13/12/2015 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

After suggestions that David Cameron was diluting his EU negotiation

demands, Downing Street insists he's still pushing for curbs

But is there any evidence that the rest of Europe is listening?

Jeremy Corbyn says Stop The War is "one of the most important

democratic campaigns of modern times".

And why all the fuss that he went to its Christmas fund-raiser?

Yvette Cooper - one-time Labour leadership contender -

says Britain should be doing more for refugees and migrants

In London, yet more hesitation over Heathrow.

Does the latest delay make it more or less likely that there will be

And with me for this final Sunday Politics of 2015,

Tom Newton Dunn of The Sun, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman

and Sam Coates of The Times - the Dasher, Dancer and Prancer

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Downing Street insists that David Cameron will still push

for curbs on in-work benefits for EU migrants in the UK,

despite earlier briefings to the contrary.

The Prime Minister will head to a crucial summit later this week

to make his case for a reformed British relationship with the EU.

However, several newspapers, citing official guidance,

report that Mr Cameron has failed to convince other European leaders

and is already preparing a fallback to replace his original demand

for a four-year wait for in-work benefits.

The Sunday Times headline says "Prime Minister 'caves in'

The Sunday Telegraph describes it as "Cameron's climbdown

And the Independent on Sunday goes for the same metaphor,

describing it as "Cameron's big EU climbdown".

Let's speak now to Conservative MP Peter Lilley.

He was a Cabinet minister in the Conservative governments

of both Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister is thought by many of your

colleagues not to be asking for a lot, yet he might not even get what

he's asking for. Could he sell a watered-down deal to his party? It

is more a question of whether he can sell whatever comes out of it to the

country. There are lots of Labour MPs who want to see democratic

powers returned to this country from the European institutions. That's

the key issue as far as I'm concerned. He will clearly get some

things because a lot of this has been pre-negotiated, so he will get

something to say about removing the phrase ever closer union, something

to do with benefits, even if actually it is something we could do

anyway ourselves, like apply a four-year wait to British citizens

as well as foreigners. There will be something, the question is will it

be substantial? Will it include a return of powers to this country to

govern itself? What major powers is he asking to be repatriated?

Publicly, there doesn't seem to be anything on the list, unless some

change in relation to free movement of Labour is somewhere up his

sleeve. I do occasionally hear rumours that he will come back with

some genuine return of powers, and if he does I will be dancing on the

rooftops. We have no evidence that's even part of the negotiation. That

is certainly disappointing, it is rather a strange strategy not to ask

for the principal thing we want and yet still hope to get it. Because we

have, over a series of treaties which David Cameron and I voted

against, conceded a whole lot of powers to Europe beyond what is

necessary. The trading area requires some common lawmaking, but beyond

that we concede a lot of powers. We would like to start the process of

getting those powers back. If we cannot, we will be on a slippery

slope to creating a single state. The reason we are in the position we

are, having to renegotiate, is that the countries of the eurozone are on

the road to creating a single state. There's never been a currency

without a single state to run it. They are forced, because they have

created this currency, without a government to make it work. The

question is can we be outside that process, can removing the opposite

direction and get powers back, or will we be sucked on the slipstream?

If we cannot overcome the two doctrines of Europe that everybody

is heading in the same direction, albeit at different speeds, and

powers can only ever go to the central institutions and never come

back to the States, if we cannot break those two doctrines as far as

Britain is concerned, he will not really have achieved anything. I

understand all of that. A quick final question, if he comes back

with even less than he's asking for, would you vote to leave? If he

doesn't come back with some increase in power to ourselves, I feel for

the first time in my life I would be voting to leave. I voted to stay in

1975 but I would be voting to leave in those circumstances.

Tom, it is turning into a real mess for the Government, is it not? A

huge mess. There was an exposer yesterday, of the 11pm call every

night, coordinated with the Downing Street switchboard which the

ministers have got to tune into. I can only imagine the horror that

went on last night during the call, which still happens, over the

headlines this morning. I think what's happened here is the

four-year ban on migrants' benefit is dead. You think he's just not

going to get it? It died I would say at least a month ago in the Chatham

House speech. He said so in his speech saying, here is what I want,

but by the way I will also accept what you choose to offer me. The

papers reported the next day that it was dead in the water, so we are

talking about the choreographing, how it happens and whether the Prime

Minister himself withdraws it. Or somebody else might put something

else on the table, doing the PM a favour, to bail him out and say if

you don't want this how about that. Peter Lilley And, when I said can

you sell this to your backbenchers comic said it is a problem for the

other parties too but it is overwhelmingly a problem for the

Conservatives and if he cannot achieve what is being asked for, I

would suggest half the Parliamentary party in my not go with him on this.

It is not the climb-down I would query, but the "big". He needed one

totemic issue that looked like he was doing something about

immigration. He couldn't look at the free movement of people or any kind

of free movement cap. He couldn't tell nostrils any major power he is

asking to be repatriated. It will be hard to make it look like he has

come back with something so that people can say OK, that has changed

my mind. If he gets one in February, can he have the referendum in June?

