 Good evening. Welcome to The Fix Live. My name's Aaron Missani. I'm John Boush Sarka. How are you doing? I'm doing great. How are you, man? I'm very good. There are some certainties in life. The autumn will always follow summer. The 48% will always believe that they are in fact a majority of British public opinion. That your man will not text you back? That your man will not text you back. And that we in the viral media will always, almost telepathically, be wearing black. What can I say? We are talking about a few stories this evening. Ash and I. Ash is going to lead off with police violence in a second. And then we'll go to a break. And then the second half of this evening will be joined by Richard Angel and Michael Walker, talking all things labour. But King is of Ash, the police. So I wanted to talk a bit about police violence. First in the UK and then in the US because there's been a development in the Rashan Charles case. Now for those of you who might not be familiar with this case, Rashan Charles was a young man who in Dallston was chased into a shop. He was restrained by police officer and also a member of the public. And following that police contact he died. Now it has not been established precisely how it is that he died. Initially there were false reports that a controlled substance had been removed from his throat. So the implication being that he was dealing drugs and had swallowed the evidence. But the object that was removed from his throat, it's been put out through official channels that it was paracetamol and caffeine. So it certainly wasn't, you know, a kind of a bag of narcotics or anything like that. So the thing that's happened today is that the IPCC has said that it has recommended to Scotland Yard that the police officers involved should be taken off duty while a gross misconduct investigation takes place. Now for the IPCC, which we know has largely been toothless in such cases around deaths following police contact, this is a fairly strong indication that there is something here that's gone dreadfully, fatally awry and needs opening up because another case from just the summer gone, Edson D'Costa in Bekton, who died in a car following police contact. Again, a lot of rumour and conjecture swirling about how it was that happened. There's been no such recommendation made. There's been actually very little information that's been made public. And the reason why I'm bringing this up is because very often if you do anything in police accountability activism or anti-racism more generally, one of the things that you hear again and again is, well look, we're in the UK, you've got nothing to complain about, or that police violence in the UK is not a racialized problem. To which I would say, well, certainly the racial disparities are not quite as stark as in the US, although actually the availability of detailed federal data is sorely lacking in this regard. But I think one very jarring statistic is that the disparity in racialized incarceration, so the disparity between black people's percentage of the population and the percentage of those who are in prison is greater than that in the US. And when it comes to accountability, well, since 1990, there have been over 1,565 deaths following police contact and not one single successful conviction, whereas in the United States at least, whereas one study that says roughly 35% of police shootings are followed with some kind of conviction for fatal police shootings. I think that's a rather optimistic figure that comes from one study by Philip Stinson of Bowling Green State University in Ohio, but again that shows that there is at least some history of convictions. And what's more, in 2012 the Home Affairs Committee said that, said as part of an inquiry into the IPCC, that it's woefully under-equipped and hamstrung in achieving its original objectives. It has neither the power nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt. So I'm opening up, this is a discussion with you as well, is that do you think that anything has changed, not just since 2011 and the riots in England, but also last summer where you saw Black Lives Matter shut down major transport hubs and protests of police violence and it became not just a national story but a global story, do you think anything meaningful has changed? I think it's become a more salient issue. I remember listening to Andrew Castle on LBC Radio and they were talking about Black Lives Matter. They didn't agree necessarily, although he was actually very sympathetic. That's not really the point. It's a salient political issue and it's in the public consciousness that some people, actually quite a few people genuinely believe that race policing extends not just to stop and search, not just to, you know, longer sentence saying or more likely to be found guilty at trial, but actually to the loss of life. And I think that's become more salient in particular since we had lots of different cases, you know, John Menezes, John de Menezes, sorry. John Charles de Menezes. John Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian national that was killed in the first half of the 2000s, what year it was, 2005. It was immediately following 7-7, I think it was the next day of the day after. 2005. Not police station, tube station. Yeah, 2005. He jumped the barriers and he was killed by a firearms unit. But I think in particular since the Mark Duggan stuff. Now, I'm not going to comment necessarily on what Mark Duggan did or didn't do. I personally don't think that was much of a case there. But irrelevant of that, I think because of the kickback, because of the consequences and the riots and so on, again, it made it a salient point. It was something that people had to talk about. And I think all of this, particularly in Britain anyway, is in that slipstream, so to speak. I mean, and let's talk about this and the corrosive effect it has on public trust. Now, if you go around the area that I grew up, so around North London, you talk to anyone about the police, particularly in Tottenham, which where I spent a lot of my childhood, no one trusts him, absolutely no one. Because very fresh in their minds is not just history of Mark Duggan, but the events surrounding Broadwater Farm in the 80s. Actually during the riots in 2011, because my nan was living in Tottenham, which is the house that we lived in, and I rang her and I was like, oh, you were right. Can you get to the shops all right? And she was like, I'm fine. I was there for Broadwater Farm. And by the way, if I didn't have a bad leg, I'd go get a new Mark Kauave. I was like, Jesus, drink more nan, clearly suits you. But thinking about this in terms of breakdown of public trust, so it's not just confined to, you know, urban centres. It's now up and down the country, right? Because these cases are publicised far and wide. And the one thing that anyone knows, whether you live in Tottenham or like Tumbridge Wells or some shit, is that there's never any justice and there's never any form of accountability. And the reason I'm bringing this up is because of the case in St. Louis, Missouri. Yes. Obviously the site of protest in Ferguson, much more famously, just the other day, Jason Stockley, a police officer who shot and killed Anthony Lamar Smith in 2011, was acquitted at trial of homicide. Now, one of the facts which is not in dispute is that he had said, I'm going to kill this motherfucker. He shot and killed a man and yet he was acquitted at trial. Now, there's been outbreaks of disturbances and protests. I think we're going to show a video of just what happened when police were kind of approaching a group of protesters and, you know, elderly woman was knocked to the ground. Elderly woman. You see her just on there. In red. That's it, on the right. And she's knocked over by a riot shield. Yep. And then... No immediate medical assistance, just carry on. And look, anyone who's gone to help her out gets pepper sprayed and knocked over as well. And the reason why I wanted to bring this up is that especially after Charlottesville, there's been a lot of discussion about black block tactics and whether or not they're alienating and whether or not such violence is ever justified. I think that video shows you what happens when there isn't a black block acting as a physical barrier between encroaching police officers and, say, the less confrontational protesters. Now, I'm not saying masking up and running around is always the most effective tactic. There's been a few times where I've seen black block and there's like five people in a sea of otherwise normally dressed people. And I'm like... It often tends to be quite, I don't know, purely symbolic, right? Sometimes it is a bit. It is a bit. You know, I think that in some cases it's more about people saying something about themselves. But I think in Charlottesville, they were really the only effective force in kind of, you know, pushing back the violent alt-right. And you saw what