02/05/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Sinn Fein Leader

Gerry Adams remains in police custody following his arrest in

connection with one of the most notorious murders of the Troubles.

Mr Adams denies any involvement. Sinn Fein says the arrest is

politically motivated. The DUP says no-one should be above the law. We

speak to one of the architects of Northern Ireland's peace process -

former first minister David Trimble. Pfizer, the US drug giant that makes

Viagra, wants to buy our second biggest pharmaceutical company

AstraZeneca. But would such a take-over be good or bad for

Britain? Business Secretary.

David Cameron launches his party's local election campaign. But why is

he still talking about Europe? local election campaign. But why is

And egg on his face! Is Nigel Farage now part of the political big

league? All that in the next hour. And with

us for the duration, two all round good eggs. They are Isabel Hardman

of the Spectator and John McTernan, former political adviser to Tony

Blair. Welcome to you both. Let's start with the latest on the arrest

of Gerry Adams. The Sinn Fein leader has spent a second night in custody

at a police station in Northern Ireland after being arrested in

connection with the murder of Jean McConville during The Troubles. Mrs

McConville, a mother of ten, was dragged from her house in 1972 by an

IRA squad and later executed. Mr Adams denies any involvement in the

crime. Last night, Mrs McConville's daughter, Helen McKendry, told

Newsnight that she did "not fear the IRA any more" and was "ready to name

names". Here she is, speaking to Newsnight's Kirsty Wark. Today, your

brother Michael said that he knows the identity of the people that came

to the house that night and took your mother, that he will not say

for fear of being shot by the IRA. Do you share those fears? No. That

fear left me a long time ago. I do not fear the IRA any more. I would

happily give names I know to the police. Have you been asked for the

names? I have spoken to the police, but they did not interview the

family. You were not in the house that night, you were at the shops.

When you came back, your brothers and sisters told you who were there,

so you have a full picture of who was there? Yes. You don't feel fear

for your life about speaking to us about this? No. They have done so

much to me already in the last 42 years. What are they going to do,

put a bullet in my head? Well, they know where I live.

Joining me now is David Trimble, former First Minister of Northern

Ireland and former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. He was also a

key player in the peace process and he now sits in the House of Lords.

Was none of this sort of thing ever covered in the peace process? We did

discuss what to do. There was a consensus that we would not have a

truth and reconciliation process. Like in South Africa. Yes, because

it did not work there. With this sort of situation, we did make a

significant concession to paramilitaries through an early

release programme. But we agreed that there would not be an amnesty.

It was made clear from the outset that if evidence came to the police

about crimes committed before 1998, the police would investigate in the

normal way, as they have been doing. Over the years, there has been a

steady stream of cases relating to those events where there has been

evidence against people. They have gone to court and made convictions.

People have served up to two years, which is how the early release

scheme operates. In this case, the normal legal process should happen.

It was inevitable, once the Boston tapes came into the public domain,

in view of the allegations contained in them, whether they are accurate

or not, that Mr Adams would be questioned. He effectively

recognised that earlier this week come when he said he would

voluntarily go to the police station. Is there a danger that this

will derail the peace process? What is disturbing is the way some people

are posturing about this. I am very disappointed in the line taken by

the deputy first minister, Martin McGuinness. He has spoken to the

prime minister. He has been playing to the gallery bike criticising the

police. The police are doing their job. As deputy first minister, he

has an obligation to support the police. He says the PSNI is duty

bound to energetically pursue every investigation and encourages them to

do so. But he then says some investigations are pursued more

vigorously than others. That is what I mean by playing to the gallery. He

said his formal bid about supporting the police, but then undermined

them. If any complaint could be made, you could suggest that the

police have actually moved slowly and deliberately, which is not a bad

thing in this case. Is it a sign of the gravity of the situation that

the prime minister found it necessary to speak to Mr McGuinness?

I can't comment on that. I don't know what was in the prime

Minster's mind when he did that. So I will not speculate. I'm not

surprised that there was a conversation. Whether it came

about, whose initiative it came about on, we do not know. Are you

worried about this? No. I don't think any body should be. The

process we put in place is in the agreement. That is what is happening

here. It is not new. It has been happening since 1998, and it should

continue. To start changing those arrangements now because a

high-profile person is involved, that is interfering with the legal

process for political reasons. Is there a danger that this will give a

new lease of life to the IRA? Well, it would be what we call the

republican dissidents. It would not affect what we used to call the

mainstream IRA? One of the ironies of this is that the interviews were

with people closer to the dissident IRA than the mainstream IRA. Just

let the police investigation take its course. John McTernan, what do

you make of this? It shows in a way that Sinn Fein have come a normal

political party. Gerry Adams is not above the law. He is being