I understand the Electoral Commission doesn't like the idea of

a referendum that would overlap with the elections in May, and the risk

in September is that we will have another summer migrant crisis and

that would be a terrible atmosphere for those who want to stay in the

European Union. There are a lot of hurdles, first you have got to get a

deal in February that looks like a success. The reason they have done

what they've done overnight is because it has been dragged down

into a legal quagmire and David Cameron has got to have a

conversation with his counterparts to set that entire renegotiation

back on the right track. I know that some people in Brussels as saying he

cannot get a deal by February, we will never get a deal, and if it

slips into 2017 you won't get a deal then either. In June

there is this tiny window because -- where you could practically hold a

vote. But then as you say you've got the migrant crisis, which pops up

over the summer. I'm told that dealing with the flow of migration

from Turkey will make an enormous difference to the optics of how

Europe is seen to be able to deal with the migration crisis. Even

though that doesn't have a huge impact on UK migration from the rest

of Europe, David Cameron's renegotiation depends on something

truly out of his control. So you're telling me it depends on the Turks

now. On Friday night Jeremy Corbyn met up

with some old friends Nothing unusual in that,

you might think, but this was a fundraising do

for Stop The War Coalition, the anti-war protest group that

Mr Corbyn chaired until his election And, in case you hadn't noticed,

it caused a bit of a stir. It was the biggest mass

demonstration in British history. The group that organised it,

the Stop The War Coalition, had been founded a year or so before

following the 9/11 attacks and George Bush's declaration

of war on terror. Around a million people marched

as Tony Blair prepared to send Among the speakers,

a backbench Labour MP. Thousands more deaths in Iraq

will not make things right, it will set off a spiral

of conflict, of hate, One of the reasons for its success,

I've always thought, is that everyone was united

around one single issue. We never got bogged down

in our political analyses of what we thought about

Saddam Hussein or what we thought about this dictator or that,

or how we thought the political We weren't there to offer solutions

to other people's problems and tell them how we thought it should be,

we were there to stop our government taking what we considered to be

a very bad and negative step. But despite the broad support,

the inner leadership has largely Stop The War's founding member

and convener Lindsey German was a member of the Socialist

Workers Party for over 30 years, Her partner, John Rees,

who's also co-founder of Stop The War and was a leading

figure in the SWP, he also He sits on the editorial board

of Counterfire, a political organisation created

after that SWP split. He also helped start up The People's

Assembly Against Austerity, Which has been organising

protests since 2013. He's often sparked controversy,

reportedly writing in 2006, for example, that socialists should

unconditionally stand with the oppressed

against the oppressor, even if the people who run

the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute

minorities, like Saddam Hussein. Andrew Murray was the Stop The War

coalition chairman from He's a member of the Communist Party

and chief of staff of In 2014 he spoke at the launch event

of a campaign called Solidarity With The Antifascist

Resistance In Ukraine, which supports anti-government

rebels there. He took back the chairmanship again

in September this year, taking over from Jeremy Corbyn,

who'd held the post from 2011 As well as its elected officers,

Stop The War has patrons including Labour MP Diane Abbott,

George Galloway, the writer Tariq Ali, and Kamal Majid,

a founding member of the Stalin Society, formed in 1991

to defend Stalin and his work. The 2003 protest against the Iraq

war, which took place here in Hyde Park, was the high point

of Stop The War. The human rights activist

Peter Tatchell never played an official role at Stop The War,

though he has participated But this week he took a very public

step back and claimed the organisation has

lost its moral compass. The shortcomings in Stop The War

are driven by basically about half a dozen people at the top,

and those views increasingly are not shared by many of their long-time

grass-roots supporters like me People are turned off

by the sectarianism, by the selective opposition to war,

and by the failure to speak out against human rights abuses

by regimes that happen to be on the receiving end of US

and British military intervention. Critics like Tatchell have accused

Stop The War of trying to silence those whose views don't

fit their own. Nothing will be achieved by trying

to shout down speakers! This video shows a Stop The War

official clashing with a protester during a rally about western

policy in Iran in 2012, This meeting last month caused

controversy when Syrians in the audience said

they weren't allowed to speak. There is one reason there is no

Syrian from this room on the platform and that's

because they support intervention, and the meeting is

against intervention. APPLAUSE What's really disturbing

is the way in which Diane Abbott closed down the meeting rather

than allow Syrian Democratic left wing and civil society

activists to speak. It's given the impression

that she shares the questionable politics of Stop The War

on the issue of Syria. But Stop The War insists a Syrian

contributor did ask a question from the floor of that meeting

and have rubbished the suggestion they support those who Western

governments oppose. Obviously, you will have seen

in recent days Stop The War explaining that they were opposed

to Russian intervention in Syria as well as British intervention,

so they are evenhanded. The reason I think people may think

that is because we are a campaign based in Britain and our campaigning

is obviously overwhelmingly orientated towards changing our own

Government's policy. Welcome to Islington

in north London. In there is Jeremy Corbyn's

constituency office. This building is also home

to the Stop The War coalition, but it is the figurative proximity

rather than the literal one that I spoke to a number of Labour MPs

who voted against air One told me that he wasn't so much

worried about Stop The War and the influence it may have

on Jeremy Corbyn and policy, but more that Jeremy Corbyn

simply shares their views. There's dissent at

the grass roots too. Last week 500 party members,

including councillors, wrote to Mr Corbyn urging him

to take a step back. Stop The War is not

a Labour Party organisation. There are many people in it who have

opposed the Labour Party and probably continue

to oppose the Labour Party. I don't believe they hold

to the values of solidarity, We also spoke to a number of Labour

MPs who were relaxed about Jeremy Corbyn's connection

to Stop The War, an organisation he's never made any

secret of supporting. On Friday he went to the Christmas

do, and said slurs by critics against Stop The War were an attempt

to close down democratic He knows some of those critics

include his own MPs. We're joined now from Leeds

by the Labour MP, Richard Burgon. Morning, Andrew. The Communist Party

of Britain, which has prominent members in stop the war, says

attacks on stop the war are, quote, a systemic and vicious propaganda oi

offensive designed to obscure British imperialism's agenda in

conducting the bombing campaign in Syria. Do you agree with that? Well,

first of all I think I'm in a good position to answer some of these

questions, pause I've only ever been a member of the Labour Party. I

joined when I was 15. What I really want to focus on is not the members

of small political parties who may be involved in Stop The War

Coalition, but the tens of thousands, in fact they've got an

e-mail list of 150,000 people, many of whom are not in any political

party, many of whom are in the Labour Party. The chairman who has

taken over from Mr Corbyn is a member of the Communist Party of

Britain, so what's the answer to my question? I think the attacks on

stop the war are proxy attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. We haven't had that

