20/04/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

It's bad news for the Prime Minister, but even worse for Nick

Clegg! Tory backbenchers are warning David Cameron that there

will be a rebellion "off the scale", if he presses ahead with the Deputy

Prime Minister's pet project, House of Lords reform. Could this be the

row that breaks the coalition? Troublesome Lib Dem peer Matthew

Oakeshott joins us. And, as Theresa May endures that

ritual of British politics, the Home Secretary getting a thoroughly

good kicking, we ask where the Abu Qatada debacle leaves the Home

Secretary? And, it was billed as a decisive

moment in the UK's efforts to reform the European Court of Human

Rights. But, has the Brighton Declaration lived up to the hype?

Ken Clarke thinks so. The President of the Court, who's also British,

not so much. We'll ask Tory MEP Martin Callanan,

and former Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer.

And, it's an election frenzy on the Daily Politics today. We'll hear

what's happening in Wales. Meet the Uruguayan immigrant

standing as the BNP's candidate for London Mayor.

And, talk to a French socialist hoping to be elected as the member

All that in the next cosmopolitan, sophisticated and truly

international hour of public service broadcasting.

And, alongside me throughout, Agnes Poirier, UK editor of French news

magazine, Marianne. And, rather less exotically, it has

to be said, Matt Chorley from the Independent on Sunday.

Welcome. So, it's not a great morning for

anyone with Prime Minister in their title. For David Cameron, the

headlines about Theresa May and her troubled relationship with the

calendar are bad. The poll that puts Labour a whopping 13% ahead,

even worse. And that's before we get to his restive backbenchers,

who warned last night that they would not support plans for House

of Lords reform. That's where Nick Clegg's headaches begin. With his

party desperate for a victory on constitutional reform, to make them

feel better about this whole coalition business.

So, what's been going on in Westminster overnight? Our

political correspondent Carole Walker joins us.

4th 4th of the Prime Minister was not at this meeting of Tory

backbenchers. From all of the reports, they were in rebellious

mood? I think the word will certainly get back to David Cameron.

Tory MPs have had a testing time with rows over the pastry tax,

granny tax, the possible fuel strike. It seems like they seized

on this issue of House of Lords reform to say pretty strongly that

they will not put up with it. They feel this is a pet project of the

Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister. They are concerned at the

idea of a largely elected House of Lords would lead to difficulties

and conflict between the two Houses of Parliament. They think any plan

to radically reduce the House of Lords will clog up the Houses of

Parliament for quite some time and dominate the headlines. Their

constituents will be wondering why they are preoccupied with the inner

workings of Parliament when they are more concerned about jobs and

the economy. So, it is pretty clear there is a huge amount of hostility.

There was some surprising guidance from Downing Street, saying those

who spoke out against reform were not representative of Tory

backbenchers. But there were over 40 who took this line. If they are

representative, what does Mr Cameron do? He is in a very

difficult position. Because, this issue of House of Lords reform,

part of the constitutional reform agenda was part of the price of the

Coalition for Nick Clegg. There is no doubt the Prime Minister will

have a huge problem in terms of his own party. I have spoken to MPs

from a number of different wings of the party and all of them are angry

about this on a number of different levels. The key one is this simply

do not feel this is the issue that the government should be focusing

on and driving through, with all of the battles that will involve, at

this current time. So he will have a difficult ride. Quite a few MPs

now say that, if it is going to go ahead and there will be reform of

the Lords, they should be a referendum. That is something on

which you could see rebellious Tory MPs finding common cause with

Labour of which could make it even more difficult to get any proposals

through. So, there could be trouble ahead. And, who better to ask about

it than troublesome Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott. Alongside former

Labour Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer.

The Conservative MPs are not up for this? Troublesome. Totally on

message. The coalition and Liberal Democrat message. About 40 of them

spoke against it. I can tell you plenty of gazetted MPs are in

favour. There have been some very good ones on the Joint Commission

reported on Monday. You think that this committee meeting of the 1922

Committee last night, which every MP who spoke, except one, was

against proceeding with reform, as Nick Clegg once. But it doesn't

matter? I didn't say that. The important thing is Liberal Democrat

MPs are totally united in favour, it is coalition policy. Electing

the house of Lords was in all three major parties's manifestos,

including yours, Charlie. You made it quite clear you, of the party

was in favour of an elected House of Lords and getting rid of the

hereditary principle. Those policies were put to the country.

