quotes from different people who admired the book, including bob schaffer and cokie roberts and tom ritchie. brian: thank you very much. tyler: thank you for having me. i enjoyed it. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> for free trade, word or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at qanda.org. broadcasts are also available as c-span podcasts. if you like this interview, here are some other programs you might enjoy. hume on his career. historyye of pop

discussing popular culture and its impact on politics. and pat buchanan talks about richard nixon's path to the presidency and his experience working for the administration. find all those interviews online at www.c-span.org. tomorrow on c-span's baronngton journal, kevin looks ahead to threats facing the u.s. like terrorism and relations with iraq, russia, and north korea. we also look at the top energy- related stories of 2015 with men well -- manuel quinones. washington journal starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> monday night on the

communicators, we will take a look at how the music industry works. d of berkleeie college of music discusses how new music platforms have impacted the way musicians are paid and what reforms congress can implement to make the structure more transparent. he is joined by jim phillips for communications daily. >> the narrative of artists and songwriters feeling like they do not understand where their money is coming from is not new. but i think we are living in a world where everything is trackable. know where i am, where you are, what you are talking about on your cell phone. there is no reason that artists should not be able to know where their songs are being streamed and how they are being paid for that. not on a significant time lag. >> watch the communicators

monday night on c-span2. the british house of commons is in recess until the new year. prime minister's questions will not be shown tonight. of the, we look at some events in parliament over the last few months that were featured in "westminster interview." that is followed by a forum on race relations hosted by the atlantic. at 11:00, another chance to see our conversation with tyler abe ll. ♪ keith: hello. and welcome to our review of the autumn term in parliament. the season gave us a controversial view of the opposition, who had his own way of tackling the prime minister. >> i have a question from karen. a veteran of the first gulf war. >> i ask a question from angela.

keith: the governor backtracked on welfare. tax credit cuts were dropped as the chancellor was challenged by his own side. >> i believe the pace of these reforms is too hard and too fast. as these proposals stand, too many people will be adversely affected. keith: after 130 parisians died at the hands of terrorists, a debate on whether or not to take military action divided the house of commons. >> they hold our values in contempt. they hold our belief in contempt. >> instead of having dodgy dossiers, we have bogus battalions of moderate fighters. keith: but first, as the sunny days of summer drew to a close, there was a royal milestone. her majesty the queen became the longest-reigning monarch in the country's history wednesday, september 9, surpassing the record of queen victoria.

her majesty had reigned over us for 63 years, seven months, and two days. on the day she was opening a new train line in the scottish borders. at westminster, mp's were congratulating her on the achievement. >> she has worked with 12 prime ministers, six archbishops, nine cabinet secretaries. she has answered 3.5 million pieces of correspondence. sent over 100,000 telegrams. and met more people than any other monarch in history. whether it is something she enjoys, like the highland games, or something she may be less keen on, such as spending new year's eve in the millennium dome, she never falters. [laughter] >> she is now on her 12th prime minister. we on these benches hoped she would be on her 13th. [laughter]

she reigns over 140 million people, a huge number, nearly as many as the registered labour party supporters. keith: that remark about the size of the labour party membership was a none too subtle reference to the often tortured labor leadership election. to enliven a potentially dull bencher, mps let in back jeremy corbyn. >> my passions in life are equality, justice, and human rights. keith: to the consternation of most labor mp's, jeremy corbyn quickly became the favorite to win. on september 14, party membership elected him by a landslide. one of the most unexpected political victories of recent years. >> i am delighted to declare jeremy corbyn elected as leader of the labor house. [applause]

keith: celebration time for the new leader was limited. the shadow cabinet had to be constructed and policies formulated. jeremy corbyn, so often the rebel in the background, had to get used to being in the foreground. when he was photographed not singing the national anthem, critics called his behavior "disrespectful." soon, it was his first prime minister's questions time. >> jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank all those that took part in the enormous democratic exercise in this country, which concluded with me being elected as leader of the labour party. i thought my first prime minister's question time, i would do it in a slightly different way. i am sure the prime minister is going to absolutely welcome this, as he welcomed the idea in 2005. 2500 people e-mailed me about the housing crisis in this country. i have one from a woman called

