Browse content similar to 03/09/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
Daily Politics. The worst refugee crisis for decades, says the UN, as | :00:45. | :00:50. | |
US politicians are told that missile strikes will significantly degrade | :00:50. | :00:55. | |
President Assad's military capacity, but as the crisis in Syria worsens, | :00:55. | :00:59. | |
Britain is left on the sidelines. The government legislates to | :00:59. | :01:03. | |
regulate lobbying, but good efforts to clean up British politics curtail | :01:03. | :01:07. | |
free speech? So you already knew you might be | :01:07. | :01:11. | |
eligible for PPI compensation 's does there need to be a change in | :01:11. | :01:14. | |
the law to clamp down on those nuisance calls? | :01:14. | :01:19. | |
And what you choose to wear to work might say about which political | :01:19. | :01:27. | |
party you support. All that in the next hour. With us | :01:27. | :01:30. | |
for the whole programme today is Admiral Lord West, or Alan West to | :01:30. | :01:34. | |
his friends. He was a security minister in the last government and | :01:34. | :01:39. | |
is still a Labour peer. And he used to be first Sea Lord. He is wearing | :01:39. | :01:43. | |
some appropriate socks, which he will now demonstrate for your | :01:43. | :01:49. | |
delight. We will come to those later. Let's start by talking about | :01:49. | :01:53. | |
the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers, and yet another damning report into | :01:53. | :01:56. | |
the way replacement carriers have been commissioned by the Ministry of | :01:56. | :01:59. | |
Defence. The Public accounts committee of MPs said this morning | :01:59. | :02:05. | |
that the cost of the project, which began in 2007, could spiral | :02:05. | :02:08. | |
uncontrollably. The decision to scrap plans for them to carry jump | :02:09. | :02:14. | |
jets and then switch back again wasted �74 million, and it now seems | :02:14. | :02:17. | |
that the first carriers could enter service before there early warning | :02:17. | :02:21. | |
radar system is ready. Here is what defence secretary Philip Hammond had | :02:21. | :02:30. | |
to say about it. We made a tough decision in 2012 to revert to the | :02:30. | :02:35. | |
other aircraft type. We did it to save �1.2 billion of public money, | :02:35. | :02:40. | |
because the project to fit catapults was running out of control. I said | :02:40. | :02:44. | |
at the time that the cost of making that decision would be up to �100 | :02:44. | :02:51. | |
million. It turns out that it is nearer to �75 million. That is a | :02:51. | :02:53. | |
sensible investment of public money in order to prevent a loss of a much | :02:53. | :02:59. | |
larger sum. Our guest of the day, Alan West, is | :02:59. | :03:03. | |
a former head of the Royal Navy. Did the coalition government make a | :03:03. | :03:07. | |
mistake when they decided to dump the last Labour government's plans | :03:07. | :03:15. | |
for jump jets? Yes, they did. They obviously had very bad advice from | :03:15. | :03:21. | |
within the Ministry of Defence. These people must be experts. | :03:21. | :03:25. | |
does make one wonder. I understand why they want to go for what is | :03:25. | :03:32. | |
known as the carrier variant, because it does not have to have all | :03:32. | :03:37. | |
the engines for vertical lift and it carries more weapons and more fuel. | :03:37. | :03:42. | |
That sounded a very attractive option. But catapults and Di Resta | :03:42. | :03:45. | |
wires on your aircraft. Because you have to adapt the aircraft in order | :03:45. | :03:51. | |
for these planes to take off and land. Absolutely. One would assume | :03:51. | :03:55. | |
they were making this change and that someone would have done some | :03:55. | :03:59. | |
sums, but clearly, they hadn't. That shows a certain incompetence within | :03:59. | :04:06. | |
the MoD. When civil servants and officials present ministers with | :04:06. | :04:11. | |
options, you talked about the fact that perhaps the variant fighter | :04:11. | :04:15. | |
jets were better. Does cost not play a big part in making those | :04:15. | :04:22. | |
decisions? Absolutely. Obviously, one wants capability, but it has to | :04:23. | :04:27. | |
be within cost parameters. Therefore, it is extraordinary. When | :04:27. | :04:32. | |
I was first Sea Lord, I insisted that new aircraft carriers were | :04:32. | :04:36. | |
designed so that should we change our mind about the type of | :04:36. | :04:40. | |
aircraft, we could easily convert it. When it came to the point of | :04:40. | :04:46. | |
doing it, that work had not been done. I am interested in them to | :04:46. | :04:50. | |
know what had been done in terms of the design work, because we paid | :04:50. | :04:55. | |
them to do that, and yet it was not ready to be converted. Cynically, | :04:55. | :05:00. | |
some might say, are there people within the MoD furthering their own | :05:00. | :05:06. | |
vested interests in certain types of military capability or certain types | :05:06. | :05:12. | |
of objects or vessels that they prefer? Inevitably, there are people | :05:12. | :05:18. | |
like that, but there should be mechanisms to stop that happening. I | :05:18. | :05:24. | |
think this did go wrong. The whole process, from the defence review in | :05:24. | :05:30. | |
1997-8, Labour said, we need these carriers if we are still to have any | :05:30. | :05:34. | |
chance of power projection. It has been a tortuous process. Decisions | :05:34. | :05:39. | |
have been made and changed, and they have cost a lots more than they need | :05:39. | :05:43. | |
have done, often because of political interference. Was it the | :05:43. | :05:46. | |
right decision to switch back to the original plan? Is Philip Hammond | :05:47. | :05:52. | |
right that overall, money will be saved by not pursuing the path taken | :05:52. | :05:59. | |
by his predecessor? I think so. This is water under the bridge, but way | :05:59. | :06:04. | |
back in 2002, the decision to have gone for different variant was made | :06:04. | :06:08. | |
them, but we lost that battle. we going to be better protected? | :06:08. | :06:12. | |
When we have the new aircraft carriers. We will have had ten years | :06:12. | :06:16. | |
without carriers, which is not clever. But when we get the new | :06:16. | :06:23. | |
carriers, it will make our forces safer and more capable. But will it | :06:23. | :06:27. | |
be necessary if we are not going to go into conflicts like Syria? | :06:27. | :06:32. | |
will still find ourselves involved in things all over the world. We run | :06:32. | :06:40. | |
global shipping from this country. Sadly, I wish there were not any | :06:40. | :06:43. | |
actions. And the taxpayer will have to foot the �74 million bill for the | :06:43. | :06:46. | |
conversion. Now, the United Nations has | :06:46. | :06:52. | |
registered more than 2 million refugees in the conflict. Another 5 | :06:52. | :06:55. | |
million have been internally displaced. The High Commissioner for | :06:55. | :06:59. | |
refugees has said the Syrian crisis is the tragedy of this century. In | :06:59. | :07:02. | |
Washington, Senator is preparing to vote on military action have been | :07:02. | :07:07. | |
told by President Obama that US attacks would significantly degrade | :07:07. | :07:11. | |
President Assad's military capacity and swing momentum from Assad to the | :07:11. | :07:15. | |
