 Let's go back to our top story now and comments by the Labour backbencher, Chaka Amuna, urging the party leader to stop centre-left MPs being driven out. The shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, accused the Stratton MP of inventing stories, dismissing his claims that hardliners are targeting moderate MPs. Well, it's the latest in a series of clashes within the party, so just how divided is Labour? To discuss that, I'm joined from Westminster by Aaron Bustani, the co-founder of Navarra Media and Matthew Taylor, who's the former chief of political strategy for Tony Blair. Aaron, I'd like to talk to you first. Do you think moderate MPs are being targeted? Call off the dogs, says Chaka Amuna. No, I don't. I think that the number of MPs who are really out of favour with local parties, to the extent which Joan Ryan or Gavin Shooker or Chris Leslie are, there's very few of them. Maybe a dozen MPs altogether. And this word moderate is very critically important to understand. Political moderation in this country, if you look at any opinion polling around Labour's manifesto in 2017, where the centre-ground is, is renationalisation of rail, renationalisation of water, increased minimum wage, tax the rich, and the housing crisis. So, if we're talking about political moderates and the centre-ground, that's a very different animal to what the politics of these people, you know, what they profess to be. So, no, I don't think there's a problem for moderates in the Labour Party. Matthew and I pretty disagree on some things. We agree on a great many other things. And I think that in terms of offering a viable radical left alternative, not just a crisis of capitalism, but in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a national crisis, I think the party is successfully encompassing a very broad range of views. OK, Matthew, what do you think? Do you think Chuck Amunah was warranted in that call? Yeah, I don't think he'd have said it if he didn't reflect the reality of people who share his kind of space in the party. And from what I understand, the sense is that if you are in the kind of centre of the party, the moderate wing of the party, you know, it's an uncomfortable time. At the very best, you feel pretty irrelevant. At worst, you feel harassed by your constituency party and threatened by deselections. So I think that the reason that Chuck has made this speech, other people are speaking, is I think in a sense to challenge the leadership of the Labour Party to make a decision. Are they going to do the work that is necessary to ensure that the party remains a reasonably broad church? Or are they going to stand back and allow the party to become much more homogeneously on the left? And I think the problem at the moment is that the leadership of the party says that it wants to be kind of mainstream, but it doesn't really do anything to restrain the activists in the party who have a much more clear agenda about driving it to the left. Aaron, what do you think? Do you think activists within the party need to be restrained? No, I think that's somewhat unfair. If you look at, for instance, Trident, the Labour leadership, Jeremy Corbyn's views on that are well known. They've moved. You have recently the IHRA. There was major compromise there. So I don't really think that's true. I think in terms of domestic stuff, like I say, rebuilding the economy, public services, I think there's a great deal of agreement where there's less agreement on, for instance, foreign policy. Well, we'll have to be in government to see how bad that is. But in terms of the domestic agenda, I think there's a great deal of agreement, and we saw that in the last general election, huge amounts of support from the public. Again, look at any opinion poll. IPPR put their Commission for Economic Justice Act this week. They're pulling out with Sky, and it showed most people agreed with some of their conclusions, which really is about creating an economy of social and political justice. So I don't really know what Matthew means here. I think there's far more agreement than the media's really allowing us to talk about, where there is a bit of disagreement other than foreign policy is, of course, democratizing the party. Now, the greatest tool that the Labour Party has in terms of winning the next general election is its half a million members. And the reason why they were so powerful in the last election, the reason why I think they'll win the next one is because they feel empowered, and it's a new kind of politics. And we don't just need more members, we also need more of our current members coming out, knocking on doors, having the conversations. And that's what's driving this demand for change. It's what I think will drive electoral victory next time round. And the genre of politics that Chuck Oumona wants, the I don't think that's enough to see Labour win. So it's not just about what's morally right here, it's also about what's politically useful. And on both counts, I think the left is in the right. Matthew, do you agree with what Aaron is saying? We've had Mr MacDonald come out and say that Chuck Oumona would have more differences than Aaron suggests. I think, for example, that moderates in the party would probably have taken a different view in relation to the Salisbury attack. I think they would have been more likely to support the government and less likely to believe the Russians. I think that they probably would have a different perspective on Europe. I think the moderate wing of the party would be more willing to commit absolutely to a people's vote. I think there would be differences around public services as well. So there are policy differences. But it is true this is also about activists and MPs. And I think that Aaron's view of the party is that MPs should do what activists tell them to do and not exercise their own judgment. And that too, I think, is a shift in the party and I think people like Chuck Oumona would want to say that the Parliamentary Labour Party should have a greater say and that MPs should sense that they are allowed to make their own judgments without feeling that their position as MPs is then going to be threatened. Let's go back to what Chuck Oumona said earlier. Having only been re-elected by the constituents last year, already centre-left MPs are being targeted systematically with motions against them for standing up for these values. For demanding we have a zero tolerance of racism in our party. More motions such as this are expected by colleagues. I mean, is there any doubt, do you think, that someone like Joan Ryan was targeted specifically because of her criticism of Jeremy Corbyn and her position in Labour Friends of Israel? I mean, I can't ventriloquise what is upset, what the grievances are for her local party. I saw the campaign literature she put out last year. She was incredibly critical of Jeremy Corbyn. She said Labour had no chance of winning. She sort of framed herself as the hyper-local candidate. No message really in terms of the national manifesto. So people I think were very aggrieved at that actually primarily. It was about an almost belligerent attitude towards the leadership until we really saw that shock of all shocks on June 8th last year. So no, I think on each case you have to look at it very differently. So for instance, Matthew and I pre-disagree on Brexit. People wanted to deselect Frank Field and Kate Hoey because they voted with the government in terms of implementing and delivering a hard Brexit. In regards to Joan Ryan, it's somewhat different. In regards to Gavin Shooker, it's somewhat different. So I think looking at this as a big homogenous mass is not useful. Chuck Arumina in his seat in Stratham is actually relatively popular. And I doubt he would be deselected. I actually think the number of MPs who would be deselected is tiny. So no, I think there's a lot of ambiguity here. I think there's a lot of misinformation. But I think, you know, people are looking for a story. It's about Labour breakdown, Labour disagreements. On the policy, there's a great deal of agreement. And in terms of democratisation, this is only really going to impact, I think, a handful of MPs ultimately. OK, Matthew, time is against us. But do you think this is about the division of Labour? Look, I don't think there's any illusions on the kind of centre of the party that they're going to wrestle control from Jeremy Corbyn and the people who support Jeremy Corbyn's position. I think the question here is about whether or not Jeremy Corbyn and the people around him are going to take the steps that are required to ensure that the Labour Party is a broad church and that voices like Chuckers can be heard. And I think that is in genuine doubt. Yes, it's true that Chuck has a reasonably strong base in his constituency. But there are many other MPs who do feel very vulnerable, who do feel constrained. And I hear this when I talk to them. I don't think they're making it up when they say that they feel fearful about their positions, fearful about speaking out. So this isn't about an attempt to wrestle power from Jeremy Corbyn and those around him. It is about saying that the leadership will have to act if they want the party to remain a broad church, as it did even under Tony Blair, when Jeremy Corbyn, of course, was allowed to be an MP. No one was challenging him. But that isn't going to happen by accident. It will require people around Jeremy Corbyn to take steps to ensure that the party remains a broad church. And at the moment it isn't clear that he's going to do that. I'm so sorry. We're going to have to leave it there. Matthew, Aaron, thank you so much. Thanks.