whenever else. and islamic for -- you will pay a political price because we're going to register and use our ballots and take our souls to the polls and make sure you're out of there. >> just to clarify, none of our the uscmions included ox. any candidate. there will be another make theion that would decision. we're going to be engaged. a number.r, we hit thank you very much.

was the first first lady to work outside the home. teaching at a private school, she successfully lobbied theress for funds to create first library of congress. her love of pink created fashion sensation. ay pink was marketed as color. jacqueline kennedy was for the creation of the white house historical association. nancy reagan saw her name on the bist that expect communist. became his life. these stories and more are the c-span's book "first lady." a great gift for

the holidays. giving reads a look into the live of everytivity ladies in american history. resonate legacies today. share stories of america first the holiday. c-span book first lady is in hard book. be sure to order your copy today. theext look at events in british parliament from september until recently. u.k.'sincluding the future in the european union, the isis threat and the election leader. labor party this is curtis parliament. it's 50 minutes.

>> welcome to our review of the parliament. the season gave us a new and controversial leader of the opposition. question, a veteran first gulf war -- >> the government backtracked on welfare, tax credit cuts would but the chance lore was challenged. the pace of these reforms is too hard and too fast. those diplomas -- >> that's 130 died at the hands of terrorists. sharply divided the house of commons. inthey hold out values content. having -- weof bogus italian -- ofbut first as sunny days

summer drew to a close, it's to mp's of westminster. rained over us for 63 years, 7 months and 2 days. was opening a new train the border. >> she's worked with 12 prime minsters, nine cabinet secretaries. also 3 had been -- >> mr. speaker, this is enjoys orshe something we suspect she might spendingeen on such as the tow.s eve in

>> she's now on her 12th prime minster. she would now be on her 13. raised $140 million. a huge camera. membershipr partner was a record of the long drawn labor leadership election. babe l paperwork >> my passion in life, equality justice, human rights. >> and to the amendment miamis both -- one of the most

unexpected political victories years.nt >> i'm delighted to declare elected as leader. >> celebration time for the new labor leader was limited. shadow cabinet have to be .ccepted when he was photographed, that beging the national anthem dis--his behavior >> thank you mr. speaker i want thank all of those who took in an enormous demographic i thought i would do if.in a

different way. 2.5000 people e-mailed me about housing crises this country. who a woman called marie, said what does the environment --mend to do with everybody 262 in ourered country. >> he stayed with his questions from the public. >> paul, for example, says very is theelt question, why tax credittaking away from families. minster saye prime to angela that work so hard in

sa --n mentalis working in health or suffering from mental italian. condition. his first pmq's. i'm joined by the political of bbc news. jeremy corbin, tremendous leader.as labor words were used like remarkable. a political shock it was? came up to me i remember the beginning of the to rush home had and talk about it. it was shot in july. looked like he was heading victory. said, i remember you last. true. and was my mistake

political general. >> the labor party membership. bridgeable? >> what is happening is that the come into thee party have been recruited by jeremyclose to the corbin. getting the -- we're labor party back. that sense, he is representative of that new shape of the party. nothing wrong with that new different. just

are they electric people to go to through. we've yet to see in the years they hang around or whether they are proactive or not. word about pmq's, prime grasp at the chance to stamp that personality. jeremy corbin doesn't seem to see it that way. tohe see an opportunity stamp his know now and end what he do. he has taken these questions from people who e-mailed them in. does sound like a radio show. .ut that's his personality -- the problem with it, it does

prosecuting ars single argument. this is the biggest policy issue this week. will use thissic, the strength of it is why not. seen the prime minster struggle to deal with. thean't be opening roots in rear. be good work.ould it isn't about strategy, this is does business. followpeople who don't burst -- io did

think in the fullness of time, that will remain is he actually doing the first job of opposition. you.ank although the economy maintained recovery the national deficit remains enormous. government's attempt to reduce it, bring down the huge welfare bill. chancellor announced deductions to working tax credits. those areby which theiro supplement economic. treasury minister, said change to the tax credit system was substantial. >> it's part of what is called a contract working with britain. you are going to pay higher lower businesset taxes and a stable economy.