marie, who says, what does the government intend to do about the chronic lack of affordable housing and the extortionate rent charged by some private-sector landlords in this country? >> we delivered 260,000 affordable housing units in the last parliament. we built more council houses in our country than in the 13 previous years. keith: jeremy corbyn stayed with his questions from the public. >> paul, for example, says this heartfelt question -- why is the government taking tax credits away from families? i ask a question from claire. what does the prime minister say to angela, to people like her, who work so hard in mental health services? all people going through a mental health crisis, who may well be watching today? >> what i would say to angela and all those working in mental health, those suffering from mental health conditions, is that we need to do more as a country to tackle mental health.

keith: that was jeremy corbyn's first p.m.q. i'm joined by allegra stratton. jeremy corbyn, tremendous victory as labor leader. words were used like "remarkable" and "sensational." how big of a shock to the system was it? >> his last rally, someone said, i remember when that poll came out in the front page of the times. i had to rush on air to talk about it because it was a shock in july. months before, it looked like he was heading for victory. he said, "i remember you laughed." it is true. i did chortle. that was my mistake. many people did it. what we did not see was how the electorate of the labor coalition was changing in front of everyone's eyes. keith: there is a gulf between

the parliamentary labour party and labour party membership. people coming into the party have been recruited by people close to jeremy corbyn. in some ways, his election reflected a movement over the summer. people thought they were getting their labour party back. if they paid three pounds, they could vote. not all these people go to the wednesday evening meetings and constituency parties in the rain, sitting for point after point of committee meetings and so on. in that sense, he is representative of the new shape of the party -- nothing wrong with a new shape of the party. just that it is different. but there is a question mark about those people or the activities associated with full-blown members of the labour party. will they elect people to go to the party conference in september, to go again through the painstaking work of being at a conference?

they might, but we have yet to see in the years ahead whether theyhang around or whether are proactive or not. keith: opposition leaders have typically seen it as a chance to stamp their personality, but jeremy corbyn does not seem to see it that way. >> he sees it as an opportunity to stamp his personality. he is taking questions from people who e-mail in. it sounds like a radio phone-in. many people have said it. the first one was maria, wasn't it? but that is his personality. he feels his job is to be a cipher for the people outside. that is not completely wrong. the problem with it is it feels a bit like he is not prosecuting a single argument, so he is -- not saying this is the biggest policy issue this week.

the strength of it is that why not have people's voices come into the parliamentary chamber more? also, you have seen the prime minister struggle to deal with it. he cannot be openly rude to maria. that would be a bad look for him. and he is aware he has a tendency to be a bit angry and terse. he must really keep that in check. it is not about strategy for jeremy corbyn. it is just how the man does business. keith: does it appeal to some aspect of the electorate? >> i thought it was refreshing. i know people who do not follow politics but had it burst into their lives through facebook and other ways people get their news and quite liked it. but the question that remains, is he doing the first job of opposition, holding the government to account? keith: thank you. although the economy maintained

its recovery in the second half of 2015, the national deficit remained enormous. part of the government's attempt to reduce it was to bring down the huge welfare bill. in july, the chancellor announced reductions to working tax credits, a means by which those on low pay are able to supplement income. tax credits have ballooned in cost from 13 billion pounds in 2002 to 30 billion pounds now. the treasury minister said change to the tax credit system was essential. >> it is part of what the chancellor called "a new contract with working britain." it says to businesses, you're going to pay higher wages. but you get lower business taxes and a stable economy. >> these cuts of tax credits hit working families in every constituency and were to be sneaked through the back door. when asked during the campaign if the government would cut tax credits, the prime minister said, "i do not want to do that."

