

:02:35. > :02:41.describing it as "Cameron's big EU climbdown".

:02:42. > :02:44.Let's speak now to Conservative MP Peter Lilley.

:02:45. > :02:46.He was a Cabinet minister in the Conservative governments

:02:47. > :02:53.of both Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

:02:54. > :02:58.Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister is thought by many of your

:02:59. > :03:04.colleagues not to be asking for a lot, yet he might not even get what

:03:05. > :03:12.he's asking for. Could he sell a watered-down deal to his party? It

:03:13. > :03:19.is more a question of whether he can sell whatever comes out of it to the

:03:20. > :03:24.country. There are lots of Labour MPs who want to see democratic

:03:25. > :03:28.powers returned to this country from the European institutions. That's

:03:29. > :03:33.the key issue as far as I'm concerned. He will clearly get some

:03:34. > :03:38.things because a lot of this has been pre-negotiated, so he will get

:03:39. > :03:42.something to say about removing the phrase ever closer union, something

:03:43. > :03:47.to do with benefits, even if actually it is something we could do

:03:48. > :03:53.anyway ourselves, like apply a four-year wait to British citizens

:03:54. > :03:56.as well as foreigners. There will be something, the question is will it

:03:57. > :04:02.be substantial? Will it include a return of powers to this country to

:04:03. > :04:10.govern itself? What major powers is he asking to be repatriated?

:04:11. > :04:23.Publicly, there doesn't seem to be anything on the list, unless some

:04:24. > :04:27.change in relation to free movement of Labour is somewhere up his

:04:28. > :04:31.sleeve. I do occasionally hear rumours that he will come back with

:04:32. > :04:36.some genuine return of powers, and if he does I will be dancing on the

:04:37. > :04:44.rooftops. We have no evidence that's even part of the negotiation. That

:04:45. > :04:48.is certainly disappointing, it is rather a strange strategy not to ask

:04:49. > :04:56.for the principal thing we want and yet still hope to get it. Because we

:04:57. > :05:00.have, over a series of treaties which David Cameron and I voted

:05:01. > :05:09.against, conceded a whole lot of powers to Europe beyond what is

:05:10. > :05:13.necessary. The trading area requires some common lawmaking, but beyond

:05:14. > :05:19.that we concede a lot of powers. We would like to start the process of

:05:20. > :05:24.getting those powers back. If we cannot, we will be on a slippery

:05:25. > :05:29.slope to creating a single state. The reason we are in the position we

:05:30. > :05:36.are, having to renegotiate, is that the countries of the eurozone are on

:05:37. > :05:43.the road to creating a single state. There's never been a currency

:05:44. > :05:48.without a single state to run it. They are forced, because they have

:05:49. > :05:54.created this currency, without a government to make it work. The

:05:55. > :05:58.question is can we be outside that process, can removing the opposite

:05:59. > :06:04.direction and get powers back, or will we be sucked on the slipstream?

:06:05. > :06:08.If we cannot overcome the two doctrines of Europe that everybody

:06:09. > :06:12.is heading in the same direction, albeit at different speeds, and

:06:13. > :06:16.powers can only ever go to the central institutions and never come

:06:17. > :06:20.back to the States, if we cannot break those two doctrines as far as

:06:21. > :06:26.Britain is concerned, he will not really have achieved anything. I

:06:27. > :06:31.understand all of that. A quick final question, if he comes back

:06:32. > :06:38.with even less than he's asking for, would you vote to leave? If he

:06:39. > :06:46.doesn't come back with some increase in power to ourselves, I feel for

:06:47. > :06:52.the first time in my life I would be voting to leave. I voted to stay in

:06:53. > :06:55.1975 but I would be voting to leave in those circumstances.

:06:56. > :07:02.Tom, it is turning into a real mess for the Government, is it not? A

:07:03. > :07:07.huge mess. There was an exposer yesterday, of the 11pm call every

:07:08. > :07:17.night, coordinated with the Downing Street switchboard which the

:07:18. > :07:21.ministers have got to tune into. I can only imagine the horror that

:07:22. > :07:25.went on last night during the call, which still happens, over the

:07:26. > :07:30.headlines this morning. I think what's happened here is the

:07:31. > :07:36.four-year ban on migrants' benefit is dead. You think he's just not

:07:37. > :07:41.going to get it? It died I would say at least a month ago in the Chatham

:07:42. > :07:46.House speech. He said so in his speech saying, here is what I want,

:07:47. > :07:50.but by the way I will also accept what you choose to offer me. The

:07:51. > :07:55.papers reported the next day that it was dead in the water, so we are

:07:56. > :08:00.talking about the choreographing, how it happens and whether the Prime

:08:01. > :08:05.Minister himself withdraws it. Or somebody else might put something

:08:06. > :08:09.else on the table, doing the PM a favour, to bail him out and say if

:08:10. > :08:15.you don't want this how about that. Peter Lilley And, when I said can

:08:16. > :08:19.you sell this to your backbenchers comic said it is a problem for the

:08:20. > :08:22.other parties too but it is overwhelmingly a problem for the

:08:23. > :08:26.Conservatives and if he cannot achieve what is being asked for, I

:08:27. > :08:33.would suggest half the Parliamentary party in my not go with him on this.

:08:34. > :08:42.It is not the climb-down I would query, but the "big". He needed one

:08:43. > :08:46.totemic issue that looked like he was doing something about

:08:47. > :08:55.immigration. He couldn't look at the free movement of people or any kind

:08:56. > :09:00.of free movement cap. He couldn't tell nostrils any major power he is

:09:01. > :09:06.asking to be repatriated. It will be hard to make it look like he has

:09:07. > :09:12.come back with something so that people can say OK, that has changed

:09:13. > :09:17.my mind. If he gets one in February, can he have the referendum in June?

:09:18. > :09:22.I understand the Electoral Commission doesn't like the idea of

:09:23. > :09:26.a referendum that would overlap with the elections in May, and the risk

:09:27. > :09:29.in September is that we will have another summer migrant crisis and

:09:30. > :09:35.that would be a terrible atmosphere for those who want to stay in the

:09:36. > :09:39.European Union. There are a lot of hurdles, first you have got to get a

:09:40. > :09:42.deal in February that looks like a success. The reason they have done

:09:43. > :09:47.what they've done overnight is because it has been dragged down

:09:48. > :09:51.into a legal quagmire and David Cameron has got to have a

:09:52. > :09:55.conversation with his counterparts to set that entire renegotiation

:09:56. > :09:59.back on the right track. I know that some people in Brussels as saying he

:10:00. > :10:02.cannot get a deal by February, we will never get a deal, and if it

:10:03. > :10:16.slips into 2017 you won't get a deal then either. In June

:10:17. > :10:20.there is this tiny window because -- where you could practically hold a

:10:21. > :10:24.vote. But then as you say you've got the migrant crisis, which pops up

:10:25. > :10:29.over the summer. I'm told that dealing with the flow of migration

:10:30. > :10:33.from Turkey will make an enormous difference to the optics of how

:10:34. > :10:36.Europe is seen to be able to deal with the migration crisis. Even

:10:37. > :10:41.though that doesn't have a huge impact on UK migration from the rest

:10:42. > :10:45.of Europe, David Cameron's renegotiation depends on something

:10:46. > :10:47.truly out of his control. So you're telling me it depends on the Turks

:10:48. > :10:49.now. On Friday night Jeremy Corbyn met up

:10:50. > :10:52.with some old friends Nothing unusual in that,

:10:53. > :10:55.you might think, but this was a fundraising do

:10:56. > :10:57.for Stop The War Coalition, the anti-war protest group that

:10:58. > :11:00.Mr Corbyn chaired until his election And, in case you hadn't noticed,

:11:01. > :11:04.it caused a bit of a stir. It was the biggest mass

:11:05. > :11:12.demonstration in British history. The group that organised it,

:11:13. > :11:14.the Stop The War Coalition, had been founded a year or so before

:11:15. > :11:19.following the 9/11 attacks and George Bush's declaration

:11:20. > :11:23.of war on terror. Around a million people marched

:11:24. > :11:26.as Tony Blair prepared to send Among the speakers,

:11:27. > :11:31.a backbench Labour MP. Thousands more deaths in Iraq

:11:32. > :11:36.will not make things right, it will set off a spiral

:11:37. > :11:40.of conflict, of hate, One of the reasons for its success,

:11:41. > :11:48.I've always thought, is that everyone was united

:11:49. > :11:53.around one single issue. We never got bogged down

:11:54. > :11:56.in our political analyses of what we thought about

:11:57. > :11:59.Saddam Hussein or what we thought about this dictator or that,

:12:00. > :12:02.or how we thought the political We weren't there to offer solutions