>> through the election campaign would cutgovernment child credit, the prime minster said no, i i don't want to do that. >> how she thinks, we can the direction.n don't -- >> slowly, some conservatives be azed there could october, he defied convention. >> the prime minster has asked us that everything everybody to -- as these proposals

stands, too many people will be affected. something must give. those of us proud enough to call ourselves compassionate triv conservative, it must not because the backs of the serve.s we support and >> commons still voted clearly in favor of the cuts. through this house of lords might strike out the tax credit changes. out athey really vote national measures. beer -- >> honorable friends and concern. place work against it would be a privilege code long ago 1515, this is

what they entitled him for decisions in .elation to creating more >> he's. -- these people trying work and meet. they are the kind of people that the government said it wants to help. change will have a back ony danieling that--ive them what they did nok for. or we can support it instead of the 3 million families. send letters at christmas.

to 1300 alose up year. are morallyposals indefensible. veryclear to me, i believe proposal s, that these proposals threaten and damage the lives of millions of muslims. >> these changes to tax credits right. if we want female eastern weeady and to can keep more, cannot keep recycling their money that subsidizes low pay. >> paris voted to reject the cut.nment's tax credit the prime minster ordered a theew into the working of lords. this carried out about by

man. had tohain and treasury bactupon. able tose i've been announce today an improvement in simplelic finances, the allg to do is to avoid them together. tax credit are being phased out anyway. we introduce credited. the tax credit, and threshold remain unchanged the it was a scrapping of from the tax credit. and.is spending review

my a tax onaid for peoples -- we were elected as a one nation government. today we deliver spending review one nation government. the guardians of economic security. protectors of national security, the builders of our future. this government, the mainstream workingted for the people. >> replying on behalf of labor john mcdonald. the controversial appointment as chancellor.ow mindfulnald -- he was the trip george osborne made of china. summer

china met in business leaders and poker. era ofe through a golden cooperation. >> i brought him along a red book. me quote. we must learn to do economic work for all who know how. are.tter who they we must have seen them as them.rs, learning from we must know what do not know. it would come in handy

him. readhancellor stood and red book.his little -- the problem is, the cabinet has been sent off to reeducation. >> george osborne >> so george osborne having fun there. do you think that john mcdonald was well-advised to use this stunt? >> no. i know left-wing supporters of his.

the look on tom watson, deputy leaders face, he said he could not quite see what john mcdonald was doing, but to me, it was a bit of a sharp intake of breath. jokes.re the problem for john mcdonald is a a lot of people think this is what he believes. it is clear that he is making a joke. he is laughing. but he did not play that way. that was a big victory for the labour party to force the government back and he diverted from that. >> not all stunts work on big occasions. have really have to have chosen it right and that was and ever by hand. osborneurse, george came back with a wicked response. overall, was it a good statement?

allegra: he did a good u-turn. it was a u-turn that had to happen. he did it comprehensively. very little or people to pick out now. if you are going to do it, do it fully and move on. but it was a shock. it is embarrassing for him because it shows an error of judgment. i think he showed political acumen in how he moved away. >> the big irony is that the lords voted out these tax credits. in a sense, they save the government's bacon. course, we are talking over christmas, but these letters were not due to go out until christmas or the new year. a bunch of people did not know that they would be so badly affected. problems were not yet being felt in mailbags, but people could

see them coming down the road. p's were worried. the reason they did the u-turn was the extraordinary lords defeat. the second was the bench is unhappy. and thirdly, it was the most effective thing that the labour party ran on. really odd to have the lords and es beingnd baroness the defenders. >> of course, the rewards for the lords, a thorough review. allegra: the report was that you will not be able to do that in the future. the chancellor try to choose a means that he thought. he chose a statutory instrument. he thought it was a way of getting it through without so much bother. they had other ideas about that. ,o say now it is stratified

they do feel that with a labour party that is perhaps not always so focused, it has many internal debates, that it is their job to , assuming it is their job to be the official opposition, there would be noise about that next two months. >> thanks very much indeed. we will have another word in a moment. the government did wreak its revenge. it was recommended to lose veto powers. they will be sent back to the commons for reconsideration, but only week -- once. a week of turmoil for jeremy corbyn, who opposed military action. several members of his shadow cabinet in favor. the labor leaders were forced into allowing a free vote. it was only about extending airstrikes to include syria as well as iraq. the 10-hour commons marathon

turned into the ultimate decision for mps, to go to war or not. >> do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat and do we go after these terrorists in their heartlands, from where they are plotting to kill british people, or do we sit back and wait for them to attack us? >> the issue now is whether extending british bombing from iraq to syria is likely to reduce or increase the threat to britain and whether it will counter or spread the terror is waging across the middle east. the answers don't make the case for the government motion. on the contrary. they are warning, step back. >> i am not going to be a party to killing innocent civilians for what will simply be a gesture. i am not interested in gesture