The Conservative manifesto, you keep saying this was in the

Conservative manifesto and coalition agreement. It isn't. The

Tory manifesto says we will work to build a consensus. To replace the

current House of Lords. It doesn't say we will reform, but we will

work to build a consensus. Clearly, there is no consensus. You have

consistently said the coalition agreement... The coalition

agreement simply says, we will establish a committee to bring

forward proposals. For a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber.

Bringing forward proposals. That commits nobody to anything. It does.

It is a clear understanding between the two parties that is what we

would propose. That is the deal. Your party could save the day, no

matter how disillusioned the Tories are, by voting with the Liberal

Democrats for a second elected chamber? We could and we would if

they were worthwhile proposals. But they're saying everything is

wonderful in the current arrangement, except the Lords are

not elected. So let us change, but keep anything else, including the

primacy of the Commons. A nonsensical idea. Once we are

elected, we will assert ourselves against the Commons and there will

be gridlock. You can't have an inferior second chamber which is

also elected. Get back to the drawing board. A back to the

drawing-board. An excuse for never doing anything. Let me say, 800 of

us, very complacent dinosaurs, what will you do about the hereditary

principle? I don't believe and I see no reason why an elected House

of Lords as all three parties are in favour of, should mean there

should be a change in the power balance. At the moment, the Commons

actually is now had more power by using this financial privilege.

We're having some movement away. I think we should stick to the

balance there has been. You reject the unanimous conclusion that had

Lords Bill, Commons, Tories, Liberal Democrats, off the existing

conventions go up the window. Excuse me, I was on that committee,

it did not say that. It did not accept, and those of us in favour

of reform, supported that on the basis that was a separate issue. We

did not say on that committee you had to change the powers before

changing the composition. I was there. I was actually there, I was

on that committee. You were not. You obviously never read the report.

Can I remind you again of the words of the Conservative manifesto. We

will work to build a consensus. It doesn't sound like you have done it.

He don't have to have unanimity in the Conservative Party to have a

decision. You are relying on the manifesto which has been shot to

pieces. Also, you are very unrepresentative of most of the

Labour Party, the Labour leadership in the Commons, you are a dinosaur.

I think you are getting a phone call from your leader! I think what

my party once, is a sensible Bill. And yours is total rubbish. What he

wants I am sure is a form and a democratic House of Lords as well

as Commons. We won't get it while dinosaurs are blocking the way.

hit is an issue which nobody cares about, according to the polls.

you ask people what are the most important issues facing Britain,

the reform of the Lords gets 0%. How all this play about? If the

entire summer is dominated by this, it will play out very badly. It's

the opponents who say this is mad to make this a number one priority.

Nick Clegg wants it. His party wants it more than he does. For he

wants it. After losing the alternative vote referendum. Number

10 is still saying the promised it is still committed. -- the Prime

Minister. How do you let the second chamber in France? It is elected to

start with. They got rid of Lords during the Revolution! Which is an

easy way to go about it. There is an intellectual case for it. I am

amazed you say 0% of people are concerned. It is very important.

you ask every opinion poll, it says most people are in favour of

collecting it. It is not top of their list. The only reason it will

clog up Holland visit the people who are against it spend time time-

wasting. People want current paces macro to have a long period before

change. If there is a referendum, it looks a good idea... Let me be

clear. You are speaking for the party that now wants to give us a

referendum on an issue no one cares about. But the party which wouldn't

give us a referendum... In relation to the Lords, we always said there

would be a referendum. In relation to Lisbon, and cut remember the

precise timing, it went away for some reason -- I can't remember.

You support an elected, your party supports an elected chamber. Stop

the politics and support him. upping macro, it is a very bad

proposal which would be bad for the country -- no. I'll be asking the

Deputy Prime Minister about this issue, when he joins me on the

Sunday Politics. On BBC One, this Now, the papers this morning don't

make great reading for the Government. Do we detect a theme

here? Many are splashing on the news that the radical cleric Abu

Qatada could be released on bail within weeks because of the

confusion surrounding his deportation. It's a further blow to

the Home Secretary Theresa May, and her department. Mrs May insists

that Abu Qatada's lawyers have his deportation. But a spokesman

for the European Court says the appeal, lodged on Tuesday evening,

was "just in time". The judge here who approved Abu Qatada's arrest at

the start of the week, Mr Justice Mitting, says that "if it is

obvious after two or three weeks that deportation is not imminent"

then he would reconsider bail for Abu Qatada.