:12:03. > :12:09.to other people's problems and tell them how we thought it should be,

:12:10. > :12:13.we were there to stop our government taking what we considered to be

:12:14. > :12:20.a very bad and negative step. But despite the broad support,

:12:21. > :12:30.the inner leadership has largely Stop The War's founding member

:12:31. > :12:34.and convener Lindsey German was a member of the Socialist

:12:35. > :12:37.Workers Party for over 30 years, Her partner, John Rees,

:12:38. > :12:41.who's also co-founder of Stop The War and was a leading

:12:42. > :12:44.figure in the SWP, he also He sits on the editorial board

:12:45. > :12:48.of Counterfire, a political organisation created

:12:49. > :12:49.after that SWP split. He also helped start up The People's

:12:50. > :12:52.Assembly Against Austerity, Which has been organising

:12:53. > :12:56.protests since 2013. He's often sparked controversy,

:12:57. > :12:58.reportedly writing in 2006, for example, that socialists should

:12:59. > :13:02.unconditionally stand with the oppressed

:13:03. > :13:05.against the oppressor, even if the people who run

:13:06. > :13:07.the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute

:13:08. > :13:11.minorities, like Saddam Hussein. Andrew Murray was the Stop The War

:13:12. > :13:14.coalition chairman from He's a member of the Communist Party

:13:15. > :13:19.and chief of staff of In 2014 he spoke at the launch event

:13:20. > :13:24.of a campaign called Solidarity With The Antifascist

:13:25. > :13:27.Resistance In Ukraine, which supports anti-government

:13:28. > :13:31.rebels there. He took back the chairmanship again

:13:32. > :13:33.in September this year, taking over from Jeremy Corbyn,

:13:34. > :13:36.who'd held the post from 2011 As well as its elected officers,

:13:37. > :13:53.Stop The War has patrons including Labour MP Diane Abbott,

:13:54. > :13:55.George Galloway, the writer Tariq Ali, and Kamal Majid,

:13:56. > :13:57.a founding member of the Stalin Society, formed in 1991

:13:58. > :14:00.to defend Stalin and his work. The 2003 protest against the Iraq

:14:01. > :14:03.war, which took place here in Hyde Park, was the high point

:14:04. > :14:05.of Stop The War. The human rights activist

:14:06. > :14:10.Peter Tatchell never played an official role at Stop The War,

:14:11. > :14:12.though he has participated But this week he took a very public

:14:13. > :14:16.step back and claimed the organisation has

:14:17. > :14:22.lost its moral compass. The shortcomings in Stop The War

:14:23. > :14:26.are driven by basically about half a dozen people at the top,

:14:27. > :14:29.and those views increasingly are not shared by many of their long-time

:14:30. > :14:31.grass-roots supporters like me People are turned off

:14:32. > :14:37.by the sectarianism, by the selective opposition to war,

:14:38. > :14:41.and by the failure to speak out against human rights abuses

:14:42. > :14:46.by regimes that happen to be on the receiving end of US

:14:47. > :14:51.and British military intervention. Critics like Tatchell have accused

:14:52. > :14:54.Stop The War of trying to silence those whose views don't

:14:55. > :14:58.fit their own. Nothing will be achieved by trying

:14:59. > :15:01.to shout down speakers! This video shows a Stop The War

:15:02. > :15:04.official clashing with a protester during a rally about western

:15:05. > :15:07.policy in Iran in 2012, This meeting last month caused

:15:08. > :15:21.controversy when Syrians in the audience said

:15:22. > :15:26.they weren't allowed to speak. There is one reason there is no

:15:27. > :15:29.Syrian from this room on the platform and that's

:15:30. > :15:31.because they support intervention, and the meeting is

:15:32. > :15:33.against intervention. APPLAUSE What's really disturbing

:15:34. > :15:36.is the way in which Diane Abbott closed down the meeting rather

:15:37. > :15:39.than allow Syrian Democratic left wing and civil society

:15:40. > :15:45.activists to speak. It's given the impression

:15:46. > :15:48.that she shares the questionable politics of Stop The War

:15:49. > :15:55.on the issue of Syria. But Stop The War insists a Syrian

:15:56. > :15:58.contributor did ask a question from the floor of that meeting

:15:59. > :16:01.and have rubbished the suggestion they support those who Western

:16:02. > :16:04.governments oppose. Obviously, you will have seen

:16:05. > :16:08.in recent days Stop The War explaining that they were opposed

:16:09. > :16:13.to Russian intervention in Syria as well as British intervention,

:16:14. > :16:16.so they are evenhanded. The reason I think people may think

:16:17. > :16:21.that is because we are a campaign based in Britain and our campaigning

:16:22. > :16:25.is obviously overwhelmingly orientated towards changing our own

:16:26. > :16:29.Government's policy. Welcome to Islington

:16:30. > :16:32.in north London. In there is Jeremy Corbyn's

:16:33. > :16:34.constituency office. This building is also home

:16:35. > :16:38.to the Stop The War coalition, but it is the figurative proximity

:16:39. > :16:40.rather than the literal one that I spoke to a number of Labour MPs

:16:41. > :16:45.who voted against air One told me that he wasn't so much

:16:46. > :16:51.worried about Stop The War and the influence it may have

:16:52. > :16:54.on Jeremy Corbyn and policy, but more that Jeremy Corbyn

:16:55. > :16:57.simply shares their views. There's dissent at

:16:58. > :17:00.the grass roots too. Last week 500 party members,

:17:01. > :17:02.including councillors, wrote to Mr Corbyn urging him

:17:03. > :17:06.to take a step back. Stop The War is not

:17:07. > :17:09.a Labour Party organisation. There are many people in it who have

:17:10. > :17:16.opposed the Labour Party and probably continue

:17:17. > :17:18.to oppose the Labour Party. I don't believe they hold

:17:19. > :17:21.to the values of solidarity, We also spoke to a number of Labour

:17:22. > :17:26.MPs who were relaxed about Jeremy Corbyn's connection

:17:27. > :17:29.to Stop The War, an organisation he's never made any

:17:30. > :17:33.secret of supporting. On Friday he went to the Christmas

:17:34. > :17:37.do, and said slurs by critics against Stop The War were an attempt

:17:38. > :17:39.to close down democratic He knows some of those critics

:17:40. > :17:46.include his own MPs. We're joined now from Leeds

:17:47. > :17:57.by the Labour MP, Richard Burgon. Morning, Andrew. The Communist Party

:17:58. > :18:03.of Britain, which has prominent members in stop the war, says

:18:04. > :18:07.attacks on stop the war are, quote, a systemic and vicious propaganda oi

:18:08. > :18:10.offensive designed to obscure British imperialism's agenda in

:18:11. > :18:15.conducting the bombing campaign in Syria. Do you agree with that? Well,

:18:16. > :18:18.first of all I think I'm in a good position to answer some of these

:18:19. > :18:23.questions, pause I've only ever been a member of the Labour Party. I

:18:24. > :18:29.joined when I was 15. What I really want to focus on is not the members

:18:30. > :18:33.of small political parties who may be involved in Stop The War

:18:34. > :18:38.Coalition, but the tens of thousands, in fact they've got an

:18:39. > :18:42.e-mail list of 150,000 people, many of whom are not in any political

:18:43. > :18:46.party, many of whom are in the Labour Party. The chairman who has

:18:47. > :18:49.taken over from Mr Corbyn is a member of the Communist Party of

:18:50. > :18:53.Britain, so what's the answer to my question? I think the attacks on

:18:54. > :19:01.stop the war are proxy attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. We haven't had that

:19:02. > :19:07.previously. When Charles Kennedy was speaking against the Iraq war, which

:19:08. > :19:12.2 million people attended, Charles Kennedy wasn't attacked for that,

:19:13. > :19:17.and rightly so. But he wasn't a member of Stop The War Coalition. He

:19:18. > :19:22.spoke on the stop the war platform. But he wasn't a member? I'm not a

:19:23. > :19:28.member, there's a really important point here, it is right that people

:19:29. > :19:32.in democratic society express their views to MPs, march against things

:19:33. > :19:35.they think are incorrect. I do think the line and the leadership of the

:19:36. > :19:39.Stop The War Coalition hasn't changed in the 14 years since it was

:19:40. > :19:42.founded. What has changed is that Jeremy Corbyn has become leader of

:19:43. > :19:46.the Labour Party, so people in the media and elsewhere who wish to

:19:47. > :19:52.attack Jeremy Corbyn are using stop the war to do so. Of course it is

:19:53. > :19:59.not just the media, is it? It is not even the media. Labour MPses,

:20:00. > :20:07.Tristram Hunt, Stella Creasy, many more, they've attacked Stop the War

:20:08. > :20:11.Coalition and Jeremy Corbyn's support for it. I think the majority

:20:12. > :20:15.of Labour members agreed with Jeremy Corbyn on his analysis on whether or

:20:16. > :20:20.not we should agree to David Cameron's proposal to bomb Syria.