>> can she explain how she thinks we can move in the direction, even though the government is recovering, if we do not tackle the absurd level of taxpayer subsidy? keith: some conservatives realize there could be a backlash. in october, heidi allen defied convention by devoting her maiden speech in the commons to a strong attack on her own side. >> the prime minister has asked us that everything we do must pass the family test. cutting tax credits before wages rise does not achieve that. showing children that their parents would be better off not working at all does not achieve that. as these proposals stand, too many people will be adversely affected. something must give. for those of us proud enough to call ourselves compassionate conservatives, it must not be the backs of the working

families we purport to serve. keith: the commons still voted clearly in favor of the cuts. word came through that the house of lords may strike out the tax credit changes. but are peers supposed to do that? could they really vote out a financial measure? peers were told by downing street they would be overstepping the mark. in the commons, one backbencher was far from happy. >> does my right honorable friend share my concern that, if the other place were to vote against working tax credits, this would be a serious challenge to the privilege of this house, a privilege codified as long ago as 1678? and does he further share my concern that this would then entitle him to review the decisions of gray and aswith in relation to creating more peers to ensure the government could

get financial legislation through? keith: the language did not deter the lordships. >> these are people going out to work to make ends meet. they are exactly the kind of people that the government has said it wants to help. yet, this change would have a seriously damaging impact on their ability to keep their heads above water. >> my lords, we can be supportive of the government and give them what they did not ask for -- financial privilege -- or we can be supportive instead of those 3 million families facing letters at christmas telling them, on average, they will lose up to 1300 pounds a year. >> i say to the government that these proposals are morally indefensible.

it is clear to me, and, i believe, to many others, that these proposals blatantly threaten damage to the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. >> this government believes that, as part of the overall package of measures that support working people, these changes to tax credits are right. if we want people to earn more and keep more of their own money, we simply cannot keep recycling their money through a system that subsidizes low pay. >> keith: peers voted to reject the government tax credit cuts. amid talks of a constitutional crisis, the prime minister ordered a review into the working of the lords to be carried out by former conservative leader of lords, lord strathclyde. in the meantime, the treasury had to work out what to do with tax credits. the answer came in november when the chancellor unveiled his on -- autumn statement.

>> i have listened to concerns and understand them. because i have been able to announce an improvement in the public finances, the simplest thing to do is to avoid them altogether. tax credits are being phased out anyway as we introduce universal credit. what that means is that the tax credit rate and threshold remain unchanged. keith: there was more to the autumn statement than the scrapping of the cuts. the chancellor announced new help for people to buy their own toes and inducements developers to construct starter homes. >> this is a doubling of the housing budget -- 400,000 new homes with extra support for london. paid for by a tax on second homes delivered by a conservative government helping

working people who want to buy their own home. we are the builders. we were elected as a one-nation government. today, we deliver spending review of a one nation government. the guardians of economic security, the protectors of national security, the builders of our better future. this government, the mainstream representatives of the working people of britain. keith: replying on behalf of labour was john mcdonnell, who opted for an unlikely theme in his speech. he was mindful of the trip george osborne made over the summer to china. the chancellor met business leaders and workers in different parts of the country as he spoke of a new golden era of cooperation between britain and china. >> to assist osborne in his dealings with his newfound

comrades, i have brought along mao's little red book. let me quote, mr. speaker. >> order. i want to hear about the contents of the book. >> let's quote from mao. rarely done in this chamber. the quote is this. behave. we must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are. we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them conscientiously. but we must not pretend to know what we do not know. i thought it would come in handy for him in his new relationship. >> the shadow chancellor literally stood at the dispatch box and read out from mao's little red book.

look, it is his personal signed copy. the problem is half the shadow cabinet has been sent off to reeducation. keith: george osborne having fun at the expense of john mcdonnell. allegra stratton is with me once again. do you think john mcdonnell was well advised to use that little stunt? >> i know left-wing supporters of his talk about it as one of the disasters of the last 100 days of jeremy corbyn's leadership. the look on tom watson's face, he says he could not quite see what john mcdonnell was doing. the book was coming out of the other pocket. but to me, it was a sharp intake of breath. jokes are jokes because they are counterintuitive.