happened to people when they weren't protected by that big mass of people. You saw that, you know, absolutely horrific beating of a man in a car park. But yeah, I wanted to kind of raise that as an example of what happens when you don't have a black block. Can I quickly just feed back on that? This older woman, clearly even a, you know, a police officer either side of the Atlantic, nobody's going to say that it's appropriate force, right? First and foremost, it's clearly absolutely wrong. And so like you say, what's the solution to that? I've always said in a protest situation if there is a misapplication of force, if it's inappropriate force, de-arrest them. Because what the police officer is doing is illegal, okay? And if you're obstructed and arrested, it goes to court and something, you know, it's not, you're going to get a £200 fine or whatever. But if you think that somebody's going to get hurt and like I say, it's inappropriate, you're perfectly entitled to act as a citizen or rather in this country as a subject of a majesty. Regardless, you can do something about it and you know, that's horrific. That's the sort of thing that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson. Not that long ago in London, complete misapplication of force, an older man who had a pre-existing heart condition, I believe, same with her, right? He killed somebody. So if you see it, I would always say get involved. But some of the things happen with Cynthia Jarrett, right? So this is a story that comes up time and time again, whether in the UK or the US. So moving on, I know that there's something that you want to talk about. Me? Yeah. Oh, well guess what we're going to talk about, Brexit. We're going to talk about Boris. I sound like James O'Brien. Have you noticed that James O'Brien only talks about Brexit every day and he thinks that, you know, today there's new converts. Broadly speaking, as we know, the statistics are static, whichever side you're on, OK? Regardless, Brexit's particularly interesting now because it's made the path plausible for Boris to return to the Apex, Conservative Party politics, and therefore the Apex of British politics. He wrote a piece in the Telegraph, and we can just cut to this now. A 4,000-word essay in the Telegraph last Friday. Here we go. UK will still have access to sync. No, this is not it. This is the independent. We'll go to this in a second because I want to point out, surprisingly, a contradiction. No, no, that's Robert Halfon. Here. Get in line, guys. Mixed up with each other. Come on, guys. It's a Telegraph piece last Friday, and here's the quote. Before the referendum, we all agreed on what leaving the EU logically must entail. He wrote this last Friday. Leaving the customs union and the single market, leaving the penumbra of the European Court of Justice, even though the ECJ proceeds to the European... It's not the EU. It's a different entity. Taking back control of our border's cash laws. I mean, our cash has nothing to do with the EU. I mean, I'm the first to say there are certain aspects of the EU which are undemocratic trade policy, for instance, but cash has nothing to do with the EU. This is the article here, and it's basically a job application. He talks about the NHS. He talks about leaving the EU as potentially solving the housing crisis. I mean, I don't quite really get what he's saying there. If we can just cut to that other piece from the independent... He also posted it on Facebook so that he wouldn't be inhibited by the telegraph's paywall. Oh, wow. No, I didn't see that. Yeah. That's normally what... Badman. Badman. They also posted it on Facebook. Badman bullshit artist Boris. If we can go to that independent article, we just saw a second ago. So, yes. This is from last year. Headline, UK will still have access to single market despite Brexit. So, last Friday, he's saying that the referendum's result clearly means leaving the single market. But this is what he said last year. This is the guy who wants to be the prime minister of how much he's changed in the space. This is in black and white, right? You can't say I never said it. You wrote it down. British people will still be able to go and work in the EU to live, to travel, to study, to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI, the BDI, has very sensibly reminded us there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market. That's from last June, okay? So, yeah. He's at it again. Furthermore, in that piece on Friday, he talks about that £350 million figure, which I thought they were all ashamed of, but apparently not. I mean, he's instead chosen to reanimate this tap dancing corpse, which is like the £350 million a week, which is not going into the NHS. What I'm wondering is that we seem to live in an age where there is unprecedented evidence of when our politicians are lying, right? We always have the receipts. And yet there seems to be very little in the way of mechanisms for accountability, right? Of that actually ending a career or having any kind of detrimental effect whatsoever. Everyone knows Boris Johnson is a liar. He's actually not as funny as people think he is, and also he's a racist, which is probably the greatest of the three crimes, but whatever. He also looks like a talking loaf of bread. He actually looks like a loaf of bread. No, he looks like, you know them dogs, but he looks like mop heads. There's like a particular breed of dog that looks like a mop head. He looks like a dog that looks like an inanimate object, and people think he's a serious candidate for Prime Minister. I'm not saying that you have to look to be Prime Minister. I don't think they do anymore. Although that said, I thought the article in the telegraph, I thought it was quite good for a Tory, because they're obviously fucked. And I thought it was hitting the right notes. For me, we're going to see Theresa May's speech in Florence on Friday. And the content, this is a lot of smush. It means nothing, right? What he wrote. But it's going to be better than what she says next Friday. I mean, that's the thing is that, like, this is a phrase that you love to use, and I have, you know, sort of absorbed and started repurposing for my nefarious purposes, but you don't bring facts to an emotions fight. And the thing is, is that, you know, I spent, you know, half an hour of my life that I'm never getting back reading this fucking warbly essay. It's a long read. Oh god, a deep dive. A deep dive into, like, the deepest recesses of the ruling class. And when you look for what his, you know, concrete proposals for Brexit are, one was just have a successful Brexit. Which to me seemed completely bananas. It was, you know, somewhat light on policy, but there was enough broad brush, emotive material which, in terms of his core audience at least, was working. So there was a little roundup of telegraph readers' comments. And one of them was, if Boris was my boss during World War One, I would follow him over the top. I was like, bitch. Are you telling me that World War One is remembered as a notoriously successful conflict? And are you saying that Brexit is going to make the psalm look comparatively successful? I mean, I don't know. I find this country very strange sometimes. There's the Blackadder joke. And Blackadder's told, he goes, you're going over the top tomorrow, Blackadder. And he goes, we'll be right behind you, 20 miles behind you. And this is precisely a perfect metaphor for Brexit because the ruling class are right behind us, but they're 20 miles behind us. They won't be facing the joblessness or the challenges or increase inflation a bunch of things. Here we go. There's Blackadder there. I mean, it tells you something about the imperial nostalgia which kind of undergirds this whole hard Brexit project from Liam Foxx saying the UK is the only EU country that doesn't have to bear its 20th century history. It's like talking about the same 20th century love. Or indeed, Boris Johnson, who loves a colonial metaphor. Do you remember his conference speech last year? Like the gunboats of British soft power going softly. I was like, jeez. So there's this pitch in this article. The one substantive thing he says is a quote from Andy Haldane, who's the Bank of England's chief economist. He says, quote, we should seize the opportunity of Brexit to reform our tax system. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's chief economist, argued in 2015 that our system is currently skewed so as to discourage investment. He believes that reform could raise up by around 20%. Andy Haldane believes that 40% of jobs will be lost due to automation in the next 20 years. I actually think it may even be the same speech. So if you think leaving Brexit is the solution to mass technological employment and what I view as the basis of the potential transition to fully automated luxury communism, then fine. I mean, I think you've got something very badly wrong there. We're going to wrap up. I want to quickly go, though, on this same story to that was the Helfens story. We got out previously the Telegraph story. He's a Royal Helfens, a senior conservative MP. He's quite a rare animal in so much as he has a modicum of sense. Let's get that piece up. He was interviewed by House magazine and he said, I'm normally an incrementalist. I'm not a confrontational politician, but I actually think we need a radical counter-intuitive revolution in the Conservative Party if we are to survive. He goes on to say if we don't radically reform our messaging, our machinery, if we don't focus on policies that are really there to help the lower paid, which is supported by people in metropolitan areas, I think we'll face a precipice. Corbyn will be in number 10. I think that's entirely correct. And I think between that Helfens piece and Boris's long raid, his deep dive, you have the smoke-a-mirrors with Boris and you have the reality of what's going on with the Conservative Party. And of course, sometimes the media is difficult to clean one from the other. But there's one statistic in particular, and I'll leave viewers with this before we go to a break, is that the average Conservative party member is now 72 years old. 72 years old. No, I've got nothing to add, it's older people. A political party should have people of all ages. But that's not good. That's not positive. Also, hasn't the average age been going up actually at a pace that's faster than time, so it's like the past two years gone up by like six years or something like that, which is exactly right. And it's getting smaller as well. So the last time the Conservatives released data in regards to their membership was at the end of 2013, and it was 150,000. And in 2014, 2015, there were whispers of it being 100, 120,000. What we know is that a lot of members left after the same-sex game-arriage bill, I think 2013 or 2012, was passed. A lot of Tory members left in the run-up to that and subsequent to it. And that's probably just carried on. And I would wager there's fewer than 100,000 members in the Conservative Party. I like a bet. It may not be correct, but if it is over 100,000, it's not much over 100,000. So what do you think, in terms of re-engaging the youth, they should have an activate 3.0? Well, and we will leave on this because I keep on saying that there was a peace, yes, in the Guardian talking about this review that's been led by Eric Pickles of all people talking about how they can reinvigorate the Conservative Party. And one was, we need a youth organisation. And then this made me laugh because I knew that the Tories are kind of strange people. But the activate WhatsApp messages, which by the way are completely real, Evolve Politics did a three-part expose. English graduate here, stupid political scientists, we get everything wrong. They did a three-part expose on Evolve and it included these terrible WhatsApp messages, which even Conservatives would, I hope, not agree with. But there's a broader context though, that's not in a vacuum. The young Conservatives were abolished in 1998 by William Hague after their members embarrassed leadership with extreme right-wing policies and drunken bulls. And then its successor organisation, Conservative Future, was wrapped in 2015 and I'm sure some of the viewers will remember this. They made a bullying scandal, Mark Clark and a suicide by a young man I believe called Elliott Jones. Then of course you've got the stuff from the early 1980s, the Hang Nelson Mandela stuff, calling the ANC here we go, Nelson Mandela and all ANC terrorists, they are butchers. Which to be fair, was fairly in line with Thatcher's own view. It wasn't that. It was also the ANC where it took. The mainstream of Conservative opinion at that time. The ANC also were a terrorist organisation, right? Yeah, no, they were considered a terrorist organisation obviously. They were back in the day and they became a civil rights organisation but they still had just cause and a part of that was wrong. So yes, there's a broader context here which is that the Conservatives can't really have a grassroots youth movement because it either ends up in drunken back and alia text message racism or bullying. So they have a problem. They do have a problem. And whilst the Labour membership is getting younger and growing, probably speaking the Tories are getting smaller and aging. Anyway, time for a break. Time for a break. We are going to cut to our Navarra 40K fundraiser. If you want to be part of a new media for different politics go to support.navarramedia.com We will be back in just a few moments with the one and only Richard Angel and Michael Walker. So don't go away. Over the last 10 years, things have really changed. But for all the darkness every cause has an effect. For all the talk of change the present moment is really one of crisis. A crisis of democratic representation. Of identity. A climate crisis. Of a failing economic model which isn't working for most people. We can't have a media that's beholden to advertisers or the political ambitions of oligarchs. Which is why in 2013 we founded Navarra Media. Unlike corporate media we are funded by our subscribers. There's no tax avoiders, there's no oil money and there's no lords. What we're creating is media for you which quite simply, you make possible. We're looking to raise £40,000. That will allow us to not only keep on paying our contributors but give them a little bit more as well as keep our studio and take our fantastic Navarra events nationwide. To help us get there go to support.navaramedia.com and give a one-off donation or even better sign up for a subscription. We've already achieved so much but the truth is we've barely started. Wait, we're live again now and you're bickering. Oh no, we're live. Okay, we're joined now by of course resident Labour Party expert within the Navarra Media crew just for, you know, we have to obviously say that. This is not objective. There's a two different point of view. Michael Walker, the one and only Michael J.S. Walker. Yeah, on Twitter. On Twitter and of course Richard Angel. Hello Richard. Director of Progress. And your hashtag, your handle. At Richard Angel. There you go and progress online with a zero. Just a capital. So, sophisticated. There you go. I'm looking at the screen and it's another one of those situations where I'm next to someone who looks too similar to me in terms of like hairstyle. What can you do anyway? Brother from another mother. We're initially going to do a spoof in case you change your mind on it. I have to be in a board cap and say hello. Yes, I am Richard Angel. So I thought I would kick off with the first question if that's okay. So would you describe yourself as a Blairite? Is that a fair... Oh, a a reforming Blairite maybe. Reforming Blairite? You can't be a moderniser and look back to the past. So the there's not an ism that I would go forward with but a social democrat that thinks that our values will still be the best way of shaping the country. So a reforming Blairite, because my question for you is one so as I think lots of our viewers know but in case scurrilous rumours have gone about, I am not a Labour Party member. Shame on you. What if Corbyn not done for you to join? He's not Beyonce. Good question. Not Beyonce. Listen, I've got a very... I agree with Richard. Why haven't you joined the Labour Party? Jeremy Corbyn is not Beyonce. One, I'm an anarchist and two, he's not Beyonce which I think are two very strong reasons but my question is that like if I accept for the sake of argument that two contest another election on a robustly socialist, hard left platform would be disastrous either in terms of getting the votes needed to win an election or if we got into government would be disastrous for the country. How would you propose addressing what I think of as a potentially irreparable breakdown in public trust in a Blairite or indeed reforming Blairite ideology following the Iraq war and the global financial crisis. This idea of centrism has been discredited in many people's eyes. So what's your strategy for addressing this? I firstly just don't believe that it's true I think the last Labour government was a huge success. It changes country in brilliant and measurable ways. It changed my life and the whole trajectory of my life and for a single parent family the Labour government changed the rules that meant we could have our first family holiday get more money in our household and then of course as a young gay man growing up I saw that Labour government changed the law in my favour time and time again in a way that went against the Murdoch press and against the establishment of the right against the House of Lords. It was a huge reform of government. It had the backing of the Murdoch press but it had the support of the Murdoch press to get elected but it even got the daily mail at times because it was so popular in the country that they had to follow their readers but