:20:21. > :20:23.But what do you say to their criticism of Mr Corbyn's continued

:20:24. > :20:27.association with Stop the War Coalition? I think they are

:20:28. > :20:32.mistaken. I think that stop the war, we've got to look at how stop the

:20:33. > :20:38.war has involved people from right across the political spectrum. When

:20:39. > :20:41.I was on that historical march in 2003, there wasn't just the Lib Dem

:20:42. > :20:46.leader speaking but other people I spoke to, Conservative voters, so it

:20:47. > :20:51.is not just 57 varieties of Trotskyite groups that are involved.

:20:52. > :20:56.If it were the case it were merelily people on the ultraleft you wouldn't

:20:57. > :21:01.have 150,000 people involved or on the e-mail list. Who is not either a

:21:02. > :21:05.cop thirst, a Trotskyite or a Stalinist? Well, there are plenty of

:21:06. > :21:09.trade unions involved in the lip... Among the leadership, the people who

:21:10. > :21:13.lead this, whose names are associated with it, who doesn't Paul

:21:14. > :21:18.into that small hard left category? Well, it is a coalition, and that's

:21:19. > :21:22.the point of it. So give me another name that doesn't fall into that.

:21:23. > :21:27.Well, I wouldn't even know the full list of people on the board of stop

:21:28. > :21:31.the war, but what I do know is that there are people from trade unions

:21:32. > :21:35.supporting it, trade unions supporting it, probably in terms of

:21:36. > :21:38.the membership of Stop the War Coalition, the biggest composite of

:21:39. > :21:42.that are Labour Party members. But I do think this is a distraction of

:21:43. > :21:49.the democratic issue. We can't say that in this country being a member

:21:50. > :21:51.of a Stop the War Coalition campaign, campaigning against

:21:52. > :21:56.military interventions that were proven to be disastrous in Iraq and

:21:57. > :22:01.Libya is wrong. It is part of an open democratic process. People

:22:02. > :22:06.shouldn't be demonised for being part of it, or Jeremy Corbyn. I'm

:22:07. > :22:09.not doing that, what I'm trying to do is find out what stop the war

:22:10. > :22:14.really stands for and whether it is right to Jeremy Corbyn and other

:22:15. > :22:22.Labour people should be associated with it. They are had an article

:22:23. > :22:26.titled, Sociopaths United. The United States, Britain and their

:22:27. > :22:30.allies are no less sociopathic than the enemies they propose to hunt

:22:31. > :22:35.down. So British security forces are on a par with the beheaders, do you

:22:36. > :22:40.agree with that? I certainly don't agree with that. I think there've

:22:41. > :22:46.been things published on blogs on the stop the war website which are

:22:47. > :22:48.essential wrong, which I wouldn't agree with and the vast majority of

:22:49. > :22:52.people who are members of the Stop the War Coalition wouldn't agree

:22:53. > :22:57.with. I was reading in the paper this morning that the management of

:22:58. > :23:00.the website of the stop the war has changed. If that shows that they are

:23:01. > :23:06.going to be more careful to ensure that the content of the website on

:23:07. > :23:10.every occasion mirrorst or reflects, sorry, the view of

:23:11. > :23:20.every occasion mirrorst or reflects, that's a welcome move. Well, it is

:23:21. > :23:26.certainly, if it is such a splendid organisation, it has to delete lots

:23:27. > :23:35.of articles it has published. It blamed the Paris attacks on French

:23:36. > :23:40.policy, claimed that the threat to the Yazidis was largely mythical, in

:23:41. > :23:44.fact force. And published a poem that quotes a well known anti-Semite

:23:45. > :23:47.and Holocaust denier. All of that it has had to take down. Does that

:23:48. > :23:51.sound like a respectable organisation that the Labour Party

:23:52. > :23:56.should be associated with? Well, the views that you've uncovered aren't

:23:57. > :24:03.views that I or members of the Stop the War Coalition would agree with.

:24:04. > :24:06.But the big picture is this. In a coalition there are always sorts of

:24:07. > :24:09.small numbers of individuals who come out with unacceptable views.

:24:10. > :24:13.But the fact is I'm interested in the democratic point, in the 2

:24:14. > :24:18.million people that marched on 15th February 2003, in the thousands that

:24:19. > :24:21.protested against the intervention in Libya and intense the

:24:22. > :24:25.intervention in Syria. I'm not a pacifist but I think that the truth

:24:26. > :24:30.is that the Stop the War Coalition and the ordinary people from vicars

:24:31. > :24:34.to pensioners who marched against the war in Iraq, who marched against

:24:35. > :24:36.the intervention in Libya and have demonstrated against the

:24:37. > :24:40.intervention in Syria, they've got it right. Many of the people

:24:41. > :24:43.attacking Jeremy Corbyn and many of the people attacking the Stop the

:24:44. > :24:49.War Coalition have got it completely wrong. It is a topsy-turvy world we

:24:50. > :24:52.are in when attending Stop the War Coalition events is controversial.

:24:53. > :24:58.We are still pretending that Tony Blair and others got it right in

:24:59. > :25:03.Iraq. We haven't got much time Mr Burgon. Mr Corbyn stuck to his guns

:25:04. > :25:08.and went to the fundraiser. His spin doctor says the Labour Party is now

:25:09. > :25:15.slowly co hearing round Mr Corbyn's views, across a range of issues. Do

:25:16. > :25:19.you agree with that? I do. As I minced earlier, Jeremy Corbyn didn't

:25:20. > :25:23.instruct or order Labour MPs to vote against David Cameron's plan to bomb

:25:24. > :25:30.Syria. He gave them a free vote, and that that was the right thing to do.

:25:31. > :25:34.By a ratio of 2 to 1 Labour MPs agreed with Jeremy Corbyn's

:25:35. > :25:40.analysis, and by 2 to 1 members of the Shadow Cabinet agreed with Mr

:25:41. > :25:48.Corbyn. But on working tax credits, police cuts, issues such as ech

:25:49. > :25:54.attacking George Osborne's failed cuts and privatisationings the vast,

:25:55. > :26:00.of Labour MPs and members, and a lot of the public agree with him.

:26:01. > :26:04.Richard Burgon thank you for joining us and for persevering with the

:26:05. > :26:11.earpiece. I'm glad you stalk with it. Thank you. Take care. Bye.

:26:12. > :26:13.Yvette Cooper came third in the contest to become

:26:14. > :26:16.Her campaign only really came to life back in early September,

:26:17. > :26:20.when she became the first front rank UK politician to call for Britain

:26:21. > :26:22.to take in 10,000 refugees from the Syrian war.

:26:23. > :26:25.Now, in her new role as Chair of Labour's Refugees Taskforce,

:26:26. > :26:27.she's been on a fact-finding visit to the Jungle refugee

:26:28. > :26:41.6,000 people are currently living in what, in most generous terms,

:26:42. > :26:52.Yvette Cooper, a former Shadow Home Secretary,

:26:53. > :26:55.a Labour leadership contender, argued over the summer Britain

:26:56. > :26:57.should take more Syrian asylum seekers than

:26:58. > :27:04.Now a backbencher, she is returned as a guest of citizens UK not

:27:05. > :27:09.to argue we should fling open the doors but that the jungle

:27:10. > :27:12.was a problem nobody has tried to find a solution to.

:27:13. > :27:16.Why do we not have UNHCR here doing proper assessments of everybody?

:27:17. > :27:24.And therefore actually they need to go back through

:27:25. > :27:31.You've got to have a proper process to assess people's refugee status

:27:32. > :27:39.and at the moment that's not happening.

:27:40. > :27:41.That's the real big tragedy of here, the people have got stuck

:27:42. > :27:43.here in these awful conditions and there's no

:27:44. > :27:47.Some would call it hell, that's a little hyperbolic,

:27:48. > :27:55.It's really purgatory, since there's a real sense nobody

:27:56. > :27:58.is going anywhere, unless to climb on board a lorry and illegally

:27:59. > :28:04.And a camp unsuited to summer is preparing for a winter it's

:28:05. > :28:08.There's an argument which says, if you help refugees,

:28:09. > :28:10.then somehow that will create a crisis.