Meanwhile the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke hailed a new declaration,

agreed in Brighton, to reform the European Court. Mr Clarke says

there will be more "subsidiarity" and a "margin of appreciation" -

that means more decisions made by national courts. However, the

President of the European Court, a Brit called Nicholas Bratza, said

he was "uncomfortable with the idea that governments can in some way

dictate to the court how its case law should evolve or how it should

carry out the judicial functions Not a lot of enthusiasm there from

the President. Charles Falconer is still with us and we're joined from

the home of the European Court, Strasbourg, by Martin Callanan the

Tory MEP who heads the right of centre European Parliament grouping

of which the Conservative Party are members. Welcome to both of you.

Charlie Falconer, let me come to you first. You are a lawyer as well

as a former politician and former Lord Chancellor. Did Theresa may

get the old days right or not? think she might have got it wrong.

-- did she get the date right? The convention says you have to make

the appeal within three months and the guidance documents say it

includes the day of the judgment but other cases say it does not

include the day of the judgment. It is very confusing, but if you are

confused by that, the right thing is to wait until the last possible

date and then it said you were going to deport. Instead she took a

risk. I don't know what advice she had got. I read in the newspapers

she was evasive about saying what advice she got. I do not know who

took the risk. The right thing to do if your stated stance was to say

you would only move to deport him once the time for appeal had gone,

then you should wait for that time for appeal unequivocally. And get

clarity from Strasbourg as to what they considered was the right thing.

She should have waited until the end of the next day and there would

have been no argument one way or another. The problem she has ended

up in is that somebody, whether it was hurt or a lawyer, took a risk

that the view it ended on the Monday was right, and it has now

turned out to be wrong. The court has now said it was within time.

is a technical issue, but there are bigger symbolic issues. Let me go

to Martin. If Abu Qatada gets released on bail, is that curtains

for the Home Secretary? No, I don't think so. I think Theresa May is on

the side of the angels and is doing an excellent job. It is just the

angels are not sure what day it is. This argument about dates is

interpreted and reinterpreted by the court, and this is the problem

with it, it makes the law as they go along about what people ought to

save rather than what it does say. But going back to the principles,

this guy has been illegally in the country for 20 years and successive

Home Secretaries have considered him a threat to national security

and he was labelled a terrorist sympathiser by a judge and he

detests what we stand for in the UK. Everybody wants rid of him. We know

that, but none of you can find a way of doing it. The problem is

that the European Court of Human Rights substituted judgment on

elected politicians in the UK and even in the UK courts and the UK

taxpayer is funding both sides of the case. We know that, and we have

heard it endlessly, politicians come on to this programme wringing

their hands about this all the time. Should the Home Secretary do what

the French and the Italians do and just put him on a plane to Jordan?

No, she can't. That would be contrary to the law and we abide by

the law in the UK and a thing that is correct. What we should do is

change the law and abnegate the European Convention of Human Rights,

withdraw from it and then it will be perfectly legal for Abu Qatada

to be deported. Kenneth Clarke says the Brighton agreement, which has

been unveiled this morning on the European Court, will make a big

difference to the way it works. The President of the court says it will

not change the way it -- we do our jobs. Who is right? Eyes suspect

the President of the court is right, because the job of interpreting it

lies with him and his fellow judges, most of whom are not even legally

qualified. Most of them are political appointees and they will

interpret the law as they see fit. That is what they have done all

along. It sounds like you do not trust your justice secretary on

this. I am suspicious of his motives, I have to say. I prefer

the interpretation of Tereza May. The point is, Charlie Falconer, can

you point to any of the clauses in the Brighton declaration that would

have made a difference to the Abu Qatada case? They are saying they

will streamline the process is. The subsidiarity staff won't add any

difference to the result -- the subsidiarity stuff. But they are

saying their procedural changes that will make it quicker and there

are complaints about what happened with Abu Qatada because some people

say he's ability to appeal means the process takes so long. It has

taken 10 years and everyone is exasperated about that. I am more

hopeful than your other guest that it will make a difference. I have

no idea what difference it will make. We have a situation in the UK

way you have a final court of appeal that will hear around 60

cases per year. What you need the the European Court of Human Rights

is a coarse -- a court that he is a small matter cases, sets out the

principles, and decides things in a reasonable time. People are fed up

with any party's ability to sort this out. This man was allowed in

illegally under a Tory government, then in 2001 under the Labour

government for nine years, you fail to get progress in getting him out,

and now we have a Tory government back in and we are not quite sure

what day of the week it is. question about the timing is one

that could have risen in an English case. The problem is that the time

these things take. It is right to have a court out of the country

that is saying, regionally, for Europe, what is the standard of

human rights. That is a good thing and insures people are protected.

What is a bad thing is... Why can't they be protected by the British

Supreme Court which is nine of the best qualified judges in the world?

The Kozuka always have a government saying you can disagree -- because

you can always have a government that disagrees and says the courts

in Britain were wrong. You have to have something outside the UK.