opposition forces. But Britain, of course, will not be involved. The | :07:15. | :07:21. | |
prime minister ruled out British involvement after last week's | :07:21. | :07:22. | |
Parliamentary votes. Yesterday, defence secretary Philip Hammond | :07:22. | :07:27. | |
told the Commons that the situation would have to change significantly | :07:27. | :07:32. | |
for the MPs to be consulted again. Labour echoed Mr Hammond's words, | :07:32. | :07:36. | |
but also sad Al-Qaeda getting hold of chemical weapons might persuade | :07:36. | :07:41. | |
them to change their position. America's new best friend is France. | :07:41. | :07:45. | |
Their National Assembly meets tomorrow, but unlike their British | :07:45. | :07:49. | |
and American counterparts, French deputies will not be given a vote. | :07:49. | :07:53. | |
Meanwhile, it has emerged that British military are being excluded | :07:53. | :07:57. | |
from Central command meetings in the US. The Foreign Secretary has been | :07:57. | :08:01. | |
answering questions about Syria this morning and specifically whether | :08:01. | :08:05. | |
President Obama had told senators any military action would be | :08:05. | :08:09. | |
necessary to tip the balance towards the opposition. President Obama has | :08:09. | :08:12. | |
made his purpose clear. He has now referred this to the United States | :08:12. | :08:20. | |
Congress, so we have to allow them to make their decision. We had our | :08:20. | :08:25. | |
vote last week. The US Congress will have its vote. But President Obama | :08:25. | :08:29. | |
is clear that any action proposed by the United States would be to deter | :08:29. | :08:34. | |
the further use of chemical weapons. I think we can take him at | :08:34. | :08:42. | |
his word. I will not criticise him for putting that forward. | :08:42. | :08:49. | |
We are joined now by our defence correspondent. We also heard from | :08:49. | :08:55. | |
the American general, who said that rather than limited targeted | :08:55. | :08:59. | |
strikes, if the American administration goes into conflict, | :08:59. | :09:02. | |
the American administration is prepared to hit Syria with some | :09:02. | :09:10. | |
force. Is that right? Yes, this is a former US general who was one of the | :09:10. | :09:16. | |
architects of the surge in Iraq. He has now retired, but is in close | :09:16. | :09:20. | |
contact with Senator John McCain. So is Lindsay Graham. They are both on | :09:20. | :09:24. | |
the hawkish side of this debate. They want more action on Syria from | :09:24. | :09:27. | |
I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.. They had a meeting with | :09:27. | :09:33. | |
President Obama, in which they said they were encouraged by the steps he | :09:33. | :09:40. | |
was prepared to take. The senator was left with the impression that | :09:40. | :09:46. | |
strikes were being planned. He believed they would be able to | :09:46. | :09:52. | |
significantly undermine the military capability of Syrian forces. You | :09:52. | :09:57. | |
have to see this in the context of what is going on politically, which | :09:57. | :09:59. | |
is that President Obama is clearly seeking the authorisation of | :09:59. | :10:05. | |
Congress. He has to get those who are hawkish in their views on side, | :10:05. | :10:10. | |
people like John McCain. But equally, he has talked about limited | :10:10. | :10:14. | |
strikes in public. He does not want boots on the ground. So I imagine | :10:14. | :10:18. | |
that when he speaks to those who are against military action, the message | :10:18. | :10:26. | |
will be different. So has the military objective changed? | :10:26. | :10:30. | |
hasn't changed. President Obama's number-1 goal is to deter the Assad | :10:30. | :10:39. | |
from using chemical again. And to deter them, you have to degrade the | :10:39. | :10:44. | |
Syrian military capability. You have to target the weapon systems and | :10:44. | :10:47. | |
units that have been accused of using those chemical weapon is. The | :10:47. | :10:53. | |
problem for President Obama is that now that we all know he is debating | :10:53. | :10:58. | |
his military strikes, it gives time for the military in Syria to move | :10:58. | :11:08. | |
:11:08. | :11:15. | ||
those assets, possibly into areas where there are population centres, | :11:15. | :11:25. | |
:11:25. | :11:39. | ||
to deter America from carrying out those strikes. It is a very | :11:39. | :11:41. | |
difficult calibration for President Obama, dealing both with Congress, | :11:41. | :11:44. | |
but also trying to keep the focus on what he can achieve militarily. With | :11:44. | :11:46. | |
us now is Bob Stewart, a Conservative member of the defence | :11:46. | :11:48. | |
select committee, and former British UN commander in Bosnia. Our guest of | :11:48. | :11:51. | |
the day, Alan West, former head of the Navy, is still here. Alan West, | :11:51. | :11:53. | |
last week we talked about this in Parliament. You were apprehensive | :11:53. | :11:56. | |
about Western intervention in Syria. Are you still apprehensive? I am, | :11:56. | :11:59. | |
because I want to know exactly what we try to achieve. It seems to me | :11:59. | :12:02. | |
that there was no charity to what we want to achieve. To say we want to | :12:02. | :12:04. | |
degrade his ability to use chemical weapons again, what exactly does | :12:04. | :12:06. | |
that mean in terms of an attack? Inevitably, you will change the | :12:06. | :12:09. | |
balance of capability in the civil war. And what then? We need much | :12:09. | :12:16. | |
more clarity about what we as a nation want out of military action | :12:16. | :12:22. | |
if we embark on it. Do you think there should be a further vote if | :12:22. | :12:25. | |
Congress votes yes for military strikes? Would you like to see them | :12:25. | :12:35. | |
vote yes? Probably yes. But as long as I know what they are embarking | :12:35. | :12:42. | |
on. I would like to have much greater clarity. I was slightly | :12:42. | :12:46. | |
shocked that a vote in our house, which was effectively just saying, | :12:46. | :12:51. | |
if we get further evidence, will we go ahead and do something? We have | :12:51. | :12:55. | |
got rid of that option, which is unfortunate. Do you want Congress to | :12:55. | :13:01. | |
vote yes for strikes in Syria? up to them, but yes. But I would | :13:01. | :13:06. | |
want is to have a second vote before military action. Last week's vote | :13:06. | :13:10. | |
was not about going to war. It was not about taking military action. As | :13:10. | :13:17. | |
Alan said, we would discuss what we might do in that second vote, and | :13:17. | :13:22. | |
that second vote will apparently now not take place. I am upset that we | :13:22. | :13:27. | |
have not had the opportunity to consider what we might do. It was | :13:27. | :13:34. | |
not a vote for war last week. that basis, it looks like senators | :13:34. | :13:39. | |
who previously said they did not think much of Obama's plans because | :13:39. | :13:42. | |
they did not go far enough now may support it action in Syria. Do you | :13:42. | :13:48. | |
think the objective of the US administration has changed? Are they | :13:48. | :13:52. | |
going to go for a broader military assault to degrade Assad's capacity | :13:52. | :13:57. | |
to launch or chemical attacks? will take President Obama on his | :13:57. | :14:04. | |
word, and his word was "we are going to degrade the capacity of the Assad | :14:04. | :14:08. | |