:28:11. > :28:15.No, the crisis is here and now, the crisis is happening.

:28:16. > :28:19.The question is what we do to stop the crisis getting worse and worse,

:28:20. > :28:24.so you can't have people stuck living among the rubbish

:28:25. > :28:30.and the pools of water and the mud while they're applying for asylum.

:28:31. > :28:38.You've got to have a basic humanitarian aid in place.

:28:39. > :28:40.At the Medecins Sans Frontieres clinic on-site, the issue

:28:41. > :28:47.of the conditions and winter is a problem itself.

:28:48. > :28:51.The problem when we see the camp, it's very cold, the hygiene

:28:52. > :29:01.And what happens, the condition...the simple

:29:02. > :29:08.flu passes sometimes in the bronchal...and that's it.

:29:09. > :29:14.There are many women and children - yes, they are outnumbered -

:29:15. > :29:16.but they're housed in two sections of the camp we're not allowed

:29:17. > :29:19.to film in, though clearly some choose to live in other parts

:29:20. > :29:21.of the camp and walk the roads around.

:29:22. > :29:24.And it's the issue of unaccompanied minors with family already legally

:29:25. > :29:28.in the UK that is worrying some of the volunteers.

:29:29. > :29:31.So, there's a ten-year-old boy separated from his family and just

:29:32. > :29:39.There are eight-year-olds, nine-year-olds, ten-year-olds

:29:40. > :29:42.with family in the UK desperate to look after them,

:29:43. > :29:44.and come here to visit them and bring them things

:29:45. > :29:54.Do you suspect that people back home will see this and their natural

:29:55. > :29:57.humanity will say, "this is awful, that looks really dreadful,

:29:58. > :29:59.we still don't want lots of them to come"?

:30:00. > :30:10.The problem is you look around this and you think,

:30:11. > :30:13.how is this northern Europe, how can this be just a few miles

:30:14. > :30:16.How can this be what is happening in France?

:30:17. > :30:19.Yvette Cooper would be much happier if those minors were taken

:30:20. > :30:21.in with their families, and seems to be singing from a song

:30:22. > :30:25.sheet that says whether we take more refugees, fewer or none,

:30:26. > :30:28.it may well be a pressing question, but that the jungle in Calais

:30:29. > :30:43.Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. Should adults from this can be

:30:44. > :30:47.allowed into Britain? It depends on their circumstances. Most of them

:30:48. > :30:53.should be playing in France for asylum and that I think is what you

:30:54. > :30:58.would expect to happen. Some of them may not be refugees, some of them

:30:59. > :31:04.may have safe homes to go to and should do so. Clearly there's a lot

:31:05. > :31:09.of people there who have fled Syria, Afghanistan, who we know are fleeing

:31:10. > :31:16.conflict and persecution. There's a question about the children. We saw

:31:17. > :31:20.unaccompanied children. There are people traffickers, some cases where

:31:21. > :31:26.aid workers said they had families in Britain we were trying to reach.

:31:27. > :31:31.For example I spoke to a 15-year-old whose brother, his nearest relative

:31:32. > :31:38.is in Britain and he wants to join him. That's why he is in Calais.

:31:39. > :31:43.Should we let them in? We should have a process for him to be able to

:31:44. > :31:50.apply. We should be providing that sanctuary. I understand the children

:31:51. > :31:54.issue but I'm still not quite clear what your attitude is towards the

:31:55. > :32:00.adults there. Although a lot of people in this camp may have started

:32:01. > :32:04.as refugees, they are now in France. They are not in immediate danger of

:32:05. > :32:09.their lives so they now want to come to the UK because they think

:32:10. > :32:15.economic prospects are better here than in France. That makes their

:32:16. > :32:20.role economic migrants now. That's not the reality. They have no safe

:32:21. > :32:24.home at the moment, and I agree they should be playing right now and they

:32:25. > :32:31.should be assessed where they are. The French authorities should be

:32:32. > :32:36.doing a full assessment. So why are they not in there? Good question.

:32:37. > :32:41.Why are we leaving people in such awful conditions? If the French

:32:42. > :32:48.authorities cannot, we should get the UNHCR to come in and do a full

:32:49. > :32:52.assessment. There will also be people, I spoke for example to a

:32:53. > :32:58.single mother with two small children who had left Syria when her

:32:59. > :33:04.husband was killed in an Assad jail. She was trying to reach her father

:33:05. > :33:09.and brother, also in Britain. There should be a process for her to apply

:33:10. > :33:14.for sanctuary in Britain. If you had a fair system to apply, you might

:33:15. > :33:20.prevent people coming to Calais in the first place. Should we set up an

:33:21. > :33:26.asylum seeking vetting operation in Calais ourselves? We have a system

:33:27. > :33:32.the Government set up under pressure to take refugees from the camps in

:33:33. > :33:36.Syria. I'm talking about the camps in Calais. I agree but I'm saying we

:33:37. > :33:44.should prevent people coming to Calais in the first place. Once

:33:45. > :33:51.people have got to Calais, I think there is a case particularly for

:33:52. > :33:55.those children... We understand the children but I'm asking about adults

:33:56. > :34:00.because it is hard to know what your policy is on this. Should we start

:34:01. > :34:03.to say some of them are asylum seekers, the French are not doing

:34:04. > :34:11.their jobs properly, we will take them in once they go through the

:34:12. > :34:15.proper procedures - yes or no? Those who have formally in Britain should

:34:16. > :34:21.be able to apply for sanctuary in Britain but you need a system. You

:34:22. > :34:27.need to be able to do security checks and refugee checks. At the

:34:28. > :34:32.moment Britain is only taking 4000 refugees per year. I think we could

:34:33. > :34:36.do more of that, and if we did that and worked with other countries we

:34:37. > :34:40.should be clearing the problems at Calais and preventing people coming

:34:41. > :34:46.to Europe on most dangerous boats in the first place. I know that people

:34:47. > :34:50.think we cannot solve this, it is too hard, but if we don't it will

:34:51. > :34:58.get worse. Some people may argue that the more you take in and give

:34:59. > :35:04.proper status to, you will encourage all the more to come into Europe.

:35:05. > :35:10.People are coming whatever happens. We are told there is another 5

:35:11. > :35:14.million waiting to come. At one point the Government was arguing we

:35:15. > :35:18.shouldn't have search and rescue in the Mediterranean because that would

:35:19. > :35:22.encourage more people to come, I think that is immoral. People have

:35:23. > :35:28.come, they are travelling across Europe. Let me try to pin you down

:35:29. > :35:34.on that. It is still not clear what you want to do. Let's take the

:35:35. > :35:39.migrants who have made it into the EU this year. Although the German

:35:40. > :35:44.government took most itself, it tried to spread the burden through

:35:45. > :35:52.quotas of member states. Should we volunteer a quota? Yes, I think we

:35:53. > :35:58.should take 10,000 people. Only ten? The Germans are taking a lot more.

:35:59. > :36:03.The reason I said that figure is because that meant you would be

:36:04. > :36:07.talking about ten families for every city or County across the country

:36:08. > :36:12.and I also think the best way to do with this is to work with faith

:36:13. > :36:18.groups across the country and say how many refugees do you think you

:36:19. > :36:22.could support in each area. Germany's Labour market is in a

:36:23. > :36:28.different situation and they have a different demographic. So 10,000 out

:36:29. > :36:33.of Vermilion, that would be British response? That would be a good thing

:36:34. > :36:38.to do, but the truth is all countries will have to work together

:36:39. > :36:43.on this and there isn't a simple answer. It's not just about what you

:36:44. > :36:46.do in terms of the number of refugees you give sanctuary to, it's

:36:47. > :36:50.also how you prevent people travelling. We should reunite

:36:51. > :36:56.families and we have got to do something about humanitarian relief.