United States doesn't. But they have judges who can strike down

legislation. So you have an independent protective in the US of

people's human rights. Why is this not an issue in France? I do not

know why in Britain we always blame Europe. Because we stick to the

rules and in France you just put them on a plane. Mr Sarkozy has

just done it. But we did not involve the European Court of Human

Rights on this. It might be down to the more authoritarian nature of

the French state, perhaps. And it is very difficult to get to the

European Court of Human Rights in France. The funding is more

difficult. We are a nation where we make access to the courts,

including the European Court, very easy would you are rich or poor. I

am not sure if it is like that in France. Frankly, the political

establishment do not know what to do. The reforms, most people think

they won't make much difference, and he says we should just leave.

David Cameron is not going to just leave and couldn't give a coalition

with the Liberal Democrats. It is a stalemate for the future. It is,

and a lot of legal process is complicated and people cannot

Follett. When you get down to a Monday or Tuesday, people can

follow that. People think if you have waited 10 years and you cannot

wait another day... Everyone agrees that we should get rid of him, so

why, do that? You want Britain to pull out of the European Court of

Human Rights altogether. Do you want us to have our own British

Bill of Rights? I think that is a matter Parliament can determine.

was asking you. What benefit accrues to the UK from our

membership of this court? I don't feel my human rights are under

threat. We are the country that had the Magna Carter, the British Bill

of Rights and by human rights are well protected. The idea not one to

be protected by judges from Belarus and the Ukraine. -- I do not want

to be protected. There are only two courses in the Magna Carter that

are still part of British law and a British Bill of Rights was at the

end of the 17th century. If you are so convinced this is the right way

to go, how come you have not convinced your prime minister?

think David Cameron probably does support that view. He doesn't

support the idea of full withdrawal from the European Court. Let's see

what is in the next Conservative manifesto. The problem is we are in

coalition with the Liberal Democrats to believe it is fine for

us to be dictated to by these various tribunals and courts.

doubt Abu Qatada will be here to read the next Conservative

manifesto. Probably! Thank you for joining us. We had trouble getting

you earlier, but it's good to see. Now, we're going election crazy on

the Daily Politics today. First up, France. It's the last day of

campaigning before voters go to the polls on Sunday in the French

presidential elections. Nicolas Sarkozy is in Nice and Francoise

Hollande in Bordeaux making their final pleas for votes today. The

campaigning starts tonight, Saturday is quiet, and then they go

to the polls. Opinion polls show the two men are neck-and-neck, but

Socialist candidate Mr Hollande is favourite to win a run-off vote.

Probably by quite a big majority if the opinion polls are right. Here's

Susana Mendonsa with all you'll need to know your onions on the

French election. I should warn you that her report contains some flash

The French Presidential Election is upon us and there's everything to

play for for the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. He'll need the help

because this is a very tight race, and if the voters decide that it's

"au revoir", he'd become the first French president not to be re-

elected for a second term in more The French elect their president in

a two stage process, starting with stage one this weekend. To be

elected on the first round alone, one of the ten candidates would

have to win an absolute majority at the polls on Sunday. If none of

them achieve that, then the the top two candidates will face each other

The front runners are Conservative Sarkozy, and Socialist Francoise

Hollande who's promising change. Polls this week put him at 29%,

edging every so slightly ahead of Sarkozy who's on 28%. The rest of

the candidates veer from the far left to the far right and will most

likely be eliminated this weekend, but where their supporters go could

be the tipping point, with Hollande favourite to win the second round.

And this is the man whose votes he'll hope to pick up, the Left

Front's Jean-Luc Melenchon. While Sarkozy will hope that far right's

National Front leader Le Pen's supporters will vote for him. But

that's forced both men to appeal to the extremes. One of Melenchon's

more controversial ideas is to confiscate all income over 360,000

euros a year. Holland followed that up with a pledge to tax income

above one million euros at 75%. Sarkozy has sought to claw back

right wing voters with policies like pulling out of Europe's

borderless zone unless there's a crackdown on illegal immigration.

And after the shootings in Toulouse by the son of Algerian immigrants,

he's proposed tougher laws against But it's on the economy that who

wins in France affects us here in Britain. Sarkozy's support for a

financial transaction tax on the banks is looked upon with suspicion.

And Hollande's tax and spending approach might force Germany to

look towards Britain. I am glad I gave a warning about the flash

photography. And I'm delighted to say we are joined by the Socialist

candidate for Nord Europe - the constituency for ex-pat French

nationals which includes those living in the UK, Axelle Lemaire.