previously. When Charles Kennedy was speaking against the Iraq war, which

2 million people attended, Charles Kennedy wasn't attacked for that,

and rightly so. But he wasn't a member of Stop The War Coalition. He

spoke on the stop the war platform. But he wasn't a member? I'm not a

member, there's a really important point here, it is right that people

in democratic society express their views to MPs, march against things

they think are incorrect. I do think the line and the leadership of the

Stop The War Coalition hasn't changed in the 14 years since it was

founded. What has changed is that Jeremy Corbyn has become leader of

the Labour Party, so people in the media and elsewhere who wish to

attack Jeremy Corbyn are using stop the war to do so. Of course it is

not just the media, is it? It is not even the media. Labour MPses,

Tristram Hunt, Stella Creasy, many more, they've attacked Stop the War

Coalition and Jeremy Corbyn's support for it. I think the majority

of Labour members agreed with Jeremy Corbyn on his analysis on whether or

not we should agree to David Cameron's proposal to bomb Syria.

But what do you say to their criticism of Mr Corbyn's continued

association with Stop the War Coalition? I think they are

mistaken. I think that stop the war, we've got to look at how stop the

war has involved people from right across the political spectrum. When

I was on that historical march in 2003, there wasn't just the Lib Dem

leader speaking but other people I spoke to, Conservative voters, so it

is not just 57 varieties of Trotskyite groups that are involved.

If it were the case it were merelily people on the ultraleft you wouldn't

have 150,000 people involved or on the e-mail list. Who is not either a

cop thirst, a Trotskyite or a Stalinist? Well, there are plenty of

trade unions involved in the lip... Among the leadership, the people who

lead this, whose names are associated with it, who doesn't Paul

into that small hard left category? Well, it is a coalition, and that's

the point of it. So give me another name that doesn't fall into that.

Well, I wouldn't even know the full list of people on the board of stop

the war, but what I do know is that there are people from trade unions

supporting it, trade unions supporting it, probably in terms of

the membership of Stop the War Coalition, the biggest composite of

that are Labour Party members. But I do think this is a distraction of

the democratic issue. We can't say that in this country being a member

of a Stop the War Coalition campaign, campaigning against

military interventions that were proven to be disastrous in Iraq and

Libya is wrong. It is part of an open democratic process. People

shouldn't be demonised for being part of it, or Jeremy Corbyn. I'm

not doing that, what I'm trying to do is find out what stop the war

really stands for and whether it is right to Jeremy Corbyn and other

Labour people should be associated with it. They are had an article

titled, Sociopaths United. The United States, Britain and their

allies are no less sociopathic than the enemies they propose to hunt

down. So British security forces are on a par with the beheaders, do you

agree with that? I certainly don't agree with that. I think there've

been things published on blogs on the stop the war website which are

essential wrong, which I wouldn't agree with and the vast majority of

people who are members of the Stop the War Coalition wouldn't agree

with. I was reading in the paper this morning that the management of

the website of the stop the war has changed. If that shows that they are

going to be more careful to ensure that the content of the website on

every occasion mirrorst or reflects, sorry, the view of

every occasion mirrorst or reflects, that's a welcome move. Well, it is

certainly, if it is such a splendid organisation, it has to delete lots

of articles it has published. It blamed the Paris attacks on French

policy, claimed that the threat to the Yazidis was largely mythical, in

fact force. And published a poem that quotes a well known anti-Semite

and Holocaust denier. All of that it has had to take down. Does that

sound like a respectable organisation that the Labour Party

should be associated with? Well, the views that you've uncovered aren't

views that I or members of the Stop the War Coalition would agree with.

But the big picture is this. In a coalition there are always sorts of

small numbers of individuals who come out with unacceptable views.

But the fact is I'm interested in the democratic point, in the 2

million people that marched on 15th February 2003, in the thousands that

protested against the intervention in Libya and intense the

intervention in Syria. I'm not a pacifist but I think that the truth

is that the Stop the War Coalition and the ordinary people from vicars

to pensioners who marched against the war in Iraq, who marched against

the intervention in Libya and have demonstrated against the

intervention in Syria, they've got it right. Many of the people

attacking Jeremy Corbyn and many of the people attacking the Stop the

War Coalition have got it completely wrong. It is a topsy-turvy world we

are in when attending Stop the War Coalition events is controversial.

We are still pretending that Tony Blair and others got it right in

Iraq. We haven't got much time Mr Burgon. Mr Corbyn stuck to his guns

and went to the fundraiser. His spin doctor says the Labour Party is now

slowly co hearing round Mr Corbyn's views, across a range of issues. Do

you agree with that? I do. As I minced earlier, Jeremy Corbyn didn't

instruct or order Labour MPs to vote against David Cameron's plan to bomb

Syria. He gave them a free vote, and that that was the right thing to do.

By a ratio of 2 to 1 Labour MPs agreed with Jeremy Corbyn's

analysis, and by 2 to 1 members of the Shadow Cabinet agreed with Mr

Corbyn. But on working tax credits, police cuts, issues such as ech

attacking George Osborne's failed cuts and privatisationings the vast,

of Labour MPs and members, and a lot of the public agree with him.

Richard Burgon thank you for joining us and for persevering with the

earpiece. I'm glad you stalk with it. Thank you. Take care. Bye.

Yvette Cooper came third in the contest to become

Her campaign only really came to life back in early September,

when she became the first front rank UK politician to call for Britain

to take in 10,000 refugees from the Syrian war.