:36:57. > :37:00.There are people living in terrible conditions, with France and Britain

:37:01. > :37:03.being two of the most powerful countries in the world you would

:37:04. > :37:09.have thought it is not beyond the wit of these countries to make sure

:37:10. > :37:13.there is proper humanitarian relief, sanitation, and heating for people

:37:14. > :37:18.who will suffer not just from scabies but terrible conditions in

:37:19. > :37:22.those camps as the winter draws in. Indeed we shall see what horrors the

:37:23. > :37:26.winter brings because we have not gone through that yet in this

:37:27. > :37:35.migrant crisis. You heard a colleague of yours saying he thought

:37:36. > :37:37.the Labour Party was now moving strongly in Mr Corbyn's direction in

:37:38. > :37:41.policy matters, do you agree? There's been a lot of policies I

:37:42. > :37:47.disagree with, we have that debate over the summer. The challenge at

:37:48. > :37:51.the moment is that the Labour Party has an internal focus, looking

:37:52. > :37:56.inwards at ourselves. We have got to look outwards. You are not answering

:37:57. > :38:06.my question. Let me try one more time. Is your party moving broadly

:38:07. > :38:10.in Mr Corbyn's direction? I'm not sure quite what that means because

:38:11. > :38:14.we are having a debate in the party at the moment about what the

:38:15. > :38:18.policies should be in the future. The trouble is we cannot just make

:38:19. > :38:23.that debate look inwards when the Tories are being let off the hook on

:38:24. > :38:28.tax credits, Europe and a series of things. I will try to make the

:38:29. > :38:29.question more clear next time. Thank you.

:38:30. > :38:31.It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

:38:32. > :38:34.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

:38:35. > :38:37.Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.

:38:38. > :38:43.First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

:38:44. > :38:50.We are focusing mainly on that further delay to a decision

:38:51. > :38:53.on Heathrow, but a bit later on we are taken round an estate

:38:54. > :38:55.in Elephant and Castle by an activist who claims

:38:56. > :38:57.regeneration there is an act of social cleansing,

:38:58. > :39:00.while the local council leader will be here to respond.

:39:01. > :39:06.Let's say hello straight away to Gareth Thomas,

:39:07. > :39:09.Labour MP for Harrow West, and Greg Hands, Conservative MP

:39:10. > :39:14.for Chelsea and Fulham and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

:39:15. > :39:16.They will be with us throughout today.

:39:17. > :39:19.Let's kick off with this latest hesitation over what to do

:39:20. > :39:22.The decision made to postpone a decision over a third

:39:23. > :39:26.Ahead of a chorus of disapproval from business leaders,

:39:27. > :39:31.it was the Transport Secretary sent out to face the cameras.

:39:32. > :39:42.This is a decision which has been dubbed by many governments --

:39:43. > :39:48.ducked. We are not doing that but it is right we do all of the work

:39:49. > :39:52.beforehand necessary, and allay concerns about noise and some of the

:39:53. > :39:56.environmental consequences, and I don't really think I will make an

:39:57. > :39:59.apology for saying we want to take a little longer in getting the

:40:00. > :40:05.decision right rather than rushing the decision and having it held up

:40:06. > :40:08.in the courts. The Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin. Do

:40:09. > :40:16.you think it makes it more or less likely we will get a third runway at

:40:17. > :40:19.Heathrow, Greg Hands? The Transport Secretary is right, we need more

:40:20. > :40:24.time to make sure we make the right decision. The Government will look

:40:25. > :40:30.and make the right decision next year on which of those three options

:40:31. > :40:35.to follow. Gareth, do you think it makes it more or less likely? I have

:40:36. > :40:41.no idea is the honest truth. Whatever happens it is clear there

:40:42. > :40:45.will be a further, lengthy delay. After the Government's delay, there

:40:46. > :40:51.will be court challenges, and the worry is that the earliest we could

:40:52. > :40:55.get a third runway at Heathrow is 2025. Airports in the south-east

:40:56. > :40:58.will be at full capacity at the point, and the risk of losing

:40:59. > :41:13.further investment from other parts of the world is really live one. I

:41:14. > :41:20.the Government hadn't ducked this issue. The decision to delay until

:41:21. > :41:25.next year does not put in peril the overall timetable for delivering

:41:26. > :41:29.additional runway capacity. The Government recognises the need to

:41:30. > :41:33.have additional runway capacity in the south-east and the delay

:41:34. > :41:37.announced yesterday does not put that in peril. So why do the

:41:38. > :41:43.business leaders think you are gutless and dithering and have

:41:44. > :41:46.failed your first challenge on this? Going back to what the Secretary of

:41:47. > :41:52.State was saying, the most important thing is to make the right decision.

:41:53. > :41:57.That means looking at air quality impacts, noise impact, carbon

:41:58. > :42:00.emission impact, looking at mitigation, compensation. This is a

:42:01. > :42:04.decision which will have positive consequences for the UK going ahead

:42:05. > :42:11.for some decades. It is right that we take the right time available to

:42:12. > :42:15.get the right decision made. The Government has had five years. The

:42:16. > :42:18.Airports Commission was doing its work, there's no reason why the

:42:19. > :42:21.Department for Transport couldn't have been going through some of the

:42:22. > :42:26.detail around and environmental issues and I accept there are some

:42:27. > :42:29.serious environmental issues to be worked through, but they could have

:42:30. > :42:35.been going through those. It looks like a delay to suit the political

:42:36. > :42:38.timetable and that is troubling. What has everyone been doing this

:42:39. > :42:46.last six months? It came out in July. These are quite complex

:42:47. > :42:52.questions, thinking about air quality, noise and greenhouse gases,

:42:53. > :42:56.not things that are trivial matters. These are major decisions and we

:42:57. > :43:01.need more time to assess the impact of all three options. Gareth talks

:43:02. > :43:08.about delay but the third runway at Heathrow was first mooted in 2000.

:43:09. > :43:11.Gareth was a government minister, this ten years of delay under Labour

:43:12. > :43:17.so we will take no lectures from Labour. You are very pro-expanding

:43:18. > :43:20.but it's true, you know from personal experience being part of

:43:21. > :43:25.that government that was trying to push it through, it took so long. We

:43:26. > :43:30.had taken a decision to crack on with the third runway at Heathrow.

:43:31. > :43:34.Unfortunately the Conservatives took a position to say they didn't want

:43:35. > :43:39.it to go ahead at that point, which meant there was further delay and

:43:40. > :43:44.further blight in terms of investment in London and airport

:43:45. > :43:52.capacity. We face huge competition from Amsterdam, which is expanding,

:43:53. > :43:57.a whole series of other hub airport expanding around the world. We risk

:43:58. > :44:04.losing serious investment into the UK. It is an important question,

:44:05. > :44:08.what is the Labour Party's position on expansion? Sadiq Khan is now

:44:09. > :44:12.saying he is against Heathrow expansion but he was a minister in

:44:13. > :44:17.the Department for Transport at the time Labour was backing this. Why do

:44:18. > :44:21.you think Sadiq Khan has changed his mind? Do you think he is right to

:44:22. > :44:28.change his mind? And what will happen to Labour policy? Will you

:44:29. > :44:32.expect the party's position to change because you are still broadly

:44:33. > :44:38.in support of a third runway subject to certain conditions being met,

:44:39. > :44:44.aren't you? I certainly hope the party's position doesn't change.

:44:45. > :44:48.Lillian Greenwood, our Shadow Transport Secretary, is looking at

:44:49. > :44:52.some of the principles which we might back, continue to support

:44:53. > :44:56.expansion at Heathrow. One point that has been raised with me is the

:44:57. > :45:01.need to make sure some of the rest of the UK's regional airports

:45:02. > :45:04.benefit from the expansion, that seems a sensible consideration to

:45:05. > :45:10.write into the deal and that's one of the things she's looking up at

:45:11. > :45:11.the moment. Our policy is to support expansion and I hope we continue to

:45:12. > :45:17.do so. Uck with It. Thank you. Take care.

:45:18. > :45:21.Bye. David Cameron sets up this commission to take out the party

:45:22. > :45:25.political conflict out of these matters, to say these are important

:45:26. > :45:28.infrastructure decisions, but a commission says it couldn't be

:45:29. > :45:34.clearer really. You had six months. You set that timetable yourself, by

:45:35. > :45:40.Christmas, and there is no indication. It is kind of

:45:41. > :45:46.topsy-turvy. It has inverted the process hasn't it? First of all, the

:45:47. > :45:51.Davis commission didn't exclude any of the options. They said all of the

:45:52. > :45:57.options were viable, including Gatwick. We do have to make sure

:45:58. > :46:02.that we get the right decision as a Government. We need a little more

:46:03. > :46:05.time to consider the implications, really important things like air

:46:06. > :46:10.quality, noise and other environmental impacts. And looking

:46:11. > :46:14.also, which will be interesting... What's changed in those? Mitigation

:46:15. > :46:18.and compensation that might be available to residents affected when

:46:19. > :46:23.the decision gets made. But why hasn't this been done in the six

:46:24. > :46:27.months? The work has been ongoing. It just needs a little bit longer to

:46:28. > :46:31.do that work. There is no guarantee that this six months delay will be

:46:32. > :46:38.followed by another six months of dither and blather. I disagree with

:46:39. > :46:42.that. Is this the first real test of making a very politically complex

:46:43. > :46:48.decision over infrastructure, you are showing as a party that you're

:46:49. > :46:52.lacking. It is a complex decision. The factors involved in making the

:46:53. > :46:55.decision, particularly on the environment is very complicated.