they were advising us or the Labour government I wasn't part of it I was much too young at the time to not do series of things not least on gay rights and we ignored them at every point and pressed ahead with it and it changed my life but you talk about centrism having failed Macron has just won in France Hillary Clinton was so close to having had a brilliant result and had certain things gone very very differently as she has rehearsed in her book that came out this week. Like had Bernie won perhaps. No but there's no evidence that Bernie would have gone through and won a general election in America no evidence at all and I think he would have, he never had a negative ad run against him ever and Hillary Clinton had a career of that. But you don't think that the Iraq war and the global financial crisis are too I mean I think that focusing on the good things that a Labour government can do is of course really important that's how you go out and you make an argument and I come from a relatively similar background to you my family knows that it is different to have a Labour government in power come from a single parent family as well but also I come from a family of public sector workers mostly social workers and even before the austerity agenda they were suffering in terms of the ability to deliver services particularly in social work. Not at all. In terms of cut backs to frontline workers no that was something that was happening. All governments have to live with their needs and a Corbyn government couldn't spend every penny it wouldn't give every interest group what they wanted. I'm not saying this is saying pro-Corbyn I'm saying that there are problems of public perception right and you're saying that these are misguided perceptions but how are you going to address that because you can't just lay all the blame at Corbyn's door and say well he won't do it for you. You do have to address the fact that the Iraq war has made people feel that a new Labour government or a centrist Labour government would be unaccountable PR savvy but not particularly engaged with the will of the people and from the legacy of 2008 onwards that's a new liberal economic agenda even when softened by some of the political operators of social democracy would fundamentally leave us all worse off in the long run. How will you address those two major breakdowns in public trust? Well there's a lot of things going on there firstly by 2008 there wasn't a Blairite in charge of the country it was quite a significant change that had happened secondly if you think that what Gordon Brown did as a direct response to the kind of neoliberalism as actual liberalism as it would have been in the 1930s did a markedly different response to the global financial crisis and kept half a million people in work that had huge consequences but it was worth doing it was worth doing in a Labour way it was worth being in government to respond to that crisis in a way that could reflect our values and keep working class people in their jobs the reality is is that if you look at the result of the 2010 election we deprive the toys of majority had we had somebody as Prime Minister who wanted to keep Labour's net as broad as possible we arguably would have won that election in 2010 and then all the series of things that followed of Ed Miliband getting elected trashing the record and Corbyn taking over wouldn't have happened and things could have been very different. So let's pick up from the crisis I think we probably all agree to an extent that it changed the rules of the game somewhat maybe we disagree at around the extent the right have been the only beneficiaries of it really so far other way the bomb run the truth. I think so far austerity has been the winning story I'd agree with that to an extent but what I would say is Blairism was a success for a number of reasons one of which was it responded to the economic situation of the late 1990s which is rising prosperity upturn and global capitalism healthy growth the major clerk administration prior to that had actually been quite good on the deficit getting the deficit down quite responsible actually the only surpluses the Tories run I think the Tories run maybe four surpluses between $79.97 I think maybe two or three of them are under the major government it's quite responsible quite responsible government so what I'm saying is that the Blair project is a response to rising wages the coming online of buy to let mortgages of an upturn in global capitalism and after 2008 that changes and the Blair project is based upon yes they'll be growing inequality and this was happening but the power will be getting bigger so working people will have rising living standards it wasn't just that we energetically held the gap between rich and poor closed in a way that everywhere else it was getting wider and in all the years before it had that's phenomenal no I agree to the extent that it's the genie coefficient the measure of inequality in this country despite rising GDP didn't get bigger in the 10 years now I agree with that that's phenomenal I agree with it and Brazil's quite similar under slightly different content yeah but I agree with you it's quite unique what it is and I think this is building what Ash has said is that first and foremost there's a PR problem so to speak even if you think you're right even if you are right there's clearly misgiving within the broader public about Blairism as a political economy and as a set of foreign policy decisions and then I would say in addition to the impression problem is that you guys on that one in a party still haven't really come to terms with the reality of a post crisis world which is where living standards are always going to go down, productivity is going to be flat and let's be fundamentally transform our economy and I don't see that coming at the moment that might change from your wing of the party but I don't think that's true that Ed Miliband I think did a really good thing for the Labour Party that reminded the rules of the game are ultimately what matters most public servicing do a great job in redistributing the proceeds of growth but how the growth happens and who is immediately given the proceeds of growth through wages rather than dividends is absolutely crucial and almost has given us our confidence back in having that conversation and we've been having that progress Liam Byrne MP has been leading brilliant work on this with now an all party group in Parliament and got the Archbishop of Canterbury to be like the leading voice on reforming capitalism what was interestingly was almost missing from the Corbyn Manifesto this year was any of that stuff there was the renationalisation, there was a transfer of money often to very middle class people through tuition fees etc what there wasn't was a real shakeup of how the rules get changed and what's interesting about our approach in difference to both Ed Miliband and Corbyn that's come after is there are allies in business who want to do this with us and if you work with them if you get into the nitty gritty of how capitalism works we can change it and make it work for our people in politics just letting it be passive to what's happening or wanting to go to war with it neither of those things will work Michael I'm obviously going to disagree with most of that I mean in terms of policy I mean obviously it would be ridiculous to say that people's lives in Britain didn't improve under new labour especially compared to what would have been the Tory alternative we thought to brush over the millions of people whose lives were destroyed in the Middle East and that is partly through that mode of government which was having a fairly unaccountable leadership in a broader point I think we can focus a lot on strategy no sorry a lot on policy in terms of sort of like how does this and that affect the Gini coefficient I really think what defines centrism which is what I think of as progress is its relationship to political strategy and politics more broadly so I think you've sort of said Tony Blair challenged the power of Rupert Murdoch I think that's patently untrue and I don't really think he challenged the power really of anyone which is why the working class are in such a weak position come 2010 I think the new labour position was from a quite reasonable point of saying that working class power is quite weak in Britain popular power is quite weak in Britain we're going to have to try and make a difference at the margins by getting people in power to agree with what we're doing and I think they quite systematically tried to have a policy platform that the city of London liked that the corporate media liked and that worked for a while but when the pie stopped growing that broke down I think for a number of reasons people aren't going to go back to centrism which is one it seems less plausible that kind of politics which is completely going to the corporate media and to the financial interests