Now, in her new role as Chair of Labour's Refugees Taskforce,

she's been on a fact-finding visit to the Jungle refugee

6,000 people are currently living in what, in most generous terms,

Yvette Cooper, a former Shadow Home Secretary,

a Labour leadership contender, argued over the summer Britain

should take more Syrian asylum seekers than

Now a backbencher, she is returned as a guest of citizens UK not

to argue we should fling open the doors but that the jungle

was a problem nobody has tried to find a solution to.

Why do we not have UNHCR here doing proper assessments of everybody?

And therefore actually they need to go back through

You've got to have a proper process to assess people's refugee status

and at the moment that's not happening.

That's the real big tragedy of here, the people have got stuck

here in these awful conditions and there's no

Some would call it hell, that's a little hyperbolic,

It's really purgatory, since there's a real sense nobody

is going anywhere, unless to climb on board a lorry and illegally

And a camp unsuited to summer is preparing for a winter it's

There's an argument which says, if you help refugees,

then somehow that will create a crisis.

No, the crisis is here and now, the crisis is happening.

The question is what we do to stop the crisis getting worse and worse,

so you can't have people stuck living among the rubbish

and the pools of water and the mud while they're applying for asylum.

You've got to have a basic humanitarian aid in place.

At the Medecins Sans Frontieres clinic on-site, the issue

of the conditions and winter is a problem itself.

The problem when we see the camp, it's very cold, the hygiene

And what happens, the condition...the simple

flu passes sometimes in the bronchal...and that's it.

There are many women and children - yes, they are outnumbered -

but they're housed in two sections of the camp we're not allowed

to film in, though clearly some choose to live in other parts

of the camp and walk the roads around.

And it's the issue of unaccompanied minors with family already legally

in the UK that is worrying some of the volunteers.

So, there's a ten-year-old boy separated from his family and just

There are eight-year-olds, nine-year-olds, ten-year-olds

with family in the UK desperate to look after them,

and come here to visit them and bring them things

Do you suspect that people back home will see this and their natural

humanity will say, "this is awful, that looks really dreadful,

we still don't want lots of them to come"?

The problem is you look around this and you think,

how is this northern Europe, how can this be just a few miles

How can this be what is happening in France?

Yvette Cooper would be much happier if those minors were taken

in with their families, and seems to be singing from a song

sheet that says whether we take more refugees, fewer or none,

it may well be a pressing question, but that the jungle in Calais

Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. Should adults from this can be

allowed into Britain? It depends on their circumstances. Most of them

should be playing in France for asylum and that I think is what you

would expect to happen. Some of them may not be refugees, some of them

may have safe homes to go to and should do so. Clearly there's a lot

of people there who have fled Syria, Afghanistan, who we know are fleeing

conflict and persecution. There's a question about the children. We saw

unaccompanied children. There are people traffickers, some cases where

aid workers said they had families in Britain we were trying to reach.

For example I spoke to a 15-year-old whose brother, his nearest relative

is in Britain and he wants to join him. That's why he is in Calais.

Should we let them in? We should have a process for him to be able to

apply. We should be providing that sanctuary. I understand the children

issue but I'm still not quite clear what your attitude is towards the

adults there. Although a lot of people in this camp may have started

as refugees, they are now in France. They are not in immediate danger of

their lives so they now want to come to the UK because they think

economic prospects are better here than in France. That makes their

role economic migrants now. That's not the reality. They have no safe

home at the moment, and I agree they should be playing right now and they

should be assessed where they are. The French authorities should be

doing a full assessment. So why are they not in there? Good question.

Why are we leaving people in such awful conditions? If the French

authorities cannot, we should get the UNHCR to come in and do a full

assessment. There will also be people, I spoke for example to a

single mother with two small children who had left Syria when her

husband was killed in an Assad jail. She was trying to reach her father

and brother, also in Britain. There should be a process for her to apply

for sanctuary in Britain. If you had a fair system to apply, you might

prevent people coming to Calais in the first place. Should we set up an

asylum seeking vetting operation in Calais ourselves? We have a system

the Government set up under pressure to take refugees from the camps in

Syria. I'm talking about the camps in Calais. I agree but I'm saying we

should prevent people coming to Calais in the first place. Once

people have got to Calais, I think there is a case particularly for

those children... We understand the children but I'm asking about adults

because it is hard to know what your policy is on this. Should we start

to say some of them are asylum seekers, the French are not doing

their jobs properly, we will take them in once they go through the

proper procedures - yes or no? Those who have formally in Britain should

be able to apply for sanctuary in Britain but you need a system. You

need to be able to do security checks and refugee checks. At the

moment Britain is only taking 4000 refugees per year. I think we could

do more of that, and if we did that and worked with other countries we

should be clearing the problems at Calais and preventing people coming

to Europe on most dangerous boats in the first place. I know that people

think we cannot solve this, it is too hard, but if we don't it will

get worse. Some people may argue that the more you take in and give

proper status to, you will encourage all the more to come into Europe.

People are coming whatever happens. We are told there is another 5

million waiting to come. At one point the Government was arguing we

shouldn't have search and rescue in the Mediterranean because that would

encourage more people to come, I think that is immoral. People have

come, they are travelling across Europe. Let me try to pin you down

on that. It is still not clear what you want to do. Let's take the

migrants who have made it into the EU this year. Although the German

government took most itself, it tried to spread the burden through

quotas of member states. Should we volunteer a quota? Yes, I think we

should take 10,000 people. Only ten? The Germans are taking a lot more.