The vast majority of French people living in the UK are in the London

area. A lot of them work in the city. As a Socialist candidate, is

it quite hard to campaign for these people's boats as so many of them

have come to London to escape people like Francoise Hollande.

I've don't think they'd come to escape him. I think they came to

London and were attracted by offers in the job market. I think people

working in the city, what they want, they want a strong economy for

France and long-term policies and a stable economy likely to attract

foreign investments. This is something Nicolas Sarkozy has not

The French people I know who live in London escaped France because he

believed there were not the kind of jobs they could get in London, and

because taxes were too high. Well, Nicolas Sarkozy has actually

created 45 new taxes in five years. The public debt has doubled in 10

years. You are not going to cut these taxes. That depends for whom.

Mr Hollande wants to introduce progressive taxation. So there

would probably be more French people paying taxes, but the edit

is to make it progressive. That means the wealthiest have to pay.

It is already quite progressive. Mr Hollande is suggesting if you earn

over one million euros, your marginal rate will become 75%. How

much money would that raised? think he is doing that for the

symbolic aspect of it. And because this would concern 3,000

individuals. The important tax rate to look at is the 45%, which would

concern earnings between 150,000.1000000 Euros euros. Why is

it symbolically important? Because taxation is very unfair in France

and people are fed up with the richest paying less taxes, than

bloke and middle-class citizens. Mr Hollande were to implement the

centre by % tax, you would need to book far ahead on the Eurostar

because it will be packed with millionaires. I am not sure. The

reason I came to Britain in 1975 was because of the new President

then. I love Britain too much now to go back. Don't be so sure about

the reason why. In a country surrounded by other countries,

France has borders with anyone and a tunnel would Britain, why won't

they leave? They will be taxed anyway. Nicolas Sarkozy proposed it

because he proposes everything that Mr Hollande is proposing as a

desperate measure. He says they will be taxed anywhere. If Mr

Hollande wins, will Jean Luc Melenchon who wants to confiscate

all money above 350,000 euros, a real socialist policy, where he get

a job in the government? I can't say, I don't know how Mr Hollande

will form his government. Jean Luc Melenchon has already announced he

does not want to be in government. That being said, it doesn't mean Mr

Hollande should not take into account the messages sent by the

people who would vote for Jean Luc Melenchon, as he would do for any

other candidate. If he is elected, he will be elected by the French

people and he will have to rule in the national interest. What lessons

are there for British politicians? An interesting campaign.

Interesting issues. In addition to the two main candidates, the others

have been interesting as well. obvious parallel is the Labour and

Tories worried about losing votes to the UKIP party. And the respect

party. We know David Cameron would want Nicolas Sarkozy to win but he

does a -- not know if it will happen. There is a love-hate

relationship. Of the two, he would prefer to have Nicolas Sarkozy.

is not so clear that it is in the interest of Ed Miliband for Mr

Hollande to win. In a sense it would be a victory for the left but

if it quickly unravels, as it did with Francois Mitterrand's early on,

that is not good news. If the policies start panning out, rich

people start leaving, tax revenues go down, then that will play out

badly. If your man wins, you could win as well. London voted last time

roughly the way France voted. So, you could be representing London

and the other areas in the French Assembly. If he does win, who do

you think will bring him to his senses more quickly? The bond

markets or Angela Merkel? people, hopefully. I was very

interested to read in the Economist today, this idea from the leaders,

that the addition -- that leaders have to work together to promote

growth. That is the message Mr Hollande would send to Angela

Merkel and hopefully they would agree on a fat the markets have to

be stabilised, to promote growth. Good luck with your dealings with

Angela Merkel. Am I right in thinking the Nicolas

Sarkozy campaign which at one stage but it clique around the events in

Toulouse looked like it was having a head of steam. But that has

petered out. What happened is all candidates have the same space on

radio and TV. Nicolas Sarkozy is very good at fireworks. But he is

not there anymore. Therefore, he is plummeting in the polls. So I am

right. If you are right! The Now, over the course of the

next couple of weeks we'll be interviewing all the candidates

vying to become Mayor of London. Yesterday we spoke to the Green

candidate Jenny Jones. Today, we speak to the BNP candidate. He's

called Carlos Cortiglia. He's originally from Uruguay. We'll

speak to him in a moment but, first, let's take a look at what he's

offering. On transport: he wants to look at

the possibility of abolishing the congestion charge.

He's also offering free weekend travel on the Underground and

trains. On crime: he wants to introduce

minimum five-year prison sentences for knife crime.

And he also opposes the use of water cannons on streets to cope

with rioting. He's also promising there'll be no

amnesties for illegal immigrants in the capital.