can continue to improve our lifestyles and two that we don't have to settle for that anymore so I think one reason that centrism was quite attractive especially within the labour party was the idea that the working class is weak popular power is weak so we're going to have to go begging to corporate power people look at the world now and they say we don't have to settle for that we are actually strong enough now as a popular movement to take on those vested interests and that means that we can improve our public services without public private finance and without indebting our services for years and without meaning that the minute we go out of government it's still corporations that have power and they can stop throwing us the crumbs we started the ATs with 12 million people and ended it with 6 million people and many people in trade unions for example working class power was at its height at the point at which labour was getting the fewest votes in the country so those things don't correlate my basic premise of your argument there just doesn't correlate Michael quickly and then Ash Michael quickly the point on my argument is yes the reason Labour got into power then was because they accepted that working class power was quite weak and so they went for a strategy which was to win over corporations now what the Corbyn movement shows what Bernie Sanders shows what Podemos show is that actually we have a very politicised population much more than it was in 1997 and we don't anymore have to settle for an elitist strategy and politics based on what Rupert Murdoch will and will not accept Bernie came second in this question I want to give Michael a bit of a hard time that's not what we agree that sounds exciting so on this thing about it is undeniable that Corbyn has energised sections of the population to get involved with the Labour Party who normally wouldn't and I'm coming at this from the perspective of lots of my friends growing up who are young people of colour look at politics or something that's completely removed from their lives and I think you would struggle to see say a figure like Liz Kendall as Libra and getting the endorsements of Stormzy Jamie, Novelist, AJ, Tracy Young, working class people of colour who are I'm talking about people who are cool no but you know for people like cultural people I love if you're watching this like a storm rake or a banger but you wouldn't have those figures come out to take and what I think of is a really important project which is one of political education where our governments weren't doing it our schools weren't doing it you had Jamie telling people how to register to vote and I thought that was a really wonderful thing what I worry about in the Corbyn project and also lots of the kind of internal tussles of the momentum and now all this stuff about deselections reselections is that first and foremost it's incredibly boring it seems really opaque it's about these internal mechanisms that I don't really understand I also feel like I don't necessarily care to understand it a lot of the time and it seems like internal bickering which risks sucking the energy and the vibrancy out of a young energetic political movement so by carping on about this all the time don't you risk alienating us for a start Ash I'm very offended that you've seen all my episodes of party time and you still think rule changes are boring because the whole point of that was to make it really sexy and cool I've never watched a party where you stopped dancing that was a sexy and cool bit yeah I don't think the rules themselves are what's inspiring but I do think that for us to have a Labour Party which is which fulfills the expectations and the desires of the hundreds of thousands of people that have been inspired by a more radical program which raises expectations that's what I'm interested in politics that raises expectations not which is the centrism one the Hillary Clinton one which is to say that that's very difficult to do that's impossible that would be nice but it's basically a pony which is what she says in her book with Bernie Sanders not with Bernie Sanders about Bernie Sanders but we need to we need a politics that does that and I think to do that we need a Labour Party which really represents those members in which lets new members take positions which are front and centre which lets the most inspirational people become MPs people who are embedded in their communities and I want there to be real contests every time we select an MP because I think that it should be seen as a privilege not as a job for life and that's why it's about mandatory selection but it's also about many things so at the Labour Party conference which I think we've segwayed into there'll be many there'll be many there'll be many rule changes and what I talk about when I'm in the pub is how important it is to make sure the movement that Jeremy Corbyn started can't be shut down by bureaucratic mechanisms which don't buy into his project we still know that a majority of the PLP the parliamentary Labour Party don't buy into the Corbyn project we know that most of the staff don't buy into the Corbyn project and that's ridiculous in a movement where we have hundreds of thousands of talented, passionate people embedded in their communities we don't need these wonks from above anymore Michael that's all brilliant and passionate but total nonsense the NEC decide tomorrow the rule changes that go to conference Corbyn's office haven't even published the paper that sets out what the rule changes are it had literally done the stitch and fix to get to a point where they had to like stitch over things to get through them you've done them within basically weeks comparatively you've got total control Labour Party a majority on the NEC can't even publish the paper that outlines what the rule changes are and you've got all these members that are supposed to be engaged in the process it's nonsense so what's this thing about the NEC I don't understand well so the National's admitted there's two ways you do the most democratic way where you go to your local party they propose a rule change it goes to a conference not the next year but one after it started in CLPs over a year ago and it's gone forward or the NEC can come in and go we want you to decide this and not only is that happening this year Corbyn's office haven't even published to the NEC let alone to half a million members out there what those rule changes they're seeking to change so they want to have changes to the Labour Party constitution that could last forever and they might not have been published for more than seven days before they get voted on at conference that's the stitch and fix I was the count but Kinnock cleaned up the party Blair literally didn't need to do these things because they didn't done by his predecessors but the first thing Blair did was do Clause 4 I mean 160 events around the country Clause 4 was a consultation with Labour Party people when the party members had 400,000 members at the time I agree with you about in politics people play hard and fast which is happening, Blair didn't need to do that because Kinnock had done it for 10 years but that's not true also John Lansford knows more about this stuff than anyone else on the NEC does we've read about the independence I don't remember the NEC you are all in danger of alienating the newly energised the point is people also love Labour Party internal rule change gossip to make it to break down what's going on so tomorrow tomorrow there is an NEC meeting that can decide what rule changes they want to put to conference these aren't rule changes which concentrate power or the ones that the leadership are likely to recommend are not rules which concentrate power in the leadership they are all of them rules which would give the membership more power vis-a-vis the party bureaucracy how do you know about the rules before members of the NEC do? we've all read the John Lansford interview we also did a podcast you should listen to it last Friday so Navarra Media Navarra Media and the owner of momentum knows more about the rule changes that are coming than the members of the NEC do that is not the stitching feet what it is, come on I'm not trying to laugh about this party time stuff but that is a stitch up Richard, let's move on let's move on it's a broadly good grasp I think I've seen some way you describe yourself as a socialist I'm not sure about that so you'd call yourself a social democrat? yeah I think so so the party the Labour Party is a coalition of, let's say, liberals, social democrats socialists always has been do you think that coalition can hold tight? it has done for 120 years, I don't see any problem with it well that's not true, I mean it's split twice, right? it has to have been in a significant way no, I mean that's because the people doing it didn't achieve what they set out to do but there's no split that's not going to happen I'm Labour through