politics. i am not interested in gesture military activity. >> we should not be in the business of national resignation from the world stage. >> our french allies have explicitly asked for support and i invite the house to consider how we would feel and what we would say what took place in paris had happened in london. if we had explicitly asked france for support and france had refused. h hasbelieve that isil daes to be confronted and destroyed if we want to properly defend our country and way of life. i believe that this motion provides the best way to achieve this objective. >> paris and the downing of the russian airliner were assaults on civilized values. if we can realistically do something to destroy and degrade this evil, to prevent it spreading further, then we must

act. a clear anduch present danger to the civilized world that if all necessary means are endorsed by the security council, then so should this house. >> several mps questioned the prime minister's assertion that 70,000 troops in syria would help in the fight to destroy isis. >> mr. speaker, instead of having dodgy dossiers, we now have bogus italians of moderate fighters. >> of the 70,000, how many are moderates and how many are fundamentalists? i have not had an answer to that question. i would invite any member from the government side to tell the rest of the house what that is. >> i share the horror and the propulsion of the recent atrocities, yet i have still to hear convincing evidence to isisst that u.k. bombing

target in syria is likely to increase our security in britain or help ring about a lasting peace in the region. call to the toughest make, maybe ever, and certainly in this house. what pushes me in a direction of only for action is the united 49, whichesolution to 2 calls for us to eradicate the safe haven that isis has with in syria. >> what kind of a country would we be if we refused to act in the face of a threat to our security as clear as the one poses.poses -- taht isil what kind of a country would we be if we were unmoved by the murder, the rates, that the headings, and the slavery that isil imposes. secretarydow foreign spoke in direct opposition to his leaders' strongly-held

views. he argued for military action. let's we are here, faced fascists. not just their calculated brutality, but there believe that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight and all of the people that we represent. .hey hold us in contempt they hold our values in contempt. they hold our belief intolerance and decency in contempt. , thehold our democracy means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. my view, mr. speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. it is now time for us to do our bit in syria. that is why i asked my colleagues to vote for this motion tonight.

>> afterwards, and these voted by a clear majority. 397.e ayes to the right, no's to the left, 223. >> there was a parallel debate on syria in the lords. >> since our security rests on our alliances and our greatest alliances are with the united states and france, it would be extraordinary and we would need a very compelling reason, if our security is indivisible with theirs, not to act with them in this crisis. >> if you launch war, you launch unpredictability. the best way of deciding is, on the balance of probabilities, this is the best chance we have. there are no certainties. >> criteria have been met.

while they are necessary, they are not sufficient in action of this kind. thee we can end up doing right thing in such a wrong way that it becomes the wrong thing. do?hat could this bombing make other people feel good. what else does it do? it invites retaliation. , allegra isbate with me again in the studio. 10 hours of debate in the commons and a parent -- a parallel debate in the lords. certainly a marathon exercise. what they were talking about was thending a few miles over border into syria. why did it turn out to be a huge issue? allegra: two years ago, the prime minister asked her permission and was rejected in

september of 2013, when he came to the house and said, i get it. , the defense secretary wanted permission to extend because of all of the old and deep wounds. people were reluctant to do it. all of us, me and you'd, in our profession, had to spend hours watching them trying to gauge whether or not they would get it through. jeremy corbyn has made it his life's mission to oppose military intervention of most kind. that changed things. and we had this huge debate about how much the labour party, jeremy corbyn would take with when a large group believes in humanitarian intervention. this detailed debate was about

the commons reluctantly approving military action. speaking in favor of military action was seen as a commons classic. do you think it alter the opinions of any entities? or for the doubters, there was no doubt that they were right in voting for the actions. allegra: you have to see it in the context of the day in the context of that week. in the a decision dispatch box by labor. two different decisions. you still had one voice of the dispatch box. it was an historic day. figures making various attacks at people who he believed were issuing death threats to mps who were deciding.

so a very fraught week for the labour party. nearly split down the middle. some people reporting to rets to the police. thatvisceral on an issue overefined the party for 10 years, military intervention. it is one of the reasons why they are most popular in the party. keith: where did all the turmoil leave jeremy corbyn? he reached the end of the week with a by election that labor cap. he emerged unharmed against the backdrop of various expectations. mps decided he was not right. he did not have resignation. he has kept the party together.