The reason I said that figure is because that meant you would be

talking about ten families for every city or County across the country

and I also think the best way to do with this is to work with faith

groups across the country and say how many refugees do you think you

could support in each area. Germany's Labour market is in a

different situation and they have a different demographic. So 10,000 out

of Vermilion, that would be British response? That would be a good thing

to do, but the truth is all countries will have to work together

on this and there isn't a simple answer. It's not just about what you

do in terms of the number of refugees you give sanctuary to, it's

also how you prevent people travelling. We should reunite

families and we have got to do something about humanitarian relief.

There are people living in terrible conditions, with France and Britain

being two of the most powerful countries in the world you would

have thought it is not beyond the wit of these countries to make sure

there is proper humanitarian relief, sanitation, and heating for people

who will suffer not just from scabies but terrible conditions in

those camps as the winter draws in. Indeed we shall see what horrors the

winter brings because we have not gone through that yet in this

migrant crisis. You heard a colleague of yours saying he thought

the Labour Party was now moving strongly in Mr Corbyn's direction in

policy matters, do you agree? There's been a lot of policies I

disagree with, we have that debate over the summer. The challenge at

the moment is that the Labour Party has an internal focus, looking

inwards at ourselves. We have got to look outwards. You are not answering

my question. Let me try one more time. Is your party moving broadly

in Mr Corbyn's direction? I'm not sure quite what that means because

we are having a debate in the party at the moment about what the

policies should be in the future. The trouble is we cannot just make

that debate look inwards when the Tories are being let off the hook on

tax credits, Europe and a series of things. I will try to make the

question more clear next time. 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 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

We are focusing mainly on that further delay to a decision

on Heathrow, but a bit later on we are taken round an estate

in Elephant and Castle by an activist who claims

regeneration there is an act of social cleansing,

while the local council leader will be here to respond.

Let's say hello straight away to Gareth Thomas,

Labour MP for Harrow West, and Greg Hands, Conservative MP

for Chelsea and Fulham and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

They will be with us throughout today.

Let's kick off with this latest hesitation over what to do

The decision made to postpone a decision over a third

Ahead of a chorus of disapproval from business leaders,

it was the Transport Secretary sent out to face the cameras.

This is a decision which has been dubbed by many governments --

ducked. We are not doing that but it is right we do all of the work

beforehand necessary, and allay concerns about noise and some of the

environmental consequences, and I don't really think I will make an

apology for saying we want to take a little longer in getting the

decision right rather than rushing the decision and having it held up

in the courts. The Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin. Do

you think it makes it more or less likely we will get a third runway at

Heathrow, Greg Hands? The Transport Secretary is right, we need more

time to make sure we make the right decision. The Government will look

and make the right decision next year on which of those three options

to follow. Gareth, do you think it makes it more or less likely? I have

no idea is the honest truth. Whatever happens it is clear there

will be a further, lengthy delay. After the Government's delay, there

will be court challenges, and the worry is that the earliest we could

get a third runway at Heathrow is 2025. Airports in the south-east

will be at full capacity at the point, and the risk of losing

further investment from other parts of the world is really live one. I

the Government hadn't ducked this issue. The decision to delay until

next year does not put in peril the overall timetable for delivering

additional runway capacity. The Government recognises the need to

have additional runway capacity in the south-east and the delay

announced yesterday does not put that in peril. So why do the

business leaders think you are gutless and dithering and have

failed your first challenge on this? Going back to what the Secretary of

State was saying, the most important thing is to make the right decision.

That means looking at air quality impacts, noise impact, carbon

emission impact, looking at mitigation, compensation. This is a

decision which will have positive consequences for the UK going ahead

for some decades. It is right that we take the right time available to

get the right decision made. The Government has had five years. The

Airports Commission was doing its work, there's no reason why the

Department for Transport couldn't have been going through some of the

detail around and environmental issues and I accept there are some

serious environmental issues to be worked through, but they could have

been going through those. It looks like a delay to suit the political

timetable and that is troubling. What has everyone been doing this

last six months? It came out in July. These are quite complex

questions, thinking about air quality, noise and greenhouse gases,

not things that are trivial matters. These are major decisions and we

need more time to assess the impact of all three options. Gareth talks

about delay but the third runway at Heathrow was first mooted in 2000.

Gareth was a government minister, this ten years of delay under Labour

so we will take no lectures from Labour. You are very pro-expanding

but it's true, you know from personal experience being part of

that government that was trying to push it through, it took so long. We

had taken a decision to crack on with the third runway at Heathrow.

Unfortunately the Conservatives took a position to say they didn't want

it to go ahead at that point, which meant there was further delay and

further blight in terms of investment in London and airport

capacity. We face huge competition from Amsterdam, which is expanding,

a whole series of other hub airport expanding around the world. We risk

losing serious investment into the UK. It is an important question,

what is the Labour Party's position on expansion? Sadiq Khan is now

saying he is against Heathrow expansion but he was a minister in

the Department for Transport at the time Labour was backing this. Why do

you think Sadiq Khan has changed his mind? Do you think he is right to

change his mind? And what will happen to Labour policy? Will you

expect the party's position to change because you are still broadly

in support of a third runway subject to certain conditions being met,

aren't you? I certainly hope the party's position doesn't change.

Lillian Greenwood, our Shadow Transport Secretary, is looking at

some of the principles which we might back, continue to support

expansion at Heathrow. One point that has been raised with me is the

need to make sure some of the rest of the UK's regional airports

benefit from the expansion, that seems a sensible consideration to

write into the deal and that's one of the things she's looking up at

the moment. Our policy is to support expansion and I hope we continue to

do so. Uck with It. Thank you. Take care.