and through a piece of rock it says Labour through the middle like in a context of declining productivity declining wages, stagnant growth what does social democracy mean? well it means at the moment staying in the single market which is the best response to austerity that we can have it will be plunged into a worse version of austerity if we're outside that bit of the single market it means the power collectively to deal with the rate at the bottom and that's one of the things that the social market is very good at by being in part of that conglomerate, it means we can't trade away our rights with global companies because our nearest neighbours doing the same thing as well, but it also means rebuilding our public services but it's not the glib answer that more money will be the only answer it's that there are innovations that can happen there's ways that our public services can be better and stronger and I think it's believing that a more equal society makes us all more equal and you've got to do that not by doing it against the people who might currently feel that but by showing that we can do this together what was so great about the gay rights agenda that New Labour did is that we're ahead of the public and they had a lasting change with the public is they weren't doing it just for the gays, it wasn't like if you look at the debate in Australia now it's like a transfer of rights on to gay people a disaster, the way New Labour did it was like we are all stronger if we do this together and that majoritarian form of equality is one that we can all get on board with and I think the British public will vote for I think that's an ahistorical reading of how LGBT movements have worked in terms of like from the grassroots I think that New Labour were able to come in after grassroots movements were able to construct a tipping point and on this about the relationship between Labour and liberation liberation movements having a look over the stuff about the anti-Semitism proposal I'm not really sure is this a new bit in like the constitution or does this just mean the only thing you can really do wrong in the Labour Party is stand against it in an election or call it to distribute in some way but if you say something that's racist you can use the defence in the Labour Party rulebook of I believe it really strongly and can essentially get away with it and sadly many people have and what the attempt by JLM and others the Jewish Labour movement sorry and others is to say there should be a rule that says if you are found to be racist anti-Semitic Islamophobic and as well as that homophobic etc you should be able to kick it out with a part of equality that should mean something and we should police our own borders and so my question is this and so this is also another reason why I'm not in the Labour Party which is a kind of analysis of racism and how it functions through institutions but it's not just about someone calling you a name or saying something offensive because if that was just what racism was in the 1980s when my mum was at a prime fighting age because like Mama Saka could throw a hook it's about policy and I'm fully back measures which make political parties more welcoming and inclusive places for people of colour, people from religious minorities people who are LGBT etc etc but what mechanisms are there other than expulsion to hold people to account and the reason why I'm saying this is to take two recent examples in terms of something that I feel very strongly about one is Jess Phillips's comments about Bangladeshi's in Pakistan sorry the Bangladeshi Pakistani community which hasn't existed since 1971 by the way important in a fucking war too much a community that was kind of a beef about this importing brides for their disabled sons and the second one and this is where I'm saying that simply saying well you're no longer part of this project I think sometimes ineffective is with Sarah Champion because I think they both parroted deeply Islamophobic and deeply incendiary myths and what my problem is is that when you've got a hammer everything looks like a nail and if you just say like we're going to expel these people there's not really time I think to do the real work of heavy lifting and debunking lots of these narratives because I think you achieve change not just through getting rid of something but by challenging it so if you have this policy of like we will expel you if you are found to be Islamophobic well what about the kind of Islamophobias that's written through every line of scripture in our politics currently what about the antisemitism which doesn't just shape how do people relate to Jewish people on an individual level but colours how they think capitalism of power all works how do you challenge this deeply held myth if you look what happened with Naz Shah that was how the rules can work well if she did something she accepted that she'd done it wrong she went forward and said I want to be better at this she got ported from the Labour Party procedures there was a consequence to her actions and she took all the right routes for doing that the other way what you then saw was Ken Livingston come on the telly and mansplain her and say she was wrong to apologise let me tell you my warped version of history and that's the most bizarre thing and then not only does he get basically get upheld as having called the Labour Party into disrepute they decide that he should have the most lenient punishment for doing that and he goes out and basically sticks two fingers up to the British Jewish community and to Labour Party members who find that abhorrent and goes through the whole cycle again that's bizarre so it can work and now Shah showed the right way to do it it depends on goodwill on the behalf of the person isn't it with Naz Shah for instance it's not good enough for justice it's not good enough with justice it's not dependent on the goodwill of the it can't be dependent on the goodwill of the it depends if you constantly go for the grievance and if we think the best thing was just her to be punished publicly I think it is much better that she's been embraced by her local Jewish community that she's gone on a journey she's shown the leadership role but she hasn't fundamentally changed her view on the Middle East and what the injustices are happening are that seems to me to be the shadow equality minister shouldn't need telling that language matters but also statistics matter of course I think that rule change will probably go through fairly uncontroversially it does seem like an absence in the rule book that you can't be that having a racist view doesn't preclude you being a member of the Labour Party it probably should in terms of how do we make this a broader conversation than what I think this would likely be which is that you have a bureaucratic body at the top which polices racism at its most extreme when someone says a slur which is necessary, we absolutely need that is a party which is more democratically accountable from the bottom up so at the moment what you have in Labour is if someone's elected as a councillor or elected as an MP in a safe seat then the whole party bureaucracy sort of encircles them and helps them keep that position and it means that MPs feel fairly free to say and it's very very difficult to get rid of them so in the case of Jess Phillips or Sarah Champion I don't think either of them necessarily there's weren't slurs so I don't think that's a case for disciplining someone but I think it might well be something that members might want to take into account when they have an open process for who they want to represent them next time round maybe it will be Jess Phillips and Sarah Champion again or maybe they'll pick in Sarah Champion's constituency someone who's campaigned against grooming and also works with the Muslim community for example there might be people who are better positions to have that conversation than those people but the free voters in her area have just re-elected her what respect do you show to them for their role in doing that 6% of people vote for the Labour candidate because of the person most people vote because of the party and the platform I think that is the difference whether you have a Labour MP or not we've already got the hardest challenge right if you're progressive the job is never done you've got to keep working and you want our people to go into that fight having a contest that Tories don't have the minute they're selected they never have to look over you have it in America it's harder already for a Labour MP because you're not changing a change of the law you're changing a change of the Labour party rules so you want Labour to have one hand behind its back the way a Tory MP opponent does secondly when the big task is reforming capitalism which I think we can all agree is a pretty difficult thing to do somewhere in that spectrum that's pretty difficult I want our Labour MPs to read a book start