the problem for john mcdonnell is that a lot of people think this is what he believes. it is clear from watching him he is making a joke. he is laughing with a smirk. but it did not play that way. most importantly, that was a big victory for the labour party, to force the government back on tax credits. he diverted from that. keith: not all stunts work in the commons. >> no, you have to be pretty brave. that was an error. keith: george osborne came back with a witty response, which went down with a storm. overall, was it a good autumn statement? >> he did a good u-turn. it was a u-turn that had to happen. he did it comprehensively with little for people to pick at now. that is the lesson here it -- lesson here. if you are going to do a u-turn, do it fully.

but it is embarrassing for him because it shows an error of judgment in trying to do it in the first place. he showed political acumen in how he moved away. keith: there is a big irony because the lords voted out tax credits. in a sense, they saved the government's bacon. they saved them from being on the other end of a lot of anger from low income workers. >> these letters were not due to go out until christmas or the new year. there were a bunch of people that did not even know they were going to be so badly affected. it was one of those political problems that were not being felt in mailbags but people could see coming down the road. the reason they did the u-turn was a series of reasons. the most important was that extraordinary lords defeat. the second was the tory backbenchers unhappy. partly, it was the most effective thing the labour party

ran on in the last 100 days. keith: and of course the reward, a thorough review into how they work. >> the reward is you will be able to do it in the future. what the chancellor tried to do is he chose a statutory instrument. he thought if it was a budget bill, lords would have to obey more faithfully. it was a way of getting it through without much bother. they had other ideas about that. as you say, now, lord strathclyde is looking into their not being allowed to do that. they feel that the labour party is not always so focused on the job of being the opposition. it has so many internal debates. assuming it is their job to be the official opposition. but there will be noise about that in the next few months. keith: allegra stratton, thank

you very much. indeed, the government did wreak revenge. lord strathclyde recommended the their power to secondary legislation. in the future, peers will be able to send these back to the commons for reconsideration once. it was a week of turmoil, with jeremy corbyn resolutely opposed to military action, but several members of his cabinet in favor. they were forced into a free vote. although the issue was only about extending airstrikes to include syria and iraq, the marathon session turned into the ultimate decision for mp's -- to go to war or not. >> the question is, do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat and go after the terrorists in their heartlands, 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 that threat to britain and whether it will counter or spread the terror campaign isil is waging across the middle east. the answers do not make the case for the government motion. on the contrary. they are warning to 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, 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 us for such support.

i invite the house to consider how we would feel and what we would say if what took place in paris had happened in london. if we had asked france for support and france refused. >> i believe isil has to be confronted and destroyed if we are going to properly defend our country and our way of life. i believe this motion provides the best way to achieve this objective. a paris, like the downing of russian airliner, were an assault upon civilized values. if we can do something to destroy or degrade this evil, to prevent it spreading further, we must act. is such aind, isil clear and present danger to the civilized world that, if all necessary means are endorsed by the security council, so should this house. keith: several mps questioned the prime minister's assertion

that 75,000 moderate troops in syria would help in the fight to destroy isis. >> so, mr. speaker, instead of having dodgy dossiers, we now have bogus battalions of moderate fighters. >> i asked the prime minister, of those 70,000, how many are moderate and how many are fundamentalist? i have not had an answer to the question, and i would invite any member from the government side to tell the rest of the house what that is. >> i share the horror and revulsion at recent atrocities in paris, beirut, and elsewhere. i have yet to hear convincing evidence that the u.k. bombing isis targets is likely to increase security in britain or bring about lasting peace in the region. >> this is the toughest call i have ever had to make, certainly in this house. what pushes me in the direction of voting for action is, above all things, the united nations resolution 2249, which calls for

us to eradicate the safe haven that isis and daesh have in syria. >> what kind of a country would we be if we refuse to act in the face of a threat to our security as clear as the one that isil poses? indeed, mr. speaker, what kind of a country would we be if we were unmoved by the murder, rape, beheadings, and slavery that isil imposes on it subjects? keith: the shadow foreign secretary went against convention and spoke in direct opposition to his leaders' strongly held views, arguing for military action. >> we are faced by fascists and not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight.