it started the weekend before. people like me were given very serious report that thecor bynistas were considering opposing. and people like tom watson support the strike. had, for about 48 hours, the possibility that labor could split. it was a very high-stakes week. examinations by commons committees are a feature of every westminster turf. the collapse of a company earlier this year raised many questions, not the least of which is why one charity soaked up so much money. it was set up to help deprived people in britain's inner cities. it had a charismatic founder and chief executive. one critic claims senior ministers became mesmerized by her.

she was supported by the charity chairman. in a committee session, questions rained down on the pair. kids regularly receiving hundreds of pounds per week. could that be possible? >> no. some received -- quest so some received? >> no kids, not under 18. >> so you have been handing out hundreds of pounds? >> i have not been handing out hundreds of pounds. each individual case had to be decided on its own merit. i will give you an example. >> but you said not under 18. those over 18 were receiving hundreds of pounds? >> not hundreds of pounds. >> how much? >> it always depends on the circumstances. you want to give me -- you want me to give you an answer without

a subtext. >> how do you help someone with a pair of shoes that costs 115 pounds? >> excuse me. the way you put that question is really unjust. i would like to answer it. please let me answer it. the structure of that question is immensely disrespectful. >> for goodness sake. >> i would like to answer it. you cannot have mental health difficulties and you can still need a pair of shoes. it is your duty as chairman of the board of trustees to ensure that you have adequate resources to maintain the level of service -- >> i think you are misrepresenting this badly. let's be clear.

until 2014, there were no questions about the financial resilience of this company. >> but there were. >> this is a question to -- >> order. >> from 2014 onwards, we did have problems. there is no question. up until that point, for all 2003-2014, inrom very difficult circumstances, we raised funds. keith: talking about his company. just before the politicians left westminster, politicians passed the ball that brings a national referendum on britain's continued membership in the eu. for everyone younger than 59, it will be the first-ever such european vote. we know what the likely question

will be. we even know where the final result will be declared the it will be in this building in manchester. what we do not know is what the votes will be. david cameron had a series of talks with european leaders to secure a better deal for the u.k. in late october, we finally found out the terms. when europe's minister explained what they were, plenty were not impressed. >> we want to enable national parlance -- parliaments to work together building on the arrangements already in the treaties. we propose that people coming to britain should live here and contribute to four years before they qualify for benefits or social housing. should end the practice of sending child benefits overseas. after all the statements made by the prime minister, my right honorable friend, the foreign maketary, the pledge to

national parliaments, restore the prime ministry of national parliaments, to restore our , is thatafter all that the total of the government's position in this renegotiation? >> my right honorable friend must know that this is pretty thin. much less the people that have come to expect from the government. it takes a few words from the preamble but does nothing about the substance of the treaties. make as that it is to negotiation look respectable. it needs to do more. keith: the scottish parliament in edinburgh. powersmons approved more following the pledge or vow to secure that rejection by the scots of independence one year ago. as a counterweight to increasing

scottish devolution, they came up with a policy for westminster. it was called english votes or english laws. for the first time, english mps would have the final say on england-only legislation. the scottish nationalists were pleased. >> achieved and secured by this plan, me and my honorable friends will be second-class citizens of the united kingdom of great britain. that is quite unacceptable. this andis watching the mood is darkening. if this is an exercise in saving the union, you could not have contrived -- ofit was actually the people the senior government. ande have a legitimate view

we remain second-class citizens. parliament.ity accept thatgot to we are second-class citizens. >> at this point in time, all of us are equal. i can vote on exactly everything that the leader of the house did in this chamber. if this vote goes through, i will be denied the opportunity to vote on behalf of the people who elected me on matters which may affect them. years.and has waited 18 a settlement was forced upon us all -- against our will. can my right honorable friend think of any good reason that an english mp could vote against these very moderate proposals? >> these relatively modest proposals do something very

powerful, which is allow us to say to our constituents, and i say this represented an english constituency, that, in the usure, there is no chance of imposing on them something that they do not want in england. the reason there is so much it isity is they realize a safety valve that would help protect the future of the united kingdom. >> i could not put it better myself. these proposals enable us to give an answer to our constituents to say that england will have its own piece of our devolution settlement. they do so without removing any member of parliament from the workings of this chamber. >> this is not a conservative set of measures. it is quite the dangerous set of measures. it is a bureaucratic nightmare. i think honorable members will

regret it. if the prime minister decided to fashion a new grievance for scotland, and god knows they have never needed a new events because he wanted to antagonize. >> what we are debating today is the least worst option on the table in my view. we start from this point in a perfect world. >> it seems to me that the government has put forward these do onals which they often the basis that something has got to be done. the most dangerous words that you will ever hear in parliament. >> this is a divisive measure. it differentiates between members of parliament. it does not allow us to speak when we want to on behalf of the people who have sent us here. keith: the commons voted the change through so english votes for english laws went through. 312, no's the right,