Bye. David Cameron sets up this commission to take out the party

political conflict out of these matters, to say these are important

infrastructure decisions, but a commission says it couldn't be

clearer really. You had six months. You set that timetable yourself, by

Christmas, and there is no indication. It is kind of

topsy-turvy. It has inverted the process hasn't it? First of all, the

Davis commission didn't exclude any of the options. They said all of the

options were viable, including Gatwick. We do have to make sure

that we get the right decision as a Government. We need a little more

time to consider the implications, really important things like air

quality, noise and other environmental impacts. And looking

also, which will be interesting... What's changed in those? Mitigation

and compensation that might be available to residents affected when

the decision gets made. But why hasn't this been done in the six

months? The work has been ongoing. It just needs a little bit longer to

do that work. There is no guarantee that this six months delay will be

followed by another six months of dither and blather. I disagree with

that. Is this the first real test of making a very politically complex

decision over infrastructure, you are showing as a party that you're

lacking. It is a complex decision. The factors involved in making the

decision, particularly on the environment is very complicated.

That's why we are taking a little bit of extra time. I'm still

confident we will meet the delivery point to have the additional runway

capacity in London and the South East in time. I don't think this

delay will affect that. The fact that you are saying that with a

straight face... The politics of Heathrow have always been influenced

by the Conservative Party by its own fortunes in the west of London. You

opposed Heathrow expansion initially to help the marginal seats there.

George Osborne changed his minds, and now you are delaying a final

decision to help your mayoral candidate. I disagree with that. We

have a record of making difficult ve a record of making difficult

decision on a record of making difficult

decision projects. Heathrow is a classic example. It is not just a

six months delay or since months period since the airports commission

came out with a final decision. Each of those three decisions have been

on the table for at least 12 months beforehand, when Davis came out with

his record. Davies reported in July of this year, yes? OK, given the

depth of study and the important consideration, important questions

that need to be addressed, I don't think it is unreasonable to

postpone. Were there a vote on this in the House of Commons tomorrow,

where do you think people would be? Would there be a majority across

both parties and the SNP for expanding Heathrow? Just be honest.