:46:56. > :46:59.That's why we are taking a little bit of extra time. I'm still

:47:00. > :47:02.confident we will meet the delivery point to have the additional runway

:47:03. > :47:07.capacity in London and the South East in time. I don't think this

:47:08. > :47:13.delay will affect that. The fact that you are saying that with a

:47:14. > :47:17.straight face... The politics of Heathrow have always been influenced

:47:18. > :47:22.by the Conservative Party by its own fortunes in the west of London. You

:47:23. > :47:25.opposed Heathrow expansion initially to help the marginal seats there.

:47:26. > :47:32.George Osborne changed his minds, and now you are delaying a final

:47:33. > :47:41.decision to help your mayoral candidate. I disagree with that. We

:47:42. > :47:42.have a record of making difficult ve a record of making difficult

:47:43. > :47:47.decision on a record of making difficult

:47:48. > :47:52.decision projects. Heathrow is a classic example. It is not just a

:47:53. > :47:55.six months delay or since months period since the airports commission

:47:56. > :48:01.came out with a final decision. Each of those three decisions have been

:48:02. > :48:06.on the table for at least 12 months beforehand, when Davis came out with

:48:07. > :48:11.his record. Davies reported in July of this year, yes? OK, given the

:48:12. > :48:13.depth of study and the important consideration, important questions

:48:14. > :48:17.that need to be addressed, I don't think it is unreasonable to

:48:18. > :48:23.postpone. Were there a vote on this in the House of Commons tomorrow,

:48:24. > :48:27.where do you think people would be? Would there be a majority across

:48:28. > :48:31.both parties and the SNP for expanding Heathrow? Just be honest.

:48:32. > :48:37.We know you are against, Greg, and you are for. What do you think? I

:48:38. > :48:41.really don't know. You don't know? Which option the Government is going

:48:42. > :48:43.to choose. I wasn't asking that. It will be done in the proper way. In

:48:44. > :48:51.terms of how the House will be done in the proper way. In

:48:52. > :48:54.in favour of Heathrow? No, I won't be resigning. I'm part of a

:48:55. > :48:59.Government which will make a collective decision about this. I've

:49:00. > :49:03.made my submission and views known to the Davis commission. I sent a

:49:04. > :49:08.thorough submission to the commission. And I met with Howard

:49:09. > :49:11.Davies as well to make sure my point of view and the view of my

:49:12. > :49:17.constituents was made at the right time and in the proper way. You are

:49:18. > :49:22.a close aide of the Chancellor. Would expect that everybody, a large

:49:23. > :49:25.number of people were opposed to expansion, and a number are in the

:49:26. > :49:34.cabinet. Would you expect them all to stay part of the Government if

:49:35. > :49:38.the decision goes Heathrow expansion? We'll have to wait and

:49:39. > :49:41.see what decision the Government makes at the right time. The

:49:42. > :49:46.important thing is I have made my submission to the commission in the

:49:47. > :49:49.right way. Just so I'm clear, do you anticipate that the leadership will

:49:50. > :49:54.attempt to change, modify your policy on Heathrow? The straight

:49:55. > :49:59.answer is I honestly don't know. There may be some tweaks in terms of

:50:00. > :50:03.the principles behind our support. I think a commitment to ensure that

:50:04. > :50:07.regional airports benefit from the expansion of Heathrow seem to me to

:50:08. > :50:11.be a sensible addition. The Elephant and Castle

:50:12. > :50:14.roundabout is no more. Seen as one of London's most

:50:15. > :50:16.dangerous junctions, it had witnessed 80 collisions

:50:17. > :50:18.since 2012, but has now been replaced by a new layout

:50:19. > :50:20.for two-way traffic. But other changes to the area

:50:21. > :50:22.are also afoot, and one Local resident and campaigner

:50:23. > :50:26.Peter Tatchell says the real story around this area is

:50:27. > :50:29.about social cleansing. The Haygate council estate

:50:30. > :50:38.at Elephant and Castle was built in the 1970s, with spacious modern

:50:39. > :50:43.housing for low-income families. It's one of the largest

:50:44. > :50:53.redevelopment sites in Britain. I've lived locally

:50:54. > :50:57.for nearly 40 years. I've seen the local working class

:50:58. > :51:02.community forced out. It is social cleansing

:51:03. > :51:06.on a massive scale. The original 1,212 council flats

:51:07. > :51:09.are being replaced by twice But only 82 of them will be

:51:10. > :51:19.social housing units. The rest will be unaffordable

:51:20. > :51:23.for most Londoners, with many being sold off plan

:51:24. > :51:33.to foreign investors. I'm here with Gerry Flynn,

:51:34. > :51:35.a former council tenant So where have all the council

:51:36. > :51:41.tenants who used to live here gone? Most of the council tenants

:51:42. > :51:50.still live in the area, in the Walworth area,

:51:51. > :51:52.but very few of them live They've just moved into current

:51:53. > :51:56.council housing stock. The lease holders on the estate

:51:57. > :52:05.who bought their council homes have gone much further afield,

:52:06. > :52:07.scattered to the outer boroughs, because they can't afford to buy

:52:08. > :52:10.anywhere that's being built here. But that's not the only reason

:52:11. > :52:14.this is a very bad deal. The Haygate site

:52:15. > :52:16.is prime real estate. Just over a mile from

:52:17. > :52:18.the Houses of Parliament. In 2007, Southwark council valued

:52:19. > :52:24.the 25 acre site at ?150 million. But later it sold the site

:52:25. > :52:30.for a mere ?50 million. That's one third of the original

:52:31. > :52:34.estimated value, and much less than the selling price

:52:35. > :52:40.for comparable sites in the area. The 1.5 acre Tribeca site was sold

:52:41. > :52:43.to private developers for ?40 million and the 3.5 acre shopping

:52:44. > :52:45.centre site was sold Both sold for many millions more

:52:46. > :52:58.per acre than Southwark council secured for the 25

:52:59. > :53:14.acre Haygate site. What's happening at the Elephant

:53:15. > :53:16.and Castle is symptomatic of what's happening all over London,

:53:17. > :53:18.where developers have a stranglehold over local councils and where

:53:19. > :53:20.working class communities Peter Tatchell reporting

:53:21. > :53:26.there, as they say. And Peter Tatchell is here with us

:53:27. > :53:29.now along with Peter John, Allegations, accusations set

:53:30. > :53:33.housemate in full there. Underpriced, you didn't get as much

:53:34. > :53:36.money as you should have done, you are not creating

:53:37. > :53:38.enough social housing. What's going wrong

:53:39. > :53:42.at the Haygate estate? The Elephant and Castle

:53:43. > :53:44.is about creating a new part of Southwark where you have

:53:45. > :53:46.new housing, new jobs, What you had previously was not

:53:47. > :53:53.a successful estate. The Haygate estate

:53:54. > :53:56.was a failing estate. People didn't want to live there,

:53:57. > :53:59.and people underachieving in terms of health, education

:54:00. > :54:01.and employment terms. In order to create a better mixed

:54:02. > :54:04.community, where people can thrive I think it is also really important

:54:05. > :54:12.to acknowledge that the Haygate estate was very poor

:54:13. > :54:15.quality housing. Our aspiration as a council,

:54:16. > :54:18.we are the largest council landlord in London, our aspiration absolutely

:54:19. > :54:21.is people have the best quality housing and that's what we are

:54:22. > :54:23.delivering across Southwark. Do you accept you didn't get

:54:24. > :54:26.what you should have done, commercial value for the site,

:54:27. > :54:29.and do you accept you are not providing the kind of social

:54:30. > :54:31.or affordable housing that you would hope to or that we

:54:32. > :54:35.would all expect you to? On those two points,

:54:36. > :54:37.the ?50 million that Peter talked about is just one part of a very

:54:38. > :54:45.complex financial panel. At the end of the day when profit

:54:46. > :54:48.is coming out of this site, the council has a 50% share

:54:49. > :54:51.of the profits that's delivered, so it will be a lot more effectively