all of the people that we represent. they hold us in contempt. they hold our values in contempt. they hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. they hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. and my view, mr. speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. it is now time for us to do our bit in syria. and that is why i ask my colleagues to vote for this motion tonight. [applause] keith: after which, mps voted by a clear majority for military action. >> ayes to the right, 397. nos to the left, 223.

keith: meantime, a parallel debate on syria in the lords. >> since our society as the united kingdom rests on our alliances, and our greatest alliances are with the united states and france, it would be extraordinary. we would need a very compelling reason, if our security is indivisible from theirs, not to act in this crisis. >> if you launch war, you launch unpredictability. the best way of deciding today is, on the balance of probability, this is the best opportunity we will have. there are no certainties. >> the criteria have been met. but while they are necessary, they are not, by themselves, sufficient in action of this kind, where we can end up doing the right thing in such a wrong way it becomes the wrong thing. >> what good does bombing do?

it makes other people feel good, but it invites retaliation. keith: the debate on taking military action in syria in both houses of parliament. allegra stratton is with me in the studio. 10 hours of debate in parliament -- the commons and a parallel debate in the parliament. at the end of the day, they were talking about extending air flights by the r.a.f. from iraq into syria. why did it turn out to be a huge issue? >> we knew two years ago that the prime minister asked for permission and was rejected in a famous moment in september 2013, when he came to the house and he said, "i get it." since then, they have made it known they want permission to extend again. but because of the old wounds over iraq, people are reluctant

and the prime minister inaugurated a new convention where he would only do it if parliament gave him approval. all of us, me and you, in our profession, had to spend months watching the whips gauge whether they would get it through. with the election of jeremy corbyn, who has made it his life's mission to oppose military intervention, that changed things. we had a debate about how much of the labour party jeremy corbyn would take with him. you have this large group that believes in humanitarian extension. so it sounds on the surface like a very detailed debate about how to stop and go ahead. but it was about the commons reluctantly approving military action. keith: hillary benn's speech was seen as a commons classic.

do you think it altered the voting intentions of many mps, or was it a bolstering for the doubters? shoring up any doubt they were right in voting for military action? >> the labour party whips believed it swayed people. you have to see it in the context of the day and the week, which was extraordinary. the dispatch box would see two different opinions. even in the howard wilson split, you did not see that. you still have one voice in the dispatch box. in that case, it was a historic day and week. thanad figures no less alan johnson making very direct attacks at people who he believed were issuing death threats to mps who were deciding, like hillary benn, that strikes had to go ahead. a very fraught week for the labour party, with resignations, nearly split down the middle,

with some reporting death threats to the police. very visceral on an issue that has defined the party for nearly 15 years, military intervention. it is one of the reasons that tony blair is such an unpopular figure in the party. keith: where did all that turmoil leave jeremy corbyn, do you think? >> in the end, he reached the end of the week, which was marked by the election that labor kept, he emerged enhanced against a background of low expectations. he allowed a free vote, but 66 of his mp's decided he was not right. he did not have resignations. he has kept the party together. but the week started with the possibility that the corbyn-istas were considering a vote to get the labour party to

oppose and people like hillary benn voting to support strikes. for 48 hours, you have the possibility that labour could split. it was a high-stakes week. keith: cross examinations by commons committees are a feature of every westminster term. the collapse of kids company this year raised many questions. not least, why one charity had soaked up so much public money. kids company helped deprived young people in inner cities sort out their lives. the charismatic founder and chief executive, camila batmanghelidjh. one critic claimed senior ministers had become mesmerized by her. she was supported by the challenges chairman. in a committee session, questions rained down. >> we have seen reports of kids regularly receiving hundreds of

pounds a week. could that be possible? >> no. some did. >> so the answer is yes? >> not kids, for starts. most 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. >> but you said not under 18, suggesting people over the age of 18 were receiving hundreds of pounds. is that the case? >> not hundreds of pounds. >> how much? >> it depended on circumstances. you want me to give you an answer without context. >> we want you to answer the questions, i am afraid. >> could you tell me how you help someone's mental health by buying them a pair of shoes that cost 150 pounds? >> excuse me. hold on.