Carlos Cortiglia joins us now. Welcome to the programme. In 2010,

the BNP campaigned against, the immigrant invasion of our country.

And you are part of that invasion? Precisely. The reason is, the BNP

has to change. It wants to be a British National Party, has to stop

talking about 1930s ideas, which are ridiculous, and I invite anyone

who is a nationalist to watch the Battle of Britain, and to watch a

very good series done by Thames Television about the history of the

war. And to understand what British nationalism has to be about. It's

his not a continuity of that, but to start thinking about what is in

the best interests of Britain. are you saying you are not anti-

immigrant any more? We talk about illegal immigration, that is the

issue. People who are legally entitled, like me, to be in this

country, are not the issue. But the BNP national conceit is to offer

generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here, not illegal,

who wished to leave permanently. they want to. How much will it take

to send you back to Uruguay? A bid people want to make that choice,

they can. There is no argument that people who are legally entitled to

be here have the right to be a participant. So if we had a whip-

round to entice you to go back to Uruguay? You would have to raise a

lot of money. I established by family in the UK. My three children

are born in London. I have been here for almost a quarter of a

century. The reason I came here is still valid. I love this country

and I want to represent it and put an end to this chauvinism from

1930s which is not the solution for Britain's problems. The fact is,

immigration is your party's reason for being. People will find it

strange that someone who is an immigrant, who has done well in

this country, who is part of the reason why people think immigration

overall has been rather a good thing for Britain, particularly for

London, is representing a party that would send you back if it had

half a chance. The problem in this country, it is a situation all

political parties including the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats

and Tories agree on, -- Labour, it is not a question of stopping

people coming here. Countries, when they get people who can offer

something, if you have a country like the UK that has no control

over its borders because, basically, immigration policy has been

influenced by being a member of the European Union, we have elected

authorities, they should be running out immigration policy, not Europe.

But your party, there is a sense that you are a front man for this

party. Because you represented party, you don't say it yourself,

that would stop all new immigration. That is not at all. For that is BNP

policy, you would reject all asylum seekers. The issue of asylum

seekers is about illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. We have a

border a authority that just confessed they are not able to

manage the number of people coming in. That is different from saying

no more immigration. If we had that Lord today, you'll would not be

allowed in -- you would not be allowed in. I would say that is not

a policy of the BNP. It is their national policy. These islands off

the coast of Argentina. What you call them? The Falkland Islands.

Not the Malvinas Islands? In 1982, there was a dictator in Argentina.

Argentina was going down the drain. Who did you support? I supported

Britain. So this story that you tried to sign up for the

Argentinian forces? That is not true? It is not true, I was working

for the state education system, a teacher of mathematics that ear. I

did not move away from Montevideo. I was studying the English language

at the American Institute. I was studying journalism and I had

nothing to do with it. Why is such a well educated person representing

be BNP in this election? Because I do believe there is a need for

change. Why did you join UKIP? would say to you, David Cameron

said the BNP is a far-right party. I said jokingly, we are in the

middle. The point is... If you listen to the French election,

marine Le Pen, and Jean Luc Melenchon on the far left and right,

they're saying quite a lot of the same thing. If no, they're not.

Public services must be public services and one of our policies is

to stop the automation of the underground and maintain the

principle we need to protect public services. That is not a far right

cried but a socialist principle. To protect public services and workers.

The whatever you stand for isn't working, you are 1% in the polls.

would say to you, the issue of percentages is not the issue. In

British politics, it is participation. This is the first

time I have had a chance to talk about politics. In all of the

debates and hustings, including those organised by the BBC, and no

BNP is represented. We have run out of time.

Now, it's not just election time in London and France this spring. Oh

no, they'll be casting ballots in Scotland, across England and in

Wales too where there's good news and bad news for all four main

political parties. Labour's on the comeback trail, the Tories are on a

bit of a high, the Lib Dems have yet to face a major backlash as a

result of the Coalition in Westminster and Plaid Cymru made

gains at the local elections four years ago. So how might things pan

Thompson to Barry Island, home of Gavin and Stacey, to see who'll be

making the political weather in Barry, in the Vale of Glamorgan,

home to Britain's hardiest holiday makers and to a certain TV sitcom.

If you're not from Wales, Barry probably means Gavin and Stacey,

but politically this place as more about it than that, because what

happens in next month's local elections could give us a big clue

to the fate of the four main political parties in Wales and

beyond. So, what's occurring? At the moment there is a slim Tory

majority on the council and the one Westminster seat here as well.