:54:52. > :54:54.that the council gets for the land than the ?50 million

:54:55. > :54:57.headline figure that we saw. At least 25% of the housing

:54:58. > :54:59.delivered on site is affordable That includes social

:55:00. > :55:03.rented in greater numbers What's more important is that part

:55:04. > :55:08.of the Elephant and Castle regeneration plan is that there's

:55:09. > :55:10.going to be something like 1,750 affordable housing units

:55:11. > :55:13.across the wider area, so you don't have concentration

:55:14. > :55:16.of social housing in one place, but it is spread out

:55:17. > :55:18.across a wider area. It creates that mixed community

:55:19. > :55:23.where you've got more jobs Over 400 Southwark residents already

:55:24. > :55:27.employed at the Elephant Peter Tatchell, do you think

:55:28. > :55:31.the old Haygate estate was a great Lots of people would have preferred

:55:32. > :55:37.the estate to be refurbished. According to one surveyor,

:55:38. > :55:40.it could have been refurbished for a cost of ?35 million,

:55:41. > :55:43.which is a very better deal Even if that was an underestimate,

:55:44. > :55:55.it what have never cost the ?65 million the council had to pay out

:55:56. > :55:57.to empty the estate. So this is bad economics

:55:58. > :56:01.across the board. A three bedroom flat,

:56:02. > :56:16.the latest ones, are selling This is totally excluding the vast

:56:17. > :56:21.majority of local people. It is meaning that the character

:56:22. > :56:23.of the area's being changed. The livelihood and community that

:56:24. > :56:26.once existed has been dismembered, As I say, the Haygate was not

:56:27. > :56:30.a great place to live. There's a reason why vigilante

:56:31. > :56:33.and zombie films were filmed It was a failing part,

:56:34. > :56:38.unfortunately, of Southwark. I think it is important that we have

:56:39. > :56:40.employment opportunities created. Even if it was a failing estate,

:56:41. > :56:59.why is it that out of 2,700 new homes, only 79 are going

:57:00. > :57:01.to be socially rented? It's a reality, these

:57:02. > :57:06.are commercial prices isn't it? That is the reality and the figures

:57:07. > :57:10.that Peter quoted about the cost to buy homes, that's

:57:11. > :57:13.the reality of London. It is not just the

:57:14. > :57:15.reality of Haygate. The reality is that we are not

:57:16. > :57:17.building enough homes in London. If you're interested

:57:18. > :57:19.and want to talk about social cleansing, Peter, I think you should

:57:20. > :57:22.be talking about the Government's proposals under the Housing

:57:23. > :57:24.and Planning Bill, which is really going to socially cleanse,

:57:25. > :57:27.I think, central London, with extending right to buy

:57:28. > :57:29.to housing association tenants and making councils like ours sell

:57:30. > :57:31.some of our high-value assets I think that's the scandal of social

:57:32. > :57:36.cleansing and not what we're doing Do you think that the wrong enemy

:57:37. > :57:40.is in your sights and the one Well, it's both, but as a Labour

:57:41. > :57:45.council, as a Labour council... Building 11,000 new council homes

:57:46. > :57:49.over 20 or 30 years, Well, that may be, but right now

:57:50. > :57:54.we've lost over 1,100 council flats I could have bought my

:57:55. > :58:05.council flat for ?15,000. I refused to because I wanted

:58:06. > :58:13.to preserve council housing Let me bring Greg Hands

:58:14. > :58:17.in here about seeing the kind of tensions that are created,

:58:18. > :58:19.shall we say, by difficult I don't want to necessarily comment

:58:20. > :58:24.on the specifics of the scheme in Southwark, but in general I think

:58:25. > :58:28.estate regeneration is a very good In my constituency of Chelsea

:58:29. > :58:37.and Fulham we also have some older estates that desperately need,

:58:38. > :58:40.some that don't meet the decent homes standard, some that need

:58:41. > :58:42.extensive renovation. I tonight think we should need to be

:58:43. > :58:45.idealogical about what kind of homes I think it is important

:58:46. > :58:48.that the homes we regenerate, we do as much as we can to protect

:58:49. > :58:51.the existing social housing and existing mix, but if it means

:58:52. > :58:54.adding additional private capital and adding new homes,

:58:55. > :58:56.I think that's a good thing. By the way, Tim, the Government

:58:57. > :58:59.is doubling the amounts of money We are doing big programmes

:59:00. > :59:03.on London help to buy, starter homes and shared ownership,

:59:04. > :59:09.doubling all of that as well. I want to pick up Peter's points

:59:10. > :59:16.about the forced sell-off of council homes, which is going to have a huge

:59:17. > :59:19.impact on London and exacerbate Now for the rest of

:59:20. > :59:29.the news in 60 seconds. Plans for the City of London's

:59:30. > :59:31.tallest tower, 1 Undershaft, Just a fraction shorter

:59:32. > :59:36.than The Shard, the 73 storey tower could be the second

:59:37. > :59:40.highest in the capital. A freedom of information request has

:59:41. > :59:43.revealed that Transport for London pulled out of staging the initial

:59:44. > :59:46.stages of the 2017 Tour de France after learning that its central

:59:47. > :59:59.annual grant of ?550 million after learning that its central

:00:00. > :00:02.annual grant of ?591 million was to be gradually withdrawn over

:00:03. > :00:04.the next three years. Politicians are amongst the hundreds

:00:05. > :00:06.of thousands of people who've called for US presidential candidate

:00:07. > :00:09.Donald Trump to be banned from entering the UK after his calls

:00:10. > :00:12.to ban Muslims from going to the US. I object to everything

:00:13. > :00:14.he said, in all honesty. Donald Trump's comments are not just

:00:15. > :00:16.deeply disrespectful, He is interviewing for the most

:00:17. > :00:20.powerful job in the world and essentially his comments

:00:21. > :00:22.are equating the entire Muslim population, the entire Muslim

:00:23. > :00:25.community, with a handful of people Tempting as it might be to talk

:00:26. > :00:37.about Donald Trump, let's not. I know you wanted to bring

:00:38. > :00:40.the Commonwealth Games to London. We pulled out of staging

:00:41. > :00:44.the Tour de France in 2017. I think it's a real

:00:45. > :00:49.tragedy actually. The huge interesting cycle in London

:00:50. > :00:52.that there is and in the UK in general would only have

:00:53. > :00:55.been boosted further. I think there would have been

:00:56. > :00:57.a further big economic benefit from having the Tour

:00:58. > :00:59.de France start. As you quite rightly say,

:01:00. > :01:02.I think we should be bidding It is the next opportunity

:01:03. > :01:08.for a big event. But, Greg Hands, we can't,

:01:09. > :01:11.because you've reduced TfL's grants. You know the price of everything

:01:12. > :01:16.but not the value of anything. Actually the TfL grant overall has

:01:17. > :01:19.been increased from ?10 billion to ?11 billion over

:01:20. > :01:21.the spending review period. The second point to make is we had

:01:22. > :01:25.a very successful Tour de France On this basis I think the decision

:01:26. > :01:35.made by Boris was ?35 million Will David Cameron

:01:36. > :01:47.get his way in Europe? Are Labour MPs coming to terms

:01:48. > :01:53.with the idea that Jeremy Corbyn All questions for The Week Ahead

:01:54. > :02:06.and the Year Ahead. And joining us to gaze

:02:07. > :02:09.into our crystal ball for 2016 is the Conservative

:02:10. > :02:18.MP, James Cleverly. Welcome to the programme. If the

:02:19. > :02:23.Prime Minister cannot even get his minimum demands in the renegotiation

:02:24. > :02:26.with Europe, would you vote to leave? I've always felt his best

:02:27. > :02:31.chance of getting a good result from Europe is if there is a credible

:02:32. > :02:36.leave campaign, with people like me saying that if we don't get a good

:02:37. > :02:42.deal for Britain we would campaign to leave. That might feel like a

:02:43. > :02:47.stone in his shoe at the moment but unless people genuinely believe that

:02:48. > :02:57.he won't get the best deal for Britain.

:02:58. > :03:02.He says he rules nothing out. No one really believes the Prime Minister

:03:03. > :03:07.wants to leave the European Union or would lead a campaign to do so. But

:03:08. > :03:12.if the country as a whole is making those kind of noises, the people the

:03:13. > :03:16.Prime Minister is negotiating with, our partners in Europe, may think it

:03:17. > :03:21.is in their best interests to give him the deal he's looking for.

:03:22. > :03:25.Should he be asking for more? The Prime Minister is always at his best

:03:26. > :03:33.when his bold, I think you should be cheeky with the things he asks for,

:03:34. > :03:45.but recognise we are not going to get everything. Could we get more

:03:46. > :03:49.than he is asking for? The particular vehicle that he uses to

:03:50. > :03:53.get results shouldn't be quite so important as the results themselves.