to the left, 270. keith: one labor mp had a suggestion. >> now that we have created different kind of votes, would it be convenient for the house to consider different desk issuing different passes to different kind of mps so that it would be easier for them to be recognized? blue forenglish, scottish. un-h: some examples of parliamentary language have been ruled out of order. what about "robot?" he tested a debate when he refused to take an intervention. thiswas just explaining grateful less that they are making in scotland, where the

poor children are being left the. mind, i wouldot have been happy to take every single one of you robots. i would be happy. , the proposal of your motion refused to take me. >> order. i was just turning over in my mind whether the description "robot" for a member of this house would be considered to be derogatory. i have come to the conclusion that, in some circumstances, it might, and in some, it might not. moment, i am concluding for my own peace of mind that the honorable gentleman was taking desk thinking of a high functioning, intelligent robot.

therefore, for the moment, i will not call him to order for the use of the word. but i am sure the house will be warned that we should be careful in our use of language. keith: i enjoyed once again by allegra. plenty of sound and fury by the scottish nationalists. at the end of the day, this is just a procedural adjustment, one extra stage and consideration. outburst? justified allegra: when there is a particular english vote, scottish mps would come to the lobbies and squat and make the sound and fury. there is some principle involved. essentially, this is a moment for them to make a phone home to people in scotland that westminster does not work for you and this is one of the of

the other reasons why we should split apart. keith: it has been an interesting debate about security. do you think that the two leaders get on well? allegra: it is a pretty good working relationship and they need each other. they have slightly different imperatives. david cameron needs to not let sturgeon have too many pops at him because he needs to create the sense that they u.k. is working well together. looks like she is still got him on the run and proving that she does not necessarily have her people's best interests at heart. more importantly, they can continue to make the case that david cameron is not really on their side and that helps them. behind the scenes, they get on pretty well. remember, her predecessor, it

was a much more contentious relationship. he was more prone to orchestrate a meeting with a conservative prime minister or any prime have some fun with it. that is not her style. keith: we cannot not mention it. the eu referendum. the bill has cleared parliament. the legislation is going along. david cameron has had not a tremendously successful few months. it is not looking good for him, is it? keith: -- allegra: i am surprised with how they have handled this. there is a view that they would like to do this quickly. ,f you can do a june referendum you can avoid the prospect of another migrant rices, the images of people on television screens trying to flee syria and get into europe. when that happened, that saw a tiny spike in support for their

camp. referendum becoming law allows that to be possible. there are still issues that no one knows where they will end up with. at the moment, they are looking very visibly on the back foot. we are not getting what we want. saying to david cameron, they are not getting what they want on tax credits. there is a series of compromises which are probably too complicated to go into here, but camp can get up- and running, that could harm him. keith: 2016. will jeremy corbyn spring a few surprises himself? allegra: i think that jeremy , i think he is around for

a very long time. i think that the key test for him will be the may elections. the question will be, if you have patchy results for labor, maybe the tories beat them to , it could be that jeremy corbyn has another fireball to protect himself. after that point, there is the possibility in september that people close to him change their leadership roles so that it is easier for him not to be challenged. essentially, those who are posting have a window between may and september. keith: we will see what happens. thanks very much indeed for joining us. allegra: total pleasure. keith: we will see if her predictions come through in

2016. parliament not only debates the issues, it can also debate the issues slightly lower down the priority scale. in november, a half-hour debate on these fellows. should the humble hedgehog become the national symbol of the -- dod do what for the nation what the kangaroo does for australia? a concerned mp was concerned about the dwindling numbers of the british hedgehog. >> in a bbc wildlife special, hedgehogs were chosen as the best natural emblem for the british nation, beating the charismatic badger and a sturdy oak. 42%,ictory came about with more than 9000 votes being cast for the hedgehog. >> aristotle points out that the

hedgehog carries apples on his spine into his next. with greatg travels embedded on his spine. i would like to challenge the assertion that the hedgehog should become our national symbol. i asked you, madam speaker, i asked both sides of this house, because this is not a question that concerns only one party, but all of us. do we want to have as our national symbol an animal that, when confronted with danger, rolls over into another form and puts its spikes up? do we want an animal that sleeps for six months of the year? or would we rather returned to the animal that is already our national symbol. i refer to the line -- lion. majestic, courageous, proud.