Labour would like to take them both, and in general, Wales has been

something of a success story for the David Cameron team. How have

they done it and can they keep the area around Barry Blue? We have

broadened the base and branded ourselves as a Welsh party, at the

same time the other parties have moved to the left, so if you are a

centre right Botha in Wales, the only party is the Conservative

Party. But in Wales, lefties not necessarily a dirty word, and for

Plaid Cymru it is the key to building on the gains made in the

last set of local elections. We are to the left of Labour and that is a

message if it is bought in practical terms about the

difference it can make in the community can be positive, but we

do know that we face a challenge because when people are fearful, as

they are at the moment, the Labour Party says they have to vote Labour

to keep the Tories out and that is a message we have to counteract.

what about Labour? In the words of its former leader in Wales, the

party to go belting in the 2008 local elections. Since then there

has been a bit of a revival. But can Welsh Labour leader resurgence

of the party across the UK? There is a message in that we are less

associated with New Labour here. We have always been classic Labour,

not all Labour, but classic Labour as distinct from New Labour. I

think that has been a helpful message. If we can increase the

number of Labour-controlled authorities, in particular the big

ones like Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and Wrexham, that would be a major

advance and I think it would be a message for Labour, nationally.

Funnily enough, they are almost the main Welsh cities the Labour Dems -

- the Lib Dems are running. So can they avoid the mid-term blues this

time round? We are fighting the election in different circumstances

because of the power in Westminster, but it is clear that over the last

three years the Liberal Democrat councils have kept council tax

levels low and invested in schools and communities. There is no desire

for people to go back to Labour-led councils. The air is fun for

everyone in Barry, even on a day like this. And the main parties

hope they will be making the political weather on 3rd May. And

joining us from Cardiff to discuss all that, Vaughan Roderick, our

Welsh Affairs Editor. Good to see you in the Welsh Assembly. Mark our

card. As the results coming from Wales, what should we be looking

out for? Results in Wales are notoriously difficult to predict

because roughly a third of the councillors in Wales are

independent and because many of the parties, at least three of the four,

don't contest something like half of the wards. It is not a straight

battle between the four parties anywhere apart from the capital

city of Cardiff. This is the place you have to look at, the council's

mention their like -- by Rhodri Morgan, Cardiff, Newport, Swansea,

Wrexham, those are the ones fought by all the parties on party

political terms. Outside of those four, you have a mixture of

independence, at hoc groupings of small, local parties, which make it

difficult to draw conclusions. But we will want to look as well at

places that Labour should never have lost four years ago. The old

seat of Merthyr, and Neil Kinnock's old stamping ground. Labour lost

control of councils that covered those constituencies which they

should never have done. If Labour do not get those back, it will be a

very bad night for them. Now Labour are in opposition in Westminster

they will be looking to make some gains again in Wales. The Tories, I

assume, will try to hold what they have got because they are

historically in a decent position there compared to before. But Plaid

Cymru have a new leader. They have taken a bit of a hit in recent

years. Are they on the way back, do we think? It is the first big test

for Leanne Ward, the person who took over the leadership a few

months ago. Plaid Cymru think if they do not do well they can say it

is early days. But what may happen is that they will lose some seats

in urban Wales but they could offset that by gaining seats in the

rural areas from the independents. There does seem to be a gradual

decline in independence in Wales which will help the Tories as well.

When it comes to overall numbers we might see Labour going up but Plaid

Cymru and the Tory stain in the same place for which seats being

offset by gains elsewhere. For Roderick, thank you very much and

we look forward to the results and a couple of weeks' time. Vital

prescription drugs including those for breast cancer, heart disease,

diabetes are not being stocked in chemists around the country which

is leading to a dangerous short fall for patients who are having to

wait up will weep, which could be a bit scary. So who is to blame? The

manufacturers were not supply or the wholesalers selling drugs

abroad? In the studio we have Huw Irranca - Davies MP who has been

highlighting the problem and Samantha Ogden from The Association

of the British Pharmacuetical Industry. So, what is the problem?

The problem was illustrated by a constituent of mine who said to me

that she had been into the chemist looking for her breast cancer drug

treatment and was told she could not get it. The chemist had rung

the wholesalers and the local chemist and was now ringing the

manufacturers to get hold of this. She went for three days without it

and then they manage to get hold of one package. She is there every

fortnight asking for this. They know she's coming in. I was

disbelieving, but I went and looked at it and with the help of the

pharmacists organisations, what I have learnt is that this is a

problem across the UK and patients are at risk of damage to their

health. Who, in your view, is to blame? There is no one individual

calls for one individual to blame. The industry, across the supply

chain, has been doing a lot as a -- rectify this but evidence says it

is getting worse. It was acknowledged under Andy Burnham but

it has not been got to grips with. Some of the solutions are out there

and we are trying to persuade the government to take it seriously

because every debate we have in the Commons there is no acknowledgement

of the severity of the problem. can I come to this? In Britain we

are world leaders in pharmaceuticals. We are up there

with the Americans and the Germans. We own some of the biggest

pharmaceutical companies in the country and they are based here.