the way you have put that question is really unjust. no, i would like to answer it. please let me answer it. because actually, the structure of the question is immensely disrespectful to vulnerable people. >> your answer, please. >> i would like to answer it. you can have mental health difficulties. and you can still need a pair of shoes. >> isn't it your duty as chairman of the board of trustees to ensure you have adequate resources in terms of command reserves to maintain a level of service? >> i think you are misrepresenting this extremely badly. let's be absolutely clear. until 2014, there were no questions about the financial resilience of kids company. >> there were, clearly. forgive me.

>> could i contribute? this is a big piece of information. >> order, order. >> in 2014 onward, we did have problems. there is no question there were issues around reserves. up until that point, for all those years, from 2003 until 2014, it was well run, well-managed. in very difficult circumstances. keith: just before the politicians left westminster for christmas break, parliament passed a bill to bring in a national referendum on britain's continued membership in the eu. for everyone under 59, it will be the first such european vote. we know what the question will be. not so much "yes-no," more "in-out." we even know where the final result will be declared. it will be at this building in manchester. but we do not know when the vote will be.

david cameron embarked on talks with european leaders as he attempted to secure a better deal for the u.k. in late october, we found out the terms the prime minister wanted for britain. when the european minister explained what they were, plenty of tory back benchers were not impressed. >> we want to enable national parliaments to work together to block unwanted european legislation, building on arrangements in the treaties. we have proposed that people coming to britain should live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing and that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas. >> after all the statements made by the prime minister and my right honorable friend, the foreign secretary being in europe, pledging to restore the primacy of national parliaments, pledging to get an opt out from the charter of fundamental rights to restore our borders --

after all of that, is that the sum total of this government's position in the negotiation? >> my friend must know this is pretty thin gruel, much less than people have come to expect. it takes a few words out of the preamble but does nothing about the substance of the treaties. to me the aim is to make howard wilson's renegotiation look respectable. but it needs to do more. keith: the scottish parliament was never far from mp's thoughts in the final months of 2014. the commons approved more powers following a pledge made by the westminster leaders to secure the rejection by the scots of independence one year ago. but as a counterweight to devolution, the government also

came up with a policy for westminster called english votes for english laws. for the first time, english mp's would have the final say on english only legislation. scottish nationalists were not pleased. >> the basic principle of what has been secured by these plans is me and my friends here will be second-class citizens in the parliament of the united kingdom of britain. that is simply unacceptable to us. scotland is watching this. scotland is watching this. the mood is darkening. if this is an exercise in saving the union, you could not have contrived a more inept way to save the union. >> would the gentleman agree it was the people who wanted to see this happen? >> we have a legitimate view when it comes to this. we reject to be made second-class citizens in this parliament. this is our parliament as much as hers. this is a u.k. parliament, not northern ireland. yet, we have to accept second-class status. no wonder the mood is darkening

in scotland. >> at this time, all of us are equal. i can vote on exactly everything the leader of the house can vote for in this chamber. if it goes through, tonight onwards, i will be denied an opportunity to vote on behalf of the people who elected me on matters which may affect them. that is wrong. >> we have waited 18 years for some justice in the settlement that was forced upon us against our will. can my right honorable friend think of any good reason an english mp could give against voting against these moderate proposals? >> these relatively modest proposals do something powerful, which is allow us to say to our constituents, and i say this as a member of belfast representing an english constituency, in the future, there is no chance of

members of parliament imposing upon them something they do not want in england. the reason there is so much opposition is they realize this is a safety valve that will protect the future of the united kingdom. >> deputy speaker, i could not put it better myself. the proposed changes enable us to give an answer to our constituents, to say that england will have its own piece of devolution settlements without removing any member of parliament from the chamber. >> the honest truth is this is not a conservative set of measures. it is actually a dangerous set of measures. it is a bureaucratic nightmare. i think honorable members will regret it. it is as if the prime minister decided to fashion a new grievance for scotland -- god knows they have never needed a new grievance -- because he wanted to antagonize them. >> what we are debating today is