regime to use chemical weapons. We are not trying to do regime change" | :14:08. | :14:17. | |
. The rest of this is fluff. But in order to degrade, I am not a | :14:17. | :14:21. | |
military expert, but when they use terms like trying to degrade | :14:21. | :14:28. | |
Assad's capacity, what do you need? Almost inevitably, anything done | :14:28. | :14:36. | |
will have an impact, small large, on the balance within Syria. If he | :14:36. | :14:41. | |
decides to destroy lots of fighter jets and aircraft and helicopters, | :14:41. | :14:44. | |
that makes a huge change, because they are being used to attack his | :14:44. | :14:53. | |
own people. My worry looking to the future is that you get something you | :14:53. | :14:57. | |
don't want. Let's say the opposition took over in Syria. It is very | :14:57. | :15:01. | |
fragmented and there are extremely nasty bits of it. What happens when | :15:01. | :15:11. | |
:15:11. | :15:22. | ||
they start massacring Christians? Do And the point of it is we have to | :15:22. | :15:26. | |
stop for the use of chemical weapons. That is why we wanted to | :15:26. | :15:32. | |
debated in Parliament, which we cannot do. If there is a larger | :15:32. | :15:41. | |
military assault, could it tip the balance? Of course it well. -- it | :15:41. | :15:49. | |
will. We -- we do not know what the assault will be. I am taking | :15:49. | :15:59. | |
:15:59. | :16:01. | ||
President Obama on his word. general previously warned that even | :16:01. | :16:05. | |
limited strikes would involve hundreds of aircraft. The costs | :16:05. | :16:13. | |
would be in the billions. Do you agree with that? I am not sure I do. | :16:13. | :16:18. | |
This is the point, we do not know what is envisaged. It might be a | :16:18. | :16:23. | |
signal to Assad, do not do it again, a signal rather than extensive | :16:23. | :16:28. | |
destruction. The business of saying you are a naughty boy smacks of | :16:28. | :16:35. | |
empire. You need to have a clearer concept. What is the military | :16:35. | :16:40. | |
campaign plan? To say you are a naughty boy to somebody who is | :16:40. | :16:46. | |
clearly deranged if he has used chemical weapons, then you have to | :16:46. | :16:50. | |
do the follow one and the full one. You need to be clear what that is | :16:50. | :16:57. | |
and what you want to achieve. there any point in military action | :16:57. | :17:03. | |
that could achieve the limited, perhaps less limited air strikes, | :17:03. | :17:06. | |
that do not really degrade his capacity, and it will have been | :17:06. | :17:12. | |
pointless? We do not know. The fact of the matter is that at the moment | :17:12. | :17:17. | |
we are doing nothing. Thankfully, it does not seem chemical weapons | :17:17. | :17:22. | |
have been used again and that is the purpose of what we do. Whatever | :17:22. | :17:28. | |
we do, the yardstick we measure against should be, will this save | :17:28. | :17:35. | |
lives? Also, will it actually tell Assad not you ever used chemical | :17:35. | :17:42. | |
weapons again. Is that in itself worthwhile? It achieves that, | :17:42. | :17:47. | |
absolutely. We were galloping last week to be doing something | :17:47. | :17:56. | |
yesterday. It would have been happening on Sunday. We were not. | :17:56. | :18:06. | |
:18:06. | :18:13. | ||
That was not the motion. It changed. Last week, when I came into this. | :18:13. | :18:19. | |
We had asked for them to go in and asked the Russians to do that. We | :18:19. | :18:24. | |
had not explained what we were trying to achieve. We know the | :18:24. | :18:27. | |
British people are concerned. Those things should have been done. It | :18:27. | :18:32. | |
was hastily put together. The motion was changed. It was a shame | :18:32. | :18:36. | |
to rush us down that route. Better to do it in a balanced way, | :18:36. | :18:41. | |
checking through each thing. I regret the final result, to say we | :18:41. | :18:46. | |
will not think about it. We were not saying we were going to attack. | :18:46. | :18:52. | |
We were saying we would look at it when we had the evidence. | :18:52. | :19:00. | |
motion put those points in to play and we would have gone -- gone to | :19:00. | :19:09. | |
the United Nations. It was not a motion to deploy, News British -- | :19:09. | :19:19. | |
:19:19. | :19:21. | ||
use British military. It was a shambles. I was quite shocked. | :19:21. | :19:31. | |
:19:31. | :19:31. | ||
Labour shot? I think the front bench was shocked. I did not think | :19:31. | :19:39. | |
for a moment, you could see the shock. By wanted a signal to Assad | :19:39. | :19:44. | |
that what he had done has gone wrong -- I wanted. We have him | :19:44. | :19:49. | |
saying actually, the British are going to do nothing. Would you like | :19:49. | :19:54. | |
it to come back, if the circumstances were enough to | :19:54. | :19:59. | |
persuade them to bring a motion back? You are should have options | :19:59. | :20:05. | |
open always. Our I agree with Alan West. I think it will come back -- | :20:05. | :20:10. | |
I agreed. Syria is a real problem, the biggest problem in the world at | :20:10. | :20:14. | |
the moment. We will have to address it and it could be that we have to | :20:14. | :20:18. | |
come back and think about military options again. I wish we did not | :20:18. | :20:23. | |
have to use the military, but we should not take the auction off the | :20:23. | :20:27. | |
table at an early stage. David Cameron said it would be the next | :20:27. | :20:31. | |
big scandal to hit politics and sure enough, a succession of | :20:31. | :20:36. | |
politicians have been caught out selling services to lobbyists. The | :20:36. | :20:41. | |
Prime Minister employed Lynton Crosby as director of strategy. He | :20:41. | :20:45. | |
also runs a lobbying firm. The Government has brought forward a | :20:45. | :20:50. | |
Bill that will aim to regulate the lobbying business. It will be | :20:50. | :20:56. | |
debated today. Andrew Lansley was grilled this morning. We have had a | :20:56. | :21:01. | |
queue of people from the voluntary sector asking why we did not talk | :21:01. | :21:06. | |
to them about this. They are not facts. We want the legislation to | :21:07. | :21:12. | |
be better. You can talk to us, you can inform us, you can consult. We | :21:12. | :21:17. | |
feel we have a contribution to make. And, speaking for Parliament, it is | :21:17. | :21:22. | |
a legitimate issue that this committee and Parliament is | :21:22. | :21:28. | |
properly involved in this process. It is not a Bill published one day | :21:28. | :21:32. | |
before the recess and a second reading one day after the recess, | :21:32. | :21:37. | |
three working days between a Bill that not many of us knew certain | :21:37. | :21:40. | |
sections existed and parliament is due to have it put through | :21:40. | :21:46. | |
committee next week. Why on earth do you not get people on your side | :21:46. | :21:54. | |
to make a better Bill? Part one of the Bill in that sense has been, | :21:54. | :21:57. | |
although the drafting you might have seen, the policy on which it | :21:57. | :22:02. | |
is based has been the subject of discussion for a long time. Part | :22:02. | :22:10. | |
two, non-party campaigning, I accept your strictures more, that | :22:10. | :22:14. | |
is the part two of the Bill was trying to do what it is sometimes | :22:14. | :22:23. | |