:03:54. > :03:58.What you are not saying, but it is clear what you think, he should be

:03:59. > :04:04.tougher with Europe. I don't think it is possible to be tough enough

:04:05. > :04:08.with Europe. We've got to keep pushing and if we get something,

:04:09. > :04:14.push for more. Ultimately the deal he comes back with will be judged by

:04:15. > :04:18.the British people. I understand that. Tory politicians say that

:04:19. > :04:24.simply because they don't want to answer the questions I am asking

:04:25. > :04:28.because that is flannel. Most Conservative backbenchers I speak to

:04:29. > :04:32.think what he's asking for is not nearly enough. If he cannot even

:04:33. > :04:38.bring that back, I would suggest to you he will not carry a majority of

:04:39. > :04:42.his MPs in Parliament. The deal on the table... We have seen this from

:04:43. > :04:48.the Paris climate summit, the deals are done in the 11th hour so we will

:04:49. > :04:54.know what deal is on the table only at the 11th hour, then we will judge

:04:55. > :04:58.that deal when we see it. When you negotiate, you don't come out with

:04:59. > :05:05.demands and then as the negotiation goes on make these demands even

:05:06. > :05:09.greater! Yes, you do. I've never seen a negotiation like that, but

:05:10. > :05:15.good luck to you. What demand should he ask for that he's not asking for

:05:16. > :05:20.now? I will not try to second-guess because you have got to trade

:05:21. > :05:24.things, give a little bit there... I'm asking you to tell me what you

:05:25. > :05:28.think he should be asking of Europe that he's not asking at the moment.

:05:29. > :05:35.Most people would agree we want to have better control around who gets

:05:36. > :05:40.benefits. No, he's asking for that. Let me try one more time - what

:05:41. > :05:46.should he ask for that he's not asking for at the moment? As I said,

:05:47. > :05:53.I'm not going to second-guess that. I give up! Let me come on to Mr

:05:54. > :05:57.Corbyn. I would suggest to you, Tom Newton Dunn, that Jeremy Corbyn is

:05:58. > :06:02.ending this year in a much more secure position than it looked when

:06:03. > :06:07.he first got elected or at the Labour Party conference. I

:06:08. > :06:14.completely agree with you. When this crystallised was during the Syria

:06:15. > :06:27.vote, the week before last, when we thought the majority of Conservative

:06:28. > :06:31.MPs would abstain -- Labour MPs. Perhaps the Prime Minister's case

:06:32. > :06:36.wasn't that strong but they felt scared. The Corbyn machine, the

:06:37. > :06:40.unions put a lot of pressure on them and that was the turning point. He

:06:41. > :06:45.played his part in getting the Chancellor to withdraw on the tax

:06:46. > :06:49.credit front, he has carried the bulk of his Parliamentary party on

:06:50. > :06:54.Syria and most of his cabinet as well, and I would suggest, Helen,

:06:55. > :07:00.that the anti-Jeremy Corbyn forces are now bereft of a strategy. Yes,

:07:01. > :07:06.they have a huge problem that the members who voted for Jeremy Corbyn

:07:07. > :07:12.think he is doing really well. The PLP needs to get behind him. The

:07:13. > :07:23.problem is I think sometimes we get the narrative on Corbyn wrong. A lot

:07:24. > :07:27.of his deeply held principles, think about giving that free vote on

:07:28. > :07:35.Syria, he has been a member of the Stop The War coalition since it

:07:36. > :07:44.started, and yet he didn't say Acme or you will go. But he will now,

:07:45. > :07:52.given that he is ending the year in a pretty strong decision, he will, I

:07:53. > :07:57.suggest, in the New Year, start to remould the Labour Party much more

:07:58. > :08:02.in his image of what he stands for. Absolutely. I don't think there's

:08:03. > :08:06.much chance of being a successful challenge to Jeremy Corbyn in 2016

:08:07. > :08:09.and that's because the members are broadly behind him. The reason

:08:10. > :08:13.that's a disaster for the Labour Party is because of what will happen

:08:14. > :08:18.in September, the annual Labour Party conference by the seaside

:08:19. > :08:22.somewhere. They will use that moment to push through rule changes to make

:08:23. > :08:27.it harder for the Parliamentary Labour Party and mainstream forces

:08:28. > :08:32.to fight against what he wants, and to embed what they think in terms of

:08:33. > :08:40.official Labour Party positions and what Helen said he should do. When

:08:41. > :08:44.Mr Corbyn won the Labour leadership, the Conservatives thought Christmas

:08:45. > :08:49.had come early. He is actually proving to be a tougher leader than

:08:50. > :08:54.you thought. Only lazy observers would assume his leadership would

:08:55. > :08:59.make life easy for us. He galvanised a huge number of people in the

:09:00. > :09:03.country. I think he is so wrong on so many levels it is beyond belief

:09:04. > :09:07.but lots of other people seem to think he is right. We need to find

:09:08. > :09:12.ways of countering his political agenda because it is wrong and

:09:13. > :09:16.dangerous, but we need to do so at the same time as understanding why

:09:17. > :09:21.he managed to have such a grass-roots appeal. Although you all

:09:22. > :09:25.seem to be agreed he is ending the year on a strong note, the Labour

:09:26. > :09:31.Party Christmas party was not a lot of laughs, was it? What happened? It

:09:32. > :09:36.sounded like a slightly awkward occasion. This is the moment when

:09:37. > :09:40.all of the Labour Party staff get together, a free fake, one of the

:09:41. > :09:46.Shadow Cabinet plays Santa. You've got to picture the scene, about ten

:09:47. > :09:51.tables of staff who all pretty much come from the mainstream, and one

:09:52. > :09:56.and a half tables of allies of Jeremy Corbyn huddled in one part,

:09:57. > :10:01.and the two clans didn't really mix. There was only one real moment of

:10:02. > :10:10.dissent it felt like when somebody at around 1115 PM Port Things Can

:10:11. > :10:15.Only Get Better on, and that is about as open as Labour Party

:10:16. > :10:22.revolts get. I want to show you a Christmas party from the Daily

:10:23. > :10:31.Politics archive. Who is our secret Santa? Here he comes. It is a bit

:10:32. > :10:36.difficult to see. The first clue is that he is a Labour MP, he's been a

:10:37. > :10:43.member of Parliament since 1983 for the smallest constituency in

:10:44. > :10:48.Britain. Next clue, he is one of just 12 Labour MPs to back Plaid

:10:49. > :10:59.Cymru and the SNP's call for an inquiry into the war. Finally, he

:11:00. > :11:15.chairs the Parliamentary wing of CND, and you should know this, Meg?

:11:16. > :11:30.Jeremy Corbyn? I thought it was the real Santa! Yes please, thank you

:11:31. > :11:34.very much. Jeremy Corbyn, having more fun at the Daily Politics

:11:35. > :11:39.Christmas party than he did the Labour Party one.

:11:40. > :11:49.Will there be an EU referendum next year? No. Yes. Yes. No. By this time

:11:50. > :12:01.next year will Jeremy Corbyn still be a Labour leader? ALL: Yes.

:12:02. > :12:07.If David Cameron loses the referendum, will he be able to

:12:08. > :12:12.survive as Prime Minister? Yes. You have got to say that!

:12:13. > :12:19.Will Philip Hammond remained Foreign Secretary next year? On what? Will

:12:20. > :12:26.he remain Foreign Secretary? No. They might have to be a reshuffle.

:12:27. > :12:32.Hilary Benn, will he remain as Shadow Foreign Secretary? No. Will

:12:33. > :12:39.the Government finally approved a third runway at Heathrow? No,

:12:40. > :12:47.definitely not. Yes. No. Will we ever get to see the Chilcot inquiry

:12:48. > :12:53.in 2016? Yes. No. I don't know. Will Donald Trump win the Republican

:12:54. > :13:03.nomination next year? No. No. Who is going to be the new Mayor of London?

:13:04. > :13:08.Sadiq Khan. Probably Sadiq Khan, it is a Labour city. Zac Goldsmith, and

:13:09. > :13:14.it is not a Labour city, trust me. He would be much better at soaking

:13:15. > :13:18.up the second preference votes. That's a bit technical for us!

:13:19. > :13:20.That's all for today and, in fact, all from

:13:21. > :13:23.the Sunday Politics this year. I'll be back here on 10th January.

:13:24. > :13:25.Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

:13:26. > :13:28.Unless, of course, it's the festive season.