the least worst option on the table, in my view. would we start from this point in a perfect world? no, we would not. >> it seems to me that these proposals are put forward on the basis something has to be done. the most dangerous words you will hear in parliament. >> this is a divisive measure that differentiates between members of parliament. it does not allow us to speak when we want to on behalf of the people that have sent us here. keith: the commons voted the change through. so english votes for english laws is in place. >> ayes, 312. nos, 270. keith: one labor mp from cardiff had a suggestion. >> now that we have created different classes of mps, would

it be convenient for the house to consider issuing different color passes to the different type of mp so it would be easier for them to be recognized? perhaps blue for scottish, red for welsh? dimwit and pipsqueak, examples of on parliamentary language ruled out over the years. what about "robot"? john woodcock tested boundaries during a debate in november when he refused to take intervention from the snp. >> i was just detailing the disgraceful mess they are making of schools in scotland, where the poorest children are being left behind. if you would not mind -- you see, i would have been happy to take every single one of you robots. i would have been happy.

but the thing is, madam deputy speaker, the proponents of the motion refused point-blank to take me. i am not taking any single one of you. >> i was just turning over in my mind whether the description "robot" for a member of this house would be considered to be derogatory. and i have come to the conclusion that, in some circumstances, it might. in some, it might not. and for the moment, i am concluding for my own peace of mind that the honorable gentleman was thinking of a high-functioning, intelligent robot. and, 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 very careful in our use of language.

joined once again by allegra stratton. the sound and fury of scottish nationalists -- does this really justify the outbursts from snp? >> i have heard a talk about a english vote that would require a welsh mp, scotch mp's would make, as the lobby and you say, this sound and fury. this is a moment for them to megaphone home to people in scotland that westminster does not work for you. this is one of the reasons we should split apart. keith: it has been an interesting meeting about security with nicola sturgeon and david cameron. snp do notatives and

usually have much in common, but do you think the leaders get on well? >> i am told it is a good working relationship and that the two need each other. they have different imperatives. david cameron, he needs to not let nicola sturgeon have too many pops at him. he needs to create the sense that the u.k. is working well together. nicola sturgeon, slightly different calculation in the run-up to the elections of next year. for the reasons we discussed, she needs to look like she still has him on the run, proving that he does not have her people's best interest at heart. -- cansnp canton continue to make the case that david cameron is not on their site, it will work pretty well. but behind the scenes, they get along pretty well. her predecessor, it was a much more tempestuous relationship. he was more prone to walking out of a meeting with a conservative prime minister or any prime minister and have some fun with it. and that is not her style.

keith: the european union, we can't not mention it. the eu referendum has cleared parliament. so the legislation is going along. now, david cameron has not had a tremendously successful few months. it is not looking good for him. >> i am surprised by how they handled this. it is looking good for them in that there is a view in downing street they want to do this quickly. they do not want it to dominate this parliament. a june referendum, you avoid the prospect of another migrant crisis. the image of people fleeing syria to get into europe, that happened last summer. some believe that showed a tiny spike in support for that camp. the view in downing street is, let's get this done quickly. the referendum becoming law soon allows that to the possible. the thorny issue is on the issue

of immigration and tax credits. why i am surprised at how they've handled this is because they are looking, at the moment, on the back foot. we are not getting what he wants on tax credits. there are a series of compromises too complicated for here, but immigration could harm the prime minister. keith: 2016 -- will jeremy corbyn spring a few surprises himself? >> i think jeremy corbyn, unless factors come into view my profession has not seen, which is possible, i think he is around for a very long time. and i think that the key test for him will be the may elections.