represented as doing. The boundary between what is and can -- what is | :22:23. | :22:31. | |
campaigning and electoral purposes. To talk about the Lobbying Bill, | :22:31. | :22:34. | |
I'm joined by the Deputy Leader of the House, Tom Brake. First, let's | :22:34. | :22:36. | |
talk to Alexandra Runswick of pressure group Unlock Democracy. | :22:36. | :22:38. | |
You have been campaigning for legislation. Are you pleased that, | :22:38. | :22:42. | |
finally, it looks as if the legislation will get onto the | :22:42. | :22:47. | |
statute book? It will not deliver transparency in lobbying, if | :22:47. | :22:55. | |
anything it will make it worse. The definition of lobbying is so narrow. | :22:55. | :23:00. | |
Because it only focuses on consultants. It will catch us so | :23:00. | :23:04. | |
little activity in the United Kingdom. The what is the difference | :23:04. | :23:14. | |
:23:14. | :23:14. | ||
between a consultant and in House lobbyist? And in House lobbyist | :23:14. | :23:18. | |
works for an organisation, it could be Tesco supermarket, it could be | :23:18. | :23:23. | |
me working for Unlock Democracy. The other works for different | :23:23. | :23:27. | |
clients. The work we do is the same, to influence government policy and | :23:27. | :23:34. | |
we should be captured by the lobbying register. Industry figures | :23:34. | :23:38. | |
recognise four out of five lobbyists are in house, not agency. | :23:38. | :23:47. | |
Even those who work as agency lobby -- lobbyists, are unlikely to be | :23:47. | :23:52. | |
captured by this. Very little lobbying activity in the UK is | :23:52. | :23:59. | |
based on meeting senior civil servants and politicians. What | :23:59. | :24:06. | |
could be done? The version of the register we are presented with is a | :24:06. | :24:10. | |
weaker version than the one that exists in Australia. What we have | :24:10. | :24:14. | |
seen in Australia is what happened with having a narrowly defined | :24:14. | :24:20. | |
register his activity may have to wait from consultants and lobbyists, | :24:20. | :24:25. | |
and moved to management consultants, accountancy firms, lawyers. It | :24:25. | :24:30. | |
moved lobbying activity away from the people on the register. | :24:30. | :24:37. | |
will it affect third party organisations, such as charities? | :24:37. | :24:40. | |
Part two of the Bill will have a chilling effect on the voluntary | :24:40. | :24:45. | |
sector. It is interesting to see that while the Government is | :24:45. | :24:48. | |
unwilling to regulate corporate lobbying, it is more than willing | :24:48. | :24:52. | |
to put in restrictions on voluntary sector campaigning, because they | :24:52. | :24:57. | |
have taken up the definition of the tent of producing materials for | :24:57. | :25:03. | |
electoral purposes, it means any statement of public policy by a | :25:03. | :25:06. | |
voluntary organisation could be considered to be for electoral | :25:06. | :25:10. | |
purposes and could prevent people campaigning and getting involved in | :25:10. | :25:19. | |
campaigns. Tom Brake, it will have a chilling effect on third party | :25:19. | :25:21. | |
organisations who will be frightened to campaign on | :25:21. | :25:25. | |
legitimate issues which can only in the broader sense be defined as | :25:25. | :25:31. | |
political because of this legislation? There is a clear | :25:31. | :25:39. | |
misunderstanding of what it proposes. In it is very clear that | :25:39. | :25:43. | |
a charity is that want to campaign on policy issues, they will be able | :25:43. | :25:48. | |
to continue to do that. The Bill does not affect them. It's limits | :25:48. | :25:53. | |
the amount of money they can spend in the year running up to an | :25:53. | :25:59. | |
election. They would have to register at everything after �5,000. | :25:59. | :26:03. | |
What the charities seem to suggest is the Government is trying to | :26:03. | :26:07. | |
constrain them in relation to policy. It is true that any | :26:07. | :26:11. | |
organisation seeking to influence the outcome of an election, | :26:11. | :26:17. | |
supporting a party, they will have to register. Most charities do not | :26:17. | :26:23. | |
do political campaigning work, because they are not allowed to. | :26:23. | :26:27. | |
Influencing an election outcome could include all sorts of things, | :26:27. | :26:35. | |
inadvertently. Campaigns such as international a lead, if Oxfam | :26:35. | :26:39. | |
carried out a campaign and their opponent was the UK Independence | :26:39. | :26:47. | |
Party, they would be limited. would have to be accounted for | :26:47. | :26:52. | |
walls if Oxfam in a constituency said they encouraged members to | :26:52. | :26:55. | |
vote for a certain candidate, that is something they would have to | :26:56. | :26:59. | |
account for. If it is the charity arm, they would not be allowed to | :26:59. | :27:04. | |
do that because the Charity Commission would not allow it. | :27:04. | :27:08. | |
does this have to do with the scandal we have watched regarding | :27:08. | :27:15. | |
lobbying? The Government is trying to do one thing, it is about | :27:15. | :27:21. | |
addressing consultant lobbyists, and ensuring when a minister meets | :27:21. | :27:27. | |
with a third-party, a lobbyist, those details, people can track to | :27:27. | :27:31. | |
the Third Party lobbyist is working for. They will see it on the | :27:31. | :27:36. | |
register. If a minister meets an external organisation at the moment, | :27:36. | :27:41. | |
the in house lobbyist for a certain company, bat would be on the report | :27:41. | :27:47. | |
of the meeting, -- that would be. There is already transparency about | :27:47. | :27:55. | |
meetings. The what she has not done and the organisations who are | :27:55. | :27:58. | |
advocating having the in house lobbyists on the register is | :27:58. | :28:03. | |
explain why that is needed when that reports that ministers have | :28:03. | :28:07. | |
about the meetings they have with in-house lobbyists are reported on | :28:07. | :28:10. | |
a quarterly basis. What would we gain by having them on the | :28:10. | :28:16. | |
register? Be cos they will still be treated differently to the other | :28:16. | :28:24. | |
and lobbyists -- because. We do not want to duplicate what is being | :28:24. | :28:28. | |
done in government. The Government reports meetings that ministers | :28:28. | :28:32. | |
have with in-house lobbyists. You can see the meetings I have had an | :28:32. | :28:38. | |
see the purposes of the discussion. Ministers and permanent secretaries. | :28:38. | :28:48. | |
Why do about other politicians? and what about? These would be the | :28:48. | :28:52. | |
ones who exert the most influence and we would have to control those | :28:52. | :28:55. | |
contacts more carefully. In relation to scandals that there | :28:55. | :29:00. | |
have been, they have been members of parliament he would have been in | :29:00. | :29:06. | |
breach of the Code of Conduct, which covers those issues. That is | :29:06. | :29:11. | |
not about introducing the new rules. We can think about a campaign that | :29:11. | :29:15. | |
your party was involved in, the National Union of Students pledge | :29:15. | :29:24. | |
not to raise tuition fees. Did you sign that? I did.That would not | :29:24. | :29:32. | |
happen now. There is a limit that if an organisation like the | :29:32. | :29:35. | |
National Union of Students wanted to run a national campaign, they | :29:35. | :29:41. | |