We know you are against, Greg, and you are for. What do you think? I

really don't know. You don't know? Which option the Government is going

to choose. I wasn't asking that. It will be done in the proper way. In

terms of how the House will be done in the proper way. In

in favour of Heathrow? No, I won't be resigning. I'm part of a

Government which will make a collective decision about this. I've

made my submission and views known to the Davis commission. I sent a

thorough submission to the commission. And I met with Howard

Davies as well to make sure my point of view and the view of my

constituents was made at the right time and in the proper way. You are

a close aide of the Chancellor. Would expect that everybody, a large

number of people were opposed to expansion, and a number are in the

cabinet. Would you expect them all to stay part of the Government if

the decision goes Heathrow expansion? We'll have to wait and

see what decision the Government makes at the right time. The

important thing is I have made my submission to the commission in the

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

attempt to change, modify your policy on Heathrow? The straight

answer is I honestly don't know. There may be some tweaks in terms of

the principles behind our support. I think a commitment to ensure that

regional airports benefit from the expansion of Heathrow seem to me to

be a sensible addition. The Elephant and Castle

roundabout is no more. Seen as one of London's most

dangerous junctions, it had witnessed 80 collisions

since 2012, but has now been replaced by a new layout

for two-way traffic. But other changes to the area

are also afoot, and one Local resident and campaigner

Peter Tatchell says the real story around this area is

about social cleansing. The Haygate council estate

at Elephant and Castle was built in the 1970s, with spacious modern

housing for low-income families. It's one of the largest

redevelopment sites in Britain. I've lived locally

for nearly 40 years. I've seen the local working class

community forced out. It is social cleansing

on a massive scale. The original 1,212 council flats

are being replaced by twice But only 82 of them will be

social housing units. The rest will be unaffordable

for most Londoners, with many being sold off plan

to foreign investors. I'm here with Gerry Flynn,

a former council tenant So where have all the council

tenants who used to live here gone? Most of the council tenants

still live in the area, in the Walworth area,

but very few of them live They've just moved into current

council housing stock. The lease holders on the estate

who bought their council homes have gone much further afield,

scattered to the outer boroughs, because they can't afford to buy

anywhere that's being built here. But that's not the only reason

this is a very bad deal. The Haygate site

is prime real estate. Just over a mile from

the Houses of Parliament. In 2007, Southwark council valued

the 25 acre site at ?150 million. But later it sold the site

for a mere ?50 million. That's one third of the original

estimated value, and much less than the selling price

for comparable sites in the area. The 1.5 acre Tribeca site was sold

to private developers for ?40 million and the 3.5 acre shopping

centre site was sold Both sold for many millions more

per acre than Southwark council secured for the 25

acre Haygate site. What's happening at the Elephant

and Castle is symptomatic of what's happening all over London,

where developers have a stranglehold over local councils and where

working class communities Peter Tatchell reporting

there, as they say. And Peter Tatchell is here with us

now along with Peter John, Allegations, accusations set

housemate in full there. Underpriced, you didn't get as much

money as you should have done, you are not creating

enough social housing. What's going wrong

at the Haygate estate? The Elephant and Castle

is about creating a new part of Southwark where you have

new housing, new jobs, What you had previously was not

a successful estate. The Haygate estate

was a failing estate. People didn't want to live there,

and people underachieving in terms of health, education

and employment terms. In order to create a better mixed

community, where people can thrive I think it is also really important

to acknowledge that the Haygate estate was very poor

quality housing. Our aspiration as a council,

we are the largest council landlord in London, our aspiration absolutely

is people have the best quality housing and that's what we are

delivering across Southwark. Do you accept you didn't get

what you should have done, commercial value for the site,

and do you accept you are not providing the kind of social

or affordable housing that you would hope to or that we

would all expect you to? On those two points,

the ?50 million that Peter talked about is just one part of a very

complex financial panel. At the end of the day when profit

is coming out of this site, the council has a 50% share

of the profits that's delivered, so it will be a lot more effectively

that the council gets for the land than the ?50 million

headline figure that we saw. At least 25% of the housing

delivered on site is affordable That includes social

rented in greater numbers What's more important is that part

of the Elephant and Castle regeneration plan is that there's

going to be something like 1,750 affordable housing units

across the wider area, so you don't have concentration

of social housing in one place, but it is spread out

across a wider area. It creates that mixed community

where you've got more jobs Over 400 Southwark residents already

employed at the Elephant Peter Tatchell, do you think

the old Haygate estate was a great Lots of people would have preferred

the estate to be refurbished. According to one surveyor,

it could have been refurbished for a cost of ?35 million,

which is a very better deal Even if that was an underestimate,

it what have never cost the ?65 million the council had to pay out

to empty the estate. So this is bad economics

across the board. A three bedroom flat,

the latest ones, are selling This is totally excluding the vast

majority of local people. It is meaning that the character

of the area's being changed. The livelihood and community that

once existed has been dismembered, As I say, the Haygate was not

a great place to live. There's a reason why vigilante

and zombie films were filmed It was a failing part,

unfortunately, of Southwark. I think it is important that we have

employment opportunities created. Even if it was a failing estate,

why is it that out of 2,700 new homes, only 79 are going

to be socially rented? It's a reality, these

are commercial prices isn't it? That is the reality and the figures

that Peter quoted about the cost to buy homes, that's

the reality of London. It is not just the

reality of Haygate. The reality is that we are not

building enough homes in London. If you're interested

and want to talk about social cleansing, Peter, I think you should

be talking about the Government's proposals under the Housing

and Planning Bill, which is really going to socially cleanse,

I think, central London, with extending right to buy

to housing association tenants and making councils like ours sell

some of our high-value assets I think that's the scandal of social

cleansing and not what we're doing Do you think that the wrong enemy

is in your sights and the one Well, it's both, but as a Labour

council, as a Labour council... Building 11,000 new council homes

over 20 or 30 years, Well, that may be, but right now

we've lost over 1,100 council flats I could have bought my

council flat for ?15,000. I refused to because I wanted

to preserve council housing Let me bring Greg Hands

in here about seeing the kind of tensions that are created,

shall we say, by difficult I don't want to necessarily comment

on the specifics of the scheme in Southwark, but in general I think

estate regeneration is a very good In my constituency of Chelsea

and Fulham we also have some older estates that desperately need,

some that don't meet the decent homes standard, some that need

extensive renovation. I tonight think we should need to be

idealogical about what kind of homes I think it is important

that the homes we regenerate, we do as much as we can to protect

the existing social housing and existing mix, but if it means

adding additional private capital and adding new homes,

I think that's a good thing. By the way, Tim, the Government

is doubling the amounts of money We are doing big programmes

on London help to buy, starter homes and shared ownership,

doubling all of that as well. I want to pick up Peter's points

about the forced sell-off of council homes, which is going to have a huge

impact on London and exacerbate Now for the rest of

the news in 60 seconds. Plans for the City of London's

tallest tower, 1 Undershaft, Just a fraction shorter

than The Shard, the 73 storey tower could be the second

highest in the capital. A freedom of information request has

revealed that Transport for London pulled out of staging the initial

stages of the 2017 Tour de France after learning that its central

annual grant of ?550 million after learning that its central

annual grant of ?591 million was to be gradually withdrawn over

the next three years. Politicians are amongst the hundreds

of thousands of people who've called for US presidential candidate

Donald Trump to be banned from entering the UK after his calls

to ban Muslims from going to the US. I object to everything

he said, in all honesty. Donald Trump's comments are not just

deeply disrespectful, He is interviewing for the most

powerful job in the world and essentially his comments

are equating the entire Muslim population, the entire Muslim

community, with a handful of people Tempting as it might be to talk

about Donald Trump, let's not. I know you wanted to bring

the Commonwealth Games to London. We pulled out of staging

the Tour de France in 2017. I think it's a real

tragedy actually. The huge interesting cycle in London

that there is and in the UK in general would only have

been boosted further. I think there would have been

a further big economic benefit from having the Tour

de France start. As you quite rightly say,

I think we should be bidding It is the next opportunity

for a big event. But, Greg Hands, we can't,

because you've reduced TfL's grants. You know the price of everything

but not the value of anything. Actually the TfL grant overall has

been increased from ?10 billion to ?11 billion over

the spending review period. The second point to make is we had

a very successful Tour de France On this basis I think the decision

made by Boris was ?35 million Will David Cameron

get his way in Europe? Are Labour MPs coming to terms

with the idea that Jeremy Corbyn All questions for The Week Ahead

and the Year Ahead. And joining us to gaze

into our crystal ball for 2016 is the Conservative

MP, James Cleverly. Welcome to the programme. If the

Prime Minister cannot even get his minimum demands in the renegotiation

with Europe, would you vote to leave? I've always felt his best

chance of getting a good result from Europe is if there is a credible

leave campaign, with people like me saying that if we don't get a good

deal for Britain we would campaign to leave. That might feel like a

stone in his shoe at the moment but unless people genuinely believe that

he won't get the best deal for Britain.

He says he rules nothing out. No one really believes the Prime Minister

wants to leave the European Union or would lead a campaign to do so. But

if the country as a whole is making those kind of noises, the people the

Prime Minister is negotiating with, our partners in Europe, may think it

is in their best interests to give him the deal he's looking for.

Should he be asking for more? The Prime Minister is always at his best

when his bold, I think you should be cheeky with the things he asks for,

but recognise we are not going to get everything. Could we get more

than he is asking for? The particular vehicle that he uses to

get results shouldn't be quite so important as the results themselves.