the question will be if you have patchy results for labor. if it looks like they do not do well in scotland, maybe the tories beat them to second place, but he cannot beat zach goldsmith. it could be that jeremy corbyn has another firewall to protect himself. after that point, there is the possibility that people close to him change leadership roles so it is easier for him not to be challenged. essentially, those who oppose him have a window between may and september. i am not sure they are going to be able to move again. keith: we will see what happens. thank you for joining us on "westminster in review." we will see if the predictions of allegra stratton come true. as we know, parliament not only debates the big issues like finances, and welfare cuts, it can also debate issue slightly lower down. in november, a half-hour debate

on these fellows -- should the humble hedgehog become the national symbol for britain? doing for the nation what the kangaroo does for australia? a conservative mp was concerned about the dwindling numbers of the british hedgehog. >> in a bbc wildlife film, hedgehogs were chosen as the best natural emblem for the british nation, beating the charismatic badger and the sturdy oak. the victory for the ultimate underdog came about with 42% and more than 9000 votes being cast for the hedgehog. >> aristotle points out that the hedgehog carries apples on his spines into his nest. seville argues he travels with grapes on his spines. but i would like to challenge

assertionble member's the hedgehog should become our national symbol. i ask 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 into a ball and puts its spikes up? do we want to have as our national symbol an animal that sleeps for six months of the year? or would we rather to return to the animal that is already our national symbol? i refer, of course, to the lion. majestic, courageous, proud. keith: rory stern showing unique knowledge about hedgehogs. plenty for us to think about. a new year with no shortage of events happening each day. so we will be here with our daily roundup at 11:00 each evening.

for now, goodbye. ♪ >> as 2015 wraps up, c-span presents "congress: the year in review," a look back at the debates and hearings on capitol hill this year. join us thursday, december 31 at 8:00 p.m. eastern as we revisit mitch mcconnell taking his position as majority leader. pope francis's historic address to congress. the resignation of house speaker john boehner and the election of paul ryan. the debate over a nuclear deal with iran, and the reaction of congress to mass shootings, gun control, and the rise of isis.

thursday, december 31, at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> next, a look at race relations and the criminal justice system as part of a daylong forum hosted by the atlantic that included law enforcement and elected leaders. the event began with opening remarks from margaret low-smith. margaret: good morning everybody. me, race team behind and justice in america. this theater is the perfect place to hold two-day summit. 1920's, whenin the segregation kept african-americans out of every other venue. duke ellington, billie holiday, louis armstrong all performed

here. you can just imagine it. than the place shut down in 1968 after the riots and did not open again until the mid-90's. here we are many decades later, and the topic of race and justice in america is just as raw as it has ever been. the gathering was inspired by ta-nehisi coates, who wrote our cover story last month, the case of a black family in the age of mass incarceration. he examined this country's history of incarceration over the past 50 years and has tried to understand how america has out-in carteret did every other country in the world and what it has done to families. many of the photos illuminated his work on the page. today, we lift that story to the stage and we will talk honestly about a difficult subject.

we will expand the conversation to contemplate the role of the court. we will meet police and learn about life on the front lines. we will explore rehabilitation and the case for help. it is important to say that none of this would be possible without the support of underwriters. i want to thank them. the open society foundation, the choice foundation, the jacob lang foundation. we will get rolling in a moment. , we may be steeped in history at the lincoln theater, but the wi-fi works. atlantic live is the network. "racejusord is tice2015." that is our twitter handle too. we will take your questions across the day. with that, it is a delight to let the conversation begin. it gives me enormous pleasure to introduce my colleagues, james

bennet and corresponded ta-nehisi coates -- correspondent ta-nehisi coates. [applause] >> good morning. thank you very much for joining us here. objective in this first conversation of the day is to establish some of the background and set some of the themes. you cannot hear me? i am sorry. how about now? is the mic kicking in? we may have to shout. ta-nehisi: ok. james: if this becomes unbearably loud, let me know. we will try to set out some of the themes we will be exploring today. with the to start is

history of how we found ourselves where we find ourselves. in the piece that margaret referred to a few minutes >> he intended something very different with that report. when it is first rolled out, lyndon johnson said of family breakdown for this most of all, white america must accept responsibility. he says it was in centuries of oppression and persecution of the negro man. so, how is it that is well intended report resulted in mass incarceration? , wow that isd incredible. daniel patrick moynihan -- can