would only be allowed to spend just under 400,000. In the run-up there | :29:41. | :29:45. | |
were two organisations that spent over that limit. In terms of having | :29:45. | :29:50. | |
a dampening effect on the ability of organisations to campaign, that | :29:50. | :29:55. | |
will not be the case. It will save you signing any more pledges that | :29:55. | :30:04. | |
have to be broken! A response Alexandra Runswick. If you look at | :30:04. | :30:08. | |
the legal advice that has been produced by the National Council | :30:08. | :30:12. | |
for Voluntary organisations and leave the notes -- and read the | :30:12. | :30:19. | |
notes to the Bill, it says the Bill will remove the test of intent and | :30:19. | :30:24. | |
any statement of public policy could be covered by this Bill. That | :30:24. | :30:27. | |
is why it will have a chilling effect on voluntary sector | :30:27. | :30:31. | |
campaigning. We want more people taking part in campaigning and not | :30:31. | :30:41. | |
:30:41. | :30:52. | ||
The things that upset the public are things like insiders who are paid | :30:52. | :30:56. | |
somebody to get regular access to ministers or the prime minister or | :30:56. | :31:06. | |
:31:06. | :31:06. | ||
whatever. Also, they don't like it when there is money involved. It is | :31:07. | :31:13. | |
that aspect of lobbying that people don't like. I don't think this bill | :31:13. | :31:21. | |
gets the take from me. It will need a lot of tightening up. | :31:21. | :31:25. | |
Now, it has been a torrid few years for the journalistic profession. We | :31:26. | :31:30. | |
have had the phone hacking scandal at the newspapers, revelations of | :31:30. | :31:34. | |
cosy relationships between politicians, editors and proprietors | :31:34. | :31:37. | |
and the BBC's editorial decisions have come under the spotlight. So | :31:37. | :31:45. | |
the actions of journalists themselves need to be scrutinised, | :31:45. | :31:48. | |
but if they are going to hold power for people to account, do they also | :31:48. | :31:50. | |
need special legal protection? That question was put in perspective | :31:50. | :31:54. | |
over the summer when David Miranda was arrested at Heathrow Airport and | :31:54. | :31:58. | |
detained by police for nine hours under the terrorism act. He is the | :31:58. | :32:02. | |
partner of the Guardian journalist responsible for bringing the | :32:02. | :32:05. | |
revelations of whistle-blower and former intelligence officer Edward | :32:05. | :32:09. | |
Snowden to public attention. UK intelligence officers then entered | :32:09. | :32:12. | |
Guardian offices and oversaw the destruction of hard drives | :32:12. | :32:15. | |
containing sensitive information. Mr Snowden himself spent weeks inside | :32:15. | :32:21. | |
Moscow airport, escaping American jurisdiction, and has now been | :32:21. | :32:25. | |
granted asylum in Russia. He is being helped by the Wikileaks | :32:25. | :32:29. | |
organisation. Its founder Julian Assange is himself avoiding | :32:29. | :32:33. | |
extradition to Sweden inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. | :32:33. | :32:38. | |
Joining us now is George Brock, a former Times journalist and now I | :32:38. | :32:42. | |
professor of journalism at City University who has just published a | :32:42. | :32:47. | |
book, Out Of Print?, about the changing nature of journalism. Who | :32:47. | :32:53. | |
classifies as a journalist? There is no agreed legal definition. There | :32:53. | :32:57. | |
was nowhere in the world where you could have that question settled | :32:57. | :33:01. | |
easily. In the United States, there are what are called shield laws in | :33:01. | :33:10. | |
some states which say that if you are a journalist, you can't be | :33:10. | :33:13. | |
required by court to disclose your sources. But trying to define | :33:13. | :33:16. | |
journalists is a mistake. But then how can you advise protection for a | :33:16. | :33:22. | |
group of people who are difficult to define? Journalism is a messy | :33:23. | :33:26. | |
business and it is always changing. You should not try and roped off the | :33:26. | :33:31. | |
profession. The law needs to look at whether there is a public interest | :33:31. | :33:37. | |
and a value in what journalism does. That may involve people who call | :33:37. | :33:40. | |
themselves journalists, or not. They might be whistle-blowers or people | :33:40. | :33:46. | |
in the right place at the right time. Is there a danger that always | :33:46. | :33:52. | |
using the public interest defence, if you are somebody that the public | :33:52. | :33:58. | |
might not see as a journalist, somebody working for a newspaper, a | :33:58. | :34:04. | |
whistle-blower, for example? One has to be careful about trying to define | :34:04. | :34:08. | |
these things. You can't do it easily. Clearly, if there is | :34:08. | :34:11. | |
something coming out that is in the public interest, there has to be a | :34:11. | :34:16. | |
common-sense view about it. But equally, there is a great desire | :34:16. | :34:19. | |
that you see in the Guardian a lot. They don't like secrets. Just | :34:20. | :34:26. | |
because it is secret, but is what all of our secret intelligence | :34:26. | :34:30. | |
agencies are about. Occasionally, things are over classified. The | :34:30. | :34:33. | |
Guardian are frightfully British in they somehow seem to think they | :34:33. | :34:36. | |
should have access to all of this and make the decisions. That is | :34:36. | :34:42. | |
dangerous. And it responsible for people who have signed up to the | :34:42. | :34:47. | |
intelligence services to a code of conduct to protect certain | :34:47. | :34:52. | |
information? I think most journalists accept that there are | :34:52. | :34:55. | |
some things which governments and states are going to do which they | :34:55. | :35:00. | |
are entitled to keep secret. That is not the issue. The issue is how much | :35:00. | :35:04. | |
they are entitled to keep secret and how much we are entitled to inspect | :35:04. | :35:14. | |
:35:14. | :35:14. | ||
what they are doing with that secrecy. And where would you draw | :35:14. | :35:16. | |
that line? I accept that it is difficult to draw, but I have been | :35:17. | :35:19. | |
involved with intelligence officers for years. And I know there are | :35:19. | :35:21. | |
large numbers of people working very hard to protect our nation, not | :35:22. | :35:27. | |
trying to eavesdrop on things people are doing normally and not trying to | :35:27. | :35:31. | |
do nasty things. They occasionally get it wrong because it is so | :35:31. | :35:41. | |
:35:41. | :35:42. | ||
complicated, but better to give them the benefit of the doubt, because | :35:42. | :35:45. | |
the people who are against us in all these areas, they have no interest | :35:45. | :35:48. | |
in these things. I would accept that there are many people who work in | :35:48. | :35:51. | |
secret who are trying to do the right thing, but things also go | :35:51. | :35:53. | |
wrong. There was a government official in that case about David | :35:53. | :35:57. | |
Miranda, who was involved in the Edward Snowden leaks. A British | :35:57. | :35:59. | |
government official said there are 58,000 documents in his possession | :35:59. | :36:06. | |
which were passed to him by this whistle-blower, Edward Snowden. What | :36:06. | :36:15. | |
is a contractor, not even a member of the US intelligence staff, doing | :36:15. | :36:21. | |