You see one on the way to Heathrow when you get a plane. How can it

happen in Britain? Pharmaceutical manufacturers supply medicines for

patients and they also make an effort to go beyond that and stock

anything between 50 and 30% more. The challenges that a small

percentage of pharmacists to have a business that not only prescribes

and dispenses prescriptions also trade medicines overseas for profit.

So it is their fault? I think they are part of the problem, yes.

you know they are doing that, should and should tell them to

stop? You are still getting the money. If the money is not going --

if the pills are not going to the people who need them, but you still

get the money it is a win-win situation for you. The challenge is

making sure the obligation to the patient. You're not doing that.

There is no way the pharmaceutical companies can differentiate whether

medicines are going, so in good faith they cannot say they are not

supplying to someone. If you have a massive order and you know it is

going abroad could you say you will not supply? Now, we don't know and

we can do that. In some areas we are in full agreement with you. One

of the issues is if you had the focus all away down you have to say

you have enough patience stock first. But the first responsibility

is that in most European countries they have a patient service

obligation. It might not be the solution completely, but it says

you have to maintain stocks or your own patients first. Are you to

going to work together to stop this? Because it is quite scary,

particularly if you are older, that you cannot get your drugs. You have

chemists at the moment saying that they are spending as much a six up

to eight hours a week instead of being on the counter helping people

with complaints. Well, come back and talk to us. Thank you for

coming in. So, MPs returned to Westminster this week after another

holiday. They will soon be going on another. But I wonder if David

Cameron wishes they hadn't bothered. Here is Giles with the Week in 60

One month on, and the budget continues to dominate political

debate. Ed and David were back in the thick of it with the Labour

leader taking on the PM over the charity, caravan and taxes on the

pasty. Even people in Downing Street are calling it a complete

shambles budget. Labour failed to block the granny tax but only by a

geriatric whisker. The backbench Tory did not improve David Cameron

smooth with a question about whether real life was just like the

Prime Minister? They are a few occasions when the gentlemen needs

a sense of humour. The elsewhere Theresa May was tackling the Abu

Qatada case ending up with us not knowing if she was coming or going

or what day it was. There was a little more love in evidence from

Chris Grayling who called on business and not so much too hard a

holiday but higher one. And after all that, it looks like Ed Miliband

is on the up after a poll in the Sun newspaper put Labour 13 points

A 13 point Labour lead this morning, the sort of thing oppositions

expect to have in the mid- term. This phrase of a complete shambles,

although the more accurate term we cannot use, and a thing we did last

night and got bleeped out, is it systemic? Will they get through

this? There is a sense in Downing Street of panic. There is a sense

that once this keeps going for a couple of weeks, everything gets

seen through the same lens. It will be difficult to spin the Theresa

May think positively, but if all the right-thinking newspapers were

onside, they might have given her the benefit of the doubt and blamed

the European Court, but to get scenes -- scene as they do not know

what they are doing and once you get to that place, how can you

convince people you are competent? So we could have a while to run.

The MPs are going on holiday again and we are waiting for the Queen's

Speech and there is nothing for us to write about. It builds up a head

of steam. Until the Queen's speech comes, there is nothing they can do

to get back the agenda. On Sunday night we get the results. The exit

polls we get about 8pm. 8pm sharp. So, seven coquille. It is like

religion. We are watching our TV screens at 8pm and the results come

in. The exit polls are pretty reliable in France. They had been

so far. Does Francoise Hollande come into this? They are made and

tuck in the first round, it always has been, but could Sarkozy get

some momentum by coming first in the first round? He could, but

there are 10 candidates and Jean- Luc Melenchon, he might take a big

chunk. But, obviously, the Melenchon voters will vote for

Francoise Hollande in the second round. You have to be careful. We

all hope for a surprise, but not that kind of surprise. Not like her

father who got into the final round that time. We will leave it there

and we will be watching on Sunday night. Good to see both. Good to

see today and thank you to our guests. The 1pm news is starting on

BBC One. And Joe and will be back with all the political news on

Monday. I will be back on BBC One on Sunday with the Sunday Politics

and I will be joined by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. It is at