with Paul Mason maybe it takes a bit of time to get through it but otherwise you want them to spend all their time going to branch secretaries I know we're back from rule changes can I just respond in 60 seconds 50 seconds alright so I think you're saying just let people vote for the Labour candidate that gives them less choice over what candidate they're going to pick you're either saying pick our Labour candidate for 15 years or vote for the Tories or Lib Dems that's not offering ordinary people a choice I also think that the fact that you've had people in these safe seats who haven't had any challenges one of the reasons why in many parts of Britain people feel detached actually in all parts of Britain people have felt very detached from the Labour party because they have seen it as unresponsive that's why if you have challenges in communities and they can continuously select people who currently reflect their views you're going to have greater connection to the Labour party and we'll be far more successful electorally than having this sort of idea that we have to spend the whole four years sending out leaflets because any internal contest would put people off what is this cruise that Michael is in Scotland when we were swept away we were not disproportionately swept away because Katie Clark was the MP or not so you had a hard left MP who apparently under your definition would be more engaged or whatever there was no difference because what happened was bigger than that she wasn't selected in a very dynamic open selection where there was a party with half a million members in which she was selected Labour had 400,000 members back in 97 so come on, these things are coming in Labour won 3.5 million extra votes in the last general election they increased their share of the vote look, I didn't expect that they increased their share of the vote by 9.6% now looking back to the second leadership race I like to think of it with Owen Smith last summer I simply believe Labour would not have done that well had there not been the coup I wouldn't think this this perennial, and it would mean literally a permanent campaigning I don't think that means one hand behind your back, I think it would make us far better as a campaigning organisation and would be far better equipped at general elections the evidence from the 2016 leadership race to this June would suggest that and I would claim that Labour MPs are really quite good at what they do they defied the odds in 2010 when the Tours were supposed to sweep the country Labour MPs have horrific judgement in London, absolutely look at 2016, when 172 of them wanted to get rid of the most successful Labour politician we've had since Tony Blair he's added 3.5 million people can't get rid of Tony Blair all the way through before he was successful I don't think he should have power either I don't want my guy to have power I want the masses to have power I think Michael and I are probably like yeah, the first Blair term, it's okay we're not saying Corbyn should have picked the whole time we're saying the members should pick all the time because there is, what this election has proved is the wisdom of crowds when you let half a million people decide when you let half a million people decide they make a better decision Corbyn didn't believe in the wisdom of the crowd where Blair was being successful so stop pretending you've kind of created an alternative reality where could this go in your way right now I'm interested in membership democracy I don't care what Corbyn bought I've got a question that I want both of you to answer very quickly we're going to wrap up after this okay can I have one more point okay right one question which is I think it would be a terrible error to subsume all political activity and energy into the Labour Party I think you need lots of things going on at the same time and that's what creates a dynamic vibrant pluralistic politics how can the Labour Party better engage with grassroots liberation movements ranging from say movement for justice which does a lot of work around defending the rights of migrants and that's only going to become more relevant what with Brexit going through to say UK Black Lives Matter or to grassroots housing campaigns such as around West London or St Anne's which is around me and how can momentum break out of simply being a campaigning organisation to get people elected and start doing that work of embedding a labour left within these kind of neighbourhood grassroots networks time is a finite amount is a finite entity you either spend it on the internal stitch and fix defending yourself against the de-selection or you're out in your community engaging with these people and Labour MPs are working pretty hard even the worst ones are working pretty hard David Miliband the golden boy of progress had a 0.5% contact rate in his CLP and a huge 0.5% that's because the choice was Labour the Lib Dems or the Tories and anyone would prefer a Labour candidate every day the other page should say it of progress politics someone like Shavon McDonough who turned a Tory safety into a Labour safety and she worked really hard if she stood for a selection I'm sure she'd stand quite a good chance of getting selected then actually the world was a better place because David Miliband got to be our foreign secretary for a while and that is a really good contribution that made to public life people have got different things to live in different ways and you've got to allow people to come to the Labour Party with different things at different times so these people who currently are in the PLP they have what they can give to the movement is all the fucking power and everyone else can knock on some doors behind them and hope that in 30 years when that person dies they can stand in a selection and there's the only person that Ed Miliband ever be I mean come on you guys can do better than that that is probably true I would accept that can I make one point very quickly I think he is actually integral to inspiring 40% of the public to voting Labour but he was also integral in getting 43% of the public to vote Tory and what we haven't ever talked about we talked about the 30 MPs we gained, Net we don't talk about the 5 MPs we lost we don't talk about why with the worst Tory MP a Prime Minister with the worst Tory campaign an actively voter repellent Tory manifesto their vote went up significant a declining party membership Brexit isn't coming off the table Brexit isn't coming off the table but until you deal with that Brexit isn't coming off the table and there was a dishonesty Corbyn's manifesto saying end free movement made Ed Miliband multiple positive liberal I agree with you that Theresa May how the hell is she getting 40% I think that's a great way to frame it but let's be honest let's be honest believe me we asked that question the one I've watched the Tory vote was always going to go up dramatic you know that I agree with you most of those people voted Blair in 2005 name me a progress candidate that would have put on 10 points in a 6 week campaign none of us know but they equally inspired some people to vote against us and until we deal with that we might be stuck in second place in the Bernie model he came second guys Corbyn came second I'm from Bournemouth Bournemouth East Bournemouth East got Bournemouth West in 97 we got 20% we've just got 36% the other Bournemouth constituents we've got 35% we lost Mansfield there's always outliers we have to look at the big trends Richard we have to look at the big trends we've got the South Coast phenomenal Labour votes which not even under Blair we had and I think that's because of a changed capitalist a changed in terms of the labour market etc etc there are seats where we're competitive now under Corbyn I never thought I'd be saying this Richard but it's happening right which we weren't competitive in 1997 so I think if you look at that and yes we came second we were competitive in about 80 seats which it really should win and if it doesn't I'll be the first to say yes we failed Richard but it could have won them in 2010 it should have won them in 2015 Michael Walker you've got one more question one more thing to say and then we'll wrap up I mean we could be here all night yeah we could be here all night what I'd say I don't know if it is a time for question I mean what I'd say is that we can have we're in a position where that campaign was very good we added ten points we're beating the Tories considering where we were six weeks previously I think obviously what we should be doing is building on that politics not going back to some abstract arbitrary politics that hasn't worked for years like Hillary Clinton got bit you said Bernie came second one of the reasons Hillary won and she lost which is why which is why she's the least popular politician in America because people chose her because they thought she could win and she lost if all you can offer people is that