with 58,000 sensitive British documents? We are tagged to ask. | :36:21. | :36:26. | |
have moved so fast. Once upon a time, there would have been files. | :36:26. | :36:30. | |
Now you can have 58,000 things on a memory stick. I agree it is a | :36:30. | :36:35. | |
problem. I hope there are people in our agency is asking the question, | :36:35. | :36:42. | |
which bit of the US needed to have that? But to release 58,000 without | :36:42. | :36:45. | |
needing to see what damage that does to security, I think is extremely | :36:45. | :36:50. | |
risky. And this sort of self-justification of people like | :36:50. | :36:56. | |
Snowden, I am doing this because I am wonderful, it does not... But the | :36:56. | :37:01. | |
newspaper concerned has not released all that information, let's be fair. | :37:01. | :37:07. | |
No, but it is sitting there and there may be something in there. We | :37:07. | :37:12. | |
need to review it and say, let's not let this be released. You can't | :37:12. | :37:15. | |
leave it sitting there. Has Edward Snowden done anything in terms of | :37:15. | :37:21. | |
service to the world and the public interest? Well, I am not sure he | :37:21. | :37:25. | |
has, to be honest. As I say, there are certain secrets that are secret, | :37:25. | :37:33. | |
and people are trying hard to do things that look after our security. | :37:33. | :37:35. | |
I am not saying there should not be whistle-blowers, but it is a very | :37:35. | :37:38. | |
difficult balance. At the moment, I am afraid we have tipped the wrong | :37:38. | :37:45. | |
way. There is a difference. If you are being paid by the Guardian, that | :37:45. | :37:50. | |
is one thing. If you are making your living by taking the US dollar or | :37:50. | :37:54. | |
the British pound, surely your obligations are different? If you | :37:54. | :37:58. | |
are a servant of the state, of course your obligations are | :37:58. | :38:04. | |
different to a journalist. But in an open society, you have journalists. | :38:04. | :38:07. | |
But you say they are an undefined group which could spread to being | :38:07. | :38:10. | |
servants of the state. I don't think you should confuse journalists with | :38:10. | :38:14. | |
servants of the state. I am not saying that journalists are only | :38:14. | :38:19. | |
one. It is just that in legal terms, defining journalists is | :38:19. | :38:27. | |
difficult. Should they be protected? I think journalists are very | :38:27. | :38:32. | |
important. Should they be protected in law? I am not sure how you do it. | :38:33. | :38:39. | |
But they should be looked after. But it is amazing that people who are | :38:39. | :38:45. | |
shouting this to the rooftops are the ones who were having a go at the | :38:45. | :38:48. | |
Sun and the Times for the things they did. | :38:48. | :38:51. | |
They want to have their cake and eat it. So, you are sitting and watching | :38:51. | :38:54. | |
your favourite TV programme, like the Daily Politics. The phone rings, | :38:54. | :38:58. | |
you get up to and it and it is a recorded voice informing you for the | :38:58. | :39:02. | |
umpteenth time that you may be owed compensation for mis-sold PPI, | :39:02. | :39:06. | |
whether or not you have it. The culture select committee have been | :39:06. | :39:09. | |
taking evidence on this subject this morning, though they could have just | :39:09. | :39:16. | |
spent a day in my front room. He was Richard Lloyd consumer group which | :39:17. | :39:22. | |
macro, explaining the scale of the problem. We found that 85% of people | :39:22. | :39:26. | |
said they had had an unsolicited call or text in the previous month. | :39:26. | :39:29. | |
That is a big proportion of the population, and that includes people | :39:29. | :39:33. | |
who had signed up to the Telephone preference service in the past not | :39:33. | :39:39. | |
to be contacted for marketing purposes. We are keen to see the | :39:39. | :39:46. | |
committee look into this. It has become a growing problem. More | :39:46. | :39:52. | |
people have come to which macro complaining about this, and there is | :39:52. | :39:57. | |
a significant proportion of people who have had this nuisance. They are | :39:57. | :40:02. | |
now saying they are afraid or do not want to answer the phone because | :40:02. | :40:09. | |
they are fearful that it will be a marketing call. | :40:09. | :40:12. | |
Joining us from Salford is Simon Entwistle from the Office of the | :40:12. | :40:17. | |
Information Commissioner, and John Major some of the Direct Marketing | :40:17. | :40:22. | |
Association, who appeared before the select committee this morning. You | :40:22. | :40:27. | |
are head of preference services for the Direct Marketing Association, so | :40:27. | :40:31. | |
can you explain what the Telephone preference system is, and how it | :40:31. | :40:36. | |
should stop before receiving nuisance calls? The Telephone | :40:37. | :40:40. | |
preference service is the central opt out register in the UK. Anybody | :40:40. | :40:44. | |
that wants to reduce the number of sales calls they receive can | :40:44. | :40:48. | |
register their telephone number with us either by going to our website or | :40:48. | :40:51. | |
calling our contact centre. Once their phone number has been | :40:51. | :40:55. | |
registered with us for 28 days, it is a legal requirement for companies | :40:55. | :40:59. | |
to screen out that number. But it does not seem to work, because the | :40:59. | :41:04. | |
evidence presented by Richard Lloyd from the witch consumer organisation | :41:04. | :41:08. | |
says that although it works initially, after signing up, people | :41:08. | :41:13. | |
reported receiving an average ten unsolicited calls in the previous | :41:13. | :41:18. | |
month. Yes, the research also went on to say that people received fewer | :41:18. | :41:22. | |
calls after registering than they did before. The problem we have is | :41:22. | :41:27. | |
with rogue companies that are willing to ignore the legislation | :41:27. | :41:31. | |
and make telephone calls to any registered on TPS. We would | :41:31. | :41:36. | |
obviously like to see more enforcement. Simon Entwistle, would | :41:36. | :41:40. | |
that do it, more enforcement? Is it just rogue companies ignoring the | :41:40. | :41:44. | |
rules? There are two elements to this. There is this element of rogue | :41:44. | :41:49. | |
callers ignoring the rules, but there is also this blurring of what | :41:49. | :41:54. | |
accounts for consent when people have already signed up for the | :41:54. | :41:57. | |
Telephone preference service, but they are deemed to have consented to | :41:57. | :42:01. | |
the call being made. So even if you have signed up, if you consent to a | :42:01. | :42:05. | |
call being made to you perhaps via something you have done online, | :42:05. | :42:09. | |
calls can be made to you legitimately. This is a big | :42:09. | :42:12. | |
challenge for us, to tease out those cases where consent has not been | :42:12. | :42:18. | |
given and to take action. We have issued fines, but we also find it | :42:18. | :42:22. | |
challenging to issue them because the law currently requires us to | :42:22. | :42:29. | |
show substantial distress before we can find an organisation. Do you not | :42:29. | :42:33. | |
agree that the buyer is too high? Why should people have to | :42:33. | :42:37. | |
demonstrate a level of harm? If it is a nuisance and you are receiving | :42:37. | :42:44. | |
ten unsolicited calls, that is too much? Should the barbie lowered? | :42:44. | :42:49. | |
agree. At the moment, they have to prove significant damage, and it | :42:49. | :42:53. | |
would be better if that was reduced to nuisance. You agree with the law | :42:53. | :42:57. | |
being changed in that respect. Which is calling for the government to | :42:58. | :43:03. | |
introduce a set expiry date when a person agrees to being contacted by | :43:03. | :43:06. | |
selected third parties, and an obligation on businesses to prove to | :43:06. | :43:09. | |
the information commission office that a person has consented to being | :43:09. | :43:15. | |
contacted. Would you support that? Certainly the obligation of an | :43:15. | :43:18. | |
organisation to prove that it had consent would be important. Most | :43:18. | :43:23. | |
companies can do that already. The issue of the expiry of consent, I am | :43:23. | :43:29. | |
not so sure about. I would have to see the details. If you have signed | :43:29. | :43:32. | |
up to the Telephone preference system, even if you accidentally | :43:32. | :43:36. | |
ticked a box on something completely unrelated which did arguably give | :43:36. | :43:40. | |
your consent to receive calls, should you still be able to say, I | :43:40. | :43:45. | |
must not receive any calls? Yes, there are couple of ways this can be | :43:45. | :43:49. | |
done. If somebody calls you and you ask them not to call you again, | :43:49. | :43:53. | |
there is an obligation on that company to add your number to that | :43:53. | :43:58. | |
do not call list and they should not contact you again. But the issue of | :43:58. | :44:01. | |
third-party consent, which is where if you sign up for something | :44:01. | :44:11. | |
:44:11. | :44:12. | ||
online, you are giving consent for some police to contact you. So you | :44:12. | :44:17. | |
can still get nuisance calls. Isn't that a bigger problem, that people | :44:17. | :44:22. | |
do tick boxes to say you can receive calls, and then you are not | :44:22. | :44:26. | |
protected by the Telephone preference service? That is a | :44:26. | :44:29. | |
problem throughout the internet. A lot of areas have terms and | :44:29. | :44:36. | |
conditions that are very complicated. You end up digging a | :44:36. | :44:38. | |
box without having read the appropriate details. That is not | :44:38. | :44:43. | |
just about consent to calls being made, it is about other contractual | :44:43. | :44:47. | |
obligations that you enter into when you are on websites. We would like | :44:47. | :44:50. | |
to see the law simplified here as well. But it goes beyond signing up | :44:51. | :45:00. | |
:45:01. | :45:02. | ||
for calls being made to you or not. Within a household, a child might | :45:02. | :45:07. | |
sign up to receive calls without your knowledge. So the call is being | :45:07. | :45:10. | |
made legitimately, but someone else has signed up to it using your | :45:10. | :45:14. | |
telephone number. All sorts of things happen. Coming back to the | :45:14. | :45:22. | |
rogue callers, we have done some research and we find that well over | :45:22. | :45:28. | |
15% of calls being made now are being made using spoofed numbers. | :45:28. | :45:33. | |
There is a whole range of areas to be looked at that go beyond how well | :45:33. | :45:38. | |
the Telephone preference service is working. Do you think this is a | :45:38. | :45:41. | |
problem you can get to grips with, bearing in mind the examples you | :45:41. | :45:46. | |
have given? Do I think we will ever stop all cold calls and people | :45:46. | :45:50. | |
getting annoyed, the answer is probably no. But we can reduce them | :45:50. | :45:56. | |
to the minimum, and that is what we are trying to do by taking steps to | :45:56. | :45:59. | |
change the law and take enforcement action against those who are | :45:59. | :46:09. | |
:46:09. | :46:20. | ||
I have friends who are constantly being telephoned. Resolving it will | :46:20. | :46:24. | |
be difficult. I sometimes feel sorry for people ringing because | :46:24. | :46:31. | |
they are desperately trying to earn a crust. But it is annoying. | :46:31. | :46:38. | |
companies really do enough to actually limit their cold calling? | :46:38. | :46:42. | |
Some of it is legitimate business and a lot of it is not and have | :46:42. | :46:49. | |
numbers are being called at random and nobody is checking the list. | :46:49. | :46:58. | |
That's it is the side of the industry we would describe as rogue. | :46:58. | :47:02. | |
There is a legitimate side to the industry that takes the legislation | :47:02. | :47:09. | |
seriously. When we go out complaints we receive, the majority | :47:09. | :47:16. | |
-- when we look at, the majority are from small organisations, | :47:16. | :47:20. | |
trying to gather information to sell on to other people and maybe | :47:20. | :47:26. | |
make a PPI claim, something like that. I am sure we will have you | :47:27. | :47:31. | |
back and see if any more nuisance calls have come in here. Some | :47:32. | :47:35. | |
holidays might feel like a distant memory, particularly if you were | :47:35. | :47:41. | |
ordered back early for the vote on Syria. But some cannot switch off. | :47:41. | :47:47. | |
Their idea of a cracking vacation, apolitical tour of Scotland. | :47:47. | :47:51. | |
Knowing David likes the exotic, we sent him to Glasgow to find out | :47:51. | :48:01. | |
:48:01. | :48:02. | ||
what it was all about. Did she go anywhere nice? A spot of | :48:02. | :48:08. | |
foreign culture? Some people's idea of getting away from it all was a | :48:08. | :48:15. | |
political tour of Scotland. How big a vehicle would you need to fit in | :48:15. | :48:18. | |
every one who wanted a political tour of Scotland? As it happens, | :48:18. | :48:23. | |
you can get them comfortably in the back of a minibus. This minibus. | :48:23. | :48:29. | |
They include this woman from Australia who came here for a taste | :48:29. | :48:32. | |
of Scottish weather and Scottish politics. When I heard political | :48:32. | :48:38. | |
tour, I thought it was for me. I waited for the opportunity and look | :48:38. | :48:42. | |
to see which country I would like to go to and I had heard about the | :48:42. | :48:48. | |
referendum, and thought it would be a fan -- fascinating place to see. | :48:48. | :48:54. | |
They visit first a political cartoonist. And then it was off to | :48:54. | :48:59. | |
Stirling Castle for history and traditional music. The musicians | :48:59. | :49:06. | |
were from New Zealand. Normally, the company behind the political | :49:06. | :49:16. | |
:49:16. | :49:17. | ||
tour treat their customers to the exotic delights to places such as - | :49:17. | :49:24. | |
- Greece. The are trying to explain the debate to. It is complex -- and | :49:24. | :49:28. | |
we are trying. We are trying to bring people on the Tour closer to | :49:28. | :49:34. | |
the main protagonist, the main argument and strands of debate, say | :49:34. | :49:40. | |
they get a broad understanding of what is being voted on. That is | :49:40. | :49:44. | |
Robert the Bruce and his horse under that, I have to take their | :49:44. | :49:48. | |
word for it because they are being refurbished in time for the | :49:48. | :49:58. | |
:49:58. | :49:58. | ||
anniversary. There are celebrations next year. It will play a part a | :49:58. | :50:02. | |
few weeks before polling day and the Scottish National Party are | :50:02. | :50:08. | |