What you are not saying, but it is clear what you think, he should be

tougher with Europe. I don't think it is possible to be tough enough

with Europe. We've got to keep pushing and if we get something,

push for more. Ultimately the deal he comes back with will be judged by

the British people. I understand that. Tory politicians say that

simply because they don't want to answer the questions I am asking

because that is flannel. Most Conservative backbenchers I speak to

think what he's asking for is not nearly enough. If he cannot even

bring that back, I would suggest to you he will not carry a majority of

his MPs in Parliament. The deal on the table... We have seen this from

the Paris climate summit, the deals are done in the 11th hour so we will

know what deal is on the table only at the 11th hour, then we will judge

that deal when we see it. When you negotiate, you don't come out with

demands and then as the negotiation goes on make these demands even

greater! Yes, you do. I've never seen a negotiation like that, but

good luck to you. What demand should he ask for that he's not asking for

now? I will not try to second-guess because you have got to trade

things, give a little bit there... I'm asking you to tell me what you

think he should be asking of Europe that he's not asking at the moment.

Most people would agree we want to have better control around who gets

benefits. No, he's asking for that. Let me try one more time - what

should he ask for that he's not asking for at the moment? As I said,

I'm not going to second-guess that. I give up! Let me come on to Mr

Corbyn. I would suggest to you, Tom Newton Dunn, that Jeremy Corbyn is

ending this year in a much more secure position than it looked when

he first got elected or at the Labour Party conference. I

completely agree with you. When this crystallised was during the Syria

vote, the week before last, when we thought the majority of Conservative

MPs would abstain -- Labour MPs. Perhaps the Prime Minister's case

wasn't that strong but they felt scared. The Corbyn machine, the

unions put a lot of pressure on them and that was the turning point. He

played his part in getting the Chancellor to withdraw on the tax

credit front, he has carried the bulk of his Parliamentary party on

Syria and most of his cabinet as well, and I would suggest, Helen,

that the anti-Jeremy Corbyn forces are now bereft of a strategy. Yes,

they have a huge problem that the members who voted for Jeremy Corbyn

think he is doing really well. The PLP needs to get behind him. The

problem is I think sometimes we get the narrative on Corbyn wrong. A lot

of his deeply held principles, think about giving that free vote on

Syria, he has been a member of the Stop The War coalition since it

started, and yet he didn't say Acme or you will go. But he will now,

given that he is ending the year in a pretty strong decision, he will, I

suggest, in the New Year, start to remould the Labour Party much more

in his image of what he stands for. Absolutely. I don't think there's

much chance of being a successful challenge to Jeremy Corbyn in 2016

and that's because the members are broadly behind him. The reason

that's a disaster for the Labour Party is because of what will happen

in September, the annual Labour Party conference by the seaside

somewhere. They will use that moment to push through rule changes to make

it harder for the Parliamentary Labour Party and mainstream forces

to fight against what he wants, and to embed what they think in terms of

official Labour Party positions and what Helen said he should do. When

Mr Corbyn won the Labour leadership, the Conservatives thought Christmas

had come early. He is actually proving to be a tougher leader than

you thought. Only lazy observers would assume his leadership would

make life easy for us. He galvanised a huge number of people in the

country. I think he is so wrong on so many levels it is beyond belief

but lots of other people seem to think he is right. We need to find

ways of countering his political agenda because it is wrong and

dangerous, but we need to do so at the same time as understanding why

he managed to have such a grass-roots appeal. Although you all

seem to be agreed he is ending the year on a strong note, the Labour

Party Christmas party was not a lot of laughs, was it? What happened? It

sounded like a slightly awkward occasion. This is the moment when

all of the Labour Party staff get together, a free fake, one of the

Shadow Cabinet plays Santa. You've got to picture the scene, about ten

tables of staff who all pretty much come from the mainstream, and one

and a half tables of allies of Jeremy Corbyn huddled in one part,

and the two clans didn't really mix. There was only one real moment of

dissent it felt like when somebody at around 1115 PM Port Things Can

Only Get Better on, and that is about as open as Labour Party

revolts get. I want to show you a Christmas party from the Daily

Politics archive. Who is our secret Santa? Here he comes. It is a bit

difficult to see. The first clue is that he is a Labour MP, he's been a

member of Parliament since 1983 for the smallest constituency in

Britain. Next clue, he is one of just 12 Labour MPs to back Plaid

Cymru and the SNP's call for an inquiry into the war. Finally, he

chairs the Parliamentary wing of CND, and you should know this, Meg?

Jeremy Corbyn? I thought it was the real Santa! Yes please, thank you

very much. Jeremy Corbyn, having more fun at the Daily Politics

Christmas party than he did the Labour Party one.

Will there be an EU referendum next year? No. Yes. Yes. No. By this time

next year will Jeremy Corbyn still be a Labour leader? ALL: Yes.

If David Cameron loses the referendum, will he be able to

survive as Prime Minister? Yes. You have got to say that!

Will Philip Hammond remained Foreign Secretary next year? On what? Will

he remain Foreign Secretary? No. They might have to be a reshuffle.

Hilary Benn, will he remain as Shadow Foreign Secretary? No. Will

the Government finally approved a third runway at Heathrow? No,

definitely not. Yes. No. Will we ever get to see the Chilcot inquiry

in 2016? Yes. No. I don't know. Will Donald Trump win the Republican

nomination next year? No. No. Who is going to be the new Mayor of London?

Sadiq Khan. Probably Sadiq Khan, it is a Labour city. Zac Goldsmith, and

it is not a Labour city, trust me. He would be much better at soaking

up the second preference votes. That's a bit technical for us!

That's all for today and, in fact, all from

the Sunday Politics this year. I'll be back here on 10th January.

Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

Unless, of course, it's the festive season.