you can win and that we might have someone like David Milibander let me finish if all you can offer is that you think you're more likely to win and we can have someone like David Milibander for the next three years I don't see your funding model improving and I don't see anyone else joining progress the actual thing is you don't think it's worth it you don't think it's worth it you'd rather have a better government than wait for the perfect Labour Government and that's surely wrong that's what you were just saying I'd prefer to we've got I think the best chance of us winning the next election is on a radical platform for people increasing turnout even further the gain of that is also incredibly big it's having a politicised population it's having a government that has people behind it who can actually challenge corporate power which can give us lasting better public services not better public services whilst we have the right people pulling the strings I think looking around the world looking in Britain over the last two years that's clearly going to be the most successfully electorally what you're offering people is a deflated programme a programme which says we have to be realistic which means we have to accommodate with corporate power and not scare anyone and so we're going to have a platform which isn't able to challenge vested interests and also doesn't inspire anyone so I'm looking at winning on a transformative platform or losing on a platform that's kind of embarrassed of what it stands for but my platform hasn't been put to the public and lost because it wasn't put to the public in 2010 or 2015 which is when we lost the Corbyn project is based on the fact there were three Blairite leaders and it failed there wasn't, there was one and then we've gone left and left and left and it's got increasingly worse something that people at the Labour Party do is think people care about the difference between Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown you're incredibly you're a tiny, tiny section of society and you're always asking people don't call us centrists some of us want six K student fees and some of us want nine K student fees to everyone in the world you all look like people who did a social policy masters and now hang out in the same NGOs and think tanks and corridors of power in Westminster and the different opinions you have on this or that policy are completely fucking irrelevant because it's within such a tiny margin I'll finish there I'll bring Ash and we won't be able to go on so are we going to close the show now we should need the closing I reckon Richard should close this up I do want to say for the point of transparency that the reason why there's been such an energetic debate has been Navarra Media brought to you by Greenhills, Gin and Slim I'll request a progress I mean this has really been paid for personally by Ed Miliband so thank you one of the things that I've I paid for that I got mixed up I got mixed up I got mixed up I got mixed up in my Miliband I'm so sorry but what I will say what I will say is this and again this is kind of speaking as an outsider is that there is a tremendous amount of energy at the moment and I think that's sometimes the way that these debates are framed because it sounds like the most relevant antagonist that exists in politics is between press and momentum and frankly most people give a fuck the reason why I think most people are kind of like I don't think they're like give a fuck what she sent us recently no we're weird we're not that weird until someone gets a couple of million people find it quite interesting until someone gets mucked with an iron or new year's eve like I don't want to know but the thing is that the reason why people are so engaged at the moment and also that is an engagement which has sustained itself since June which is another thing which I'm very pleasantly surprised about and I'm not talking about you know politics I'm talking about actual human beings give me a break you're a politics you're a senior editor a radical political media give me a break yeah but I also go to the football oh god I'm not going to go to the football wait wait wait wait why is everyone turning on me why is everyone turning on me you turned on us you called him Ed Miliband I was going to mock people called me David Miliband what I'm saying is this is that the reason why people are so engaged is because we can scent blood in the water right and we feel that there is a very real possibility of displacing a Tory government for my money I don't want it to be with the same kind of watered down let's reform capitalism but not really politics that dominated my teenage years and late childhood I want to see something that looks drastically different not just from you know the kind of late 90s to 2000s but also the kind of you know donkey, jacket, socialism of the 70s I want it to look different from that as well I want it to be something that's young, vibrant I think that the parameters of some of these debates inhibits that conversation it's a conversation fundamentally about possibility we end up arguing over 2001 when really I think we should be looking forward I don't think that that project of looking forward is possible with the Labour Party being constructed as it is I think that there needs to be mechanisms for empowering a new young engaged membership I don't think those things exist right now but then again don't listen to me I'm an anarchist I literally host a politics show you can't comment on it because you haven't paid your membership I agree that Ashley's the joint Ashley's the joint obviously you're entitled to opinion even before you do but come on you've got six months I I want to get laid man I just don't want to don't want to join a political party I'm not in it isn't it let's presume the gender balance is slightly it's about 60% men so let's talk later get your membership card and find your men elsewhere but it doesn't prohibit it is there anything else you can say well look we're at the moment feeling a bit down about things that's fair enough that our politics feels like it maybe hasn't got all the answers it certainly hasn't got all the energy behind it but I don't think you should say that we're down and out and completely and not there I think there are I think ultimately we will win back the Labour Party with some ideas that show themselves to be both absolutely valuable and going to change this country but show that there is a plan for doing it and that we can bring the most number of people with us that it matters yes how many people vote for us but how many people vote for the other side particularly when they're so repugnant and look I get we feel on the back foot but when people on the back foot you shouldn't necessarily round in to try and finish them off and that's what this conference feels like is momentum have got the advantage they feel that they've got the numbers they're doing it all cloak and dagger very much the old politics they promised to end and they're going to try and use this conference to push their advantage and I think that if they believe in the unity they were calling for before the election they wouldn't be doing that and if they wanted the kind of project that was focused on what you said of replacing a Tory government that wouldn't be the focus of this conference it would be manifesto and policy not process and constitutional amendments 10 seconds Michael very quickly Richard we don't want to drive you out of the party for progress in the party I think I want a grand I want a grand compromise where the PLP reflects the membership reflects all the membership in its broad church 60% of Corbynite 4.5% of progress and 30% of somewhere in between I will strike that deal now what about the public where the public in any of your character the public don't know who the fuck you are literally be better at this where are the public where are the voters that was my 10 seconds I think my view is Donald thing who am I talking to for my money Labour has to be a coalition twin we can probably all agree on that the idea that we can have a revolutionary socialist I don't believe that for one second at the same time I think that if political energies which have clearly come from the left universalism some of the classical policies of social democracy if they were to be undermined by desire to build bridges with other elements of the party I think that would deprive us of momentum rather than accelerate it just my view but Richard takes potzler the lion's den this is the fix we will be back a lot we will be broadcasting next Monday but also next Saturday Sunday and Tuesday you'll get your daily fix of the fix at lunchtime I think we agreed we'll be broadcasting but we'll confirm that later on 1pm we've got intues this week out with too much gin and slimmer we've got intues this week out with Angela and David Harvey so keep tuned for that we'll see you at conference bye