keen that people have these events in mind when they cast their vote. | :50:08. | :50:13. | |
This couple were actually from Scotland. Did they feel more | :50:13. | :50:18. | |
prepared for the big vote? E it has made me think about the referendum | :50:18. | :50:27. | |
and independence. Whereas last week I would think it is not for ages. | :50:27. | :50:33. | |
His is definitely, I hope, a more informed though it -- it is | :50:33. | :50:41. | |
definitely. If it might not be everybody's idea of an ideal summer | :50:41. | :50:45. | |
holiday. But it is like the Scottish weather, it might be dull | :50:45. | :50:49. | |
sometimes but it is never boring. And now I know where David has been | :50:49. | :50:54. | |
over the summer. George Osborne went on his own tour of Scotland | :50:54. | :50:58. | |
today. He is in Aberdeen, addressing oil industry executives. | :50:58. | :51:02. | |
He told his audience the Scottish people would be out of pocket if | :51:02. | :51:09. | |
they opted for independence. Scottish GDP could be 4% higher in | :51:10. | :51:15. | |
30 years if it is part of the United Kingdom. �2,000 for every | :51:15. | :51:22. | |
family in Scotland. Put it another way, separated from the UK, and the | :51:22. | :51:29. | |
loss to every household would be �2,000. We can now speak to Douglas | :51:29. | :51:35. | |
Fraser. He has been listening to the Chancellor in Aberdeen. Welcome. | :51:35. | :51:43. | |
What was the response to what he had to say? He was saying a number | :51:43. | :51:51. | |
of things around the UK offering broad shoulders, shared risks. This | :51:51. | :51:55. | |
is a volatile source of revenue for the UK, he said comparing it with | :51:55. | :52:05. | |
:52:05. | :52:08. | ||
Scotland, it would be more volatile for Scotland than if it were in -- | :52:08. | :52:12. | |
independent. The response coming from the Scottish National Party, | :52:12. | :52:16. | |
they say George Osborne is here to make up with an industry that had a | :52:16. | :52:21. | |
tax rate, �2 billion a year taken off them without warning. The had | :52:21. | :52:29. | |
to give away a lot of tax breaks. He is now taking credit for the | :52:29. | :52:36. | |
record investment, more money being spent to get more oil and gas out. | :52:36. | :52:40. | |
The other argument about a small country being less able to handle | :52:40. | :52:46. | |
this, he is pointing across the North Sea. Norway has �470 billion | :52:46. | :52:52. | |
of oil wealth because it managed resources differently. What about | :52:52. | :52:56. | |
the reception generally to the Chancellor in warning people in | :52:56. | :53:04. | |
Scotland that they will be worse off? If we go back to the polling | :53:04. | :53:09. | |
last year, people are receptive to arguments about whether | :53:09. | :53:14. | |
independence will make them better or worse off. If you were �500 | :53:14. | :53:19. | |
better off, how would you vote? There was a huge difference in how | :53:19. | :53:28. | |
people might behave. He is now talking about �2,000. They are not | :53:28. | :53:33. | |
many examples. If you look at the border between Canada and the US, | :53:33. | :53:39. | |
Germany and Austria, the Treasury did some modelling, and they reckon | :53:39. | :53:43. | |
the �2,000 after 30 years as a result of reducing trade. The | :53:43. | :53:49. | |
reaction you get into Scotland, people are very receptive to the | :53:49. | :53:53. | |
arguments about the economic effect of independence and what might | :53:53. | :54:00. | |
happen. We do not know either way. And the Scottish National Party | :54:00. | :54:05. | |
comes back saying that George Osborne does not know how the UK | :54:05. | :54:15. | |
economy will be over the next 30 years. We are told you should not | :54:15. | :54:20. | |
judge a book by its cover. Apparently, and you can judge | :54:20. | :54:24. | |
someone's politics by how they dress. The Deputy Prime Minister | :54:24. | :54:30. | |
has admitted to padding around the office without his shoes on. He was | :54:30. | :54:35. | |
even perfectly relaxed about people in offices wearing shorts in hot | :54:35. | :54:40. | |
weather. What do the rest do? An opinion poll asked on a normal day, | :54:40. | :54:46. | |
of what you wear in the office? Out of the three biggest parties, | :54:46. | :54:51. | |
conservative men are most likely to conservative men are most likely to | :54:51. | :54:56. | |
wear a suit and tie. 30% said they did. Labour men are most likely to | :54:56. | :55:01. | |
wear casual trousers. Liberal Democrat men are more likely to | :55:01. | :55:06. | |
wear smart trousers and less likely to wear a suit and tie than the | :55:06. | :55:12. | |
Labour and conservative men. The majority of women, whatever their | :55:12. | :55:18. | |
support, opted for smart trousers and a top. And Liberal Democrat men | :55:18. | :55:23. | |
and women are most likely to go to work in jeans and T-shirt. I am | :55:23. | :55:27. | |
joined by the cultural commentator Peter York. Alan West is still with | :55:27. | :55:34. | |
us. What do you make of the results? There are no surprises. By | :55:34. | :55:39. | |
definition, Tories are going to dress more formally. I am surprised | :55:39. | :55:49. | |
it is not more extreme. In any case, what it does not is whether the | :55:49. | :55:57. | |
Tories in question are simply older and a more senior social class than | :55:57. | :56:01. | |
the Labour and Liberal Democrat people. I am surprised it is not | :56:01. | :56:08. | |
more extreme. The Tory idea is either you are aspirational, that | :56:08. | :56:13. | |
his Sunday Times man, or you are retro, which means Sunday Express | :56:13. | :56:21. | |
man. What are you? If I do not do smart, I look as if I am doing | :56:21. | :56:27. | |
gardening. I do not do casual well. I am certain the Liberal Democrats | :56:27. | :56:36. | |
wear sandals with their socks. with you. I am sure a lot of them | :56:36. | :56:41. | |
do. They are told not to at conference. They push those people | :56:41. | :56:50. | |
to the back! I am bucking the trend by wearing a dress. I presume | :56:50. | :56:57. | |
trousers and top, that is comfort. It cuts both ways. You will | :56:57. | :57:07. | |
:57:07. | :57:11. | ||
remember, Lord West, "Folleting". Barbara Follett, who became a | :57:11. | :57:19. | |
minister, I think. She was employed to make the Labour ladies look more | :57:19. | :57:24. | |
like Tory ladies. They would dress smart. What you wear is important, | :57:24. | :57:31. | |
it says something about it? Because today his Merchant Navy Day, 74 | :57:31. | :57:41. | |
:57:41. | :57:43. | ||
years ago today week declared war on Nazi Germany. The question for | :57:43. | :57:47. | |
viewers is are these on the right feet? They will have to think about | :57:47. | :57:57. | |
:57:57. | :58:02. | ||
that. That is rather smart. You have not come in a shirt and tie. | :58:02. | :58:10. | |
came straight from my seaside holiday. However, you can see. | :58:10. | :58:20. | |
:58:20. | :58:23. | ||
you have a rather nice handkerchief. Do you wear your uniform? I do. I | :58:23. | :58:29. | |
was going to St Paul's. Some youngsters saw me and he asked what | :58:29. | :58:37. | |
I do. I said I was in the baby. He asked me what was the Navy. I tell | :58:37. | :58:41. | |
them until I reach my station. When I got out, the whole carriage | :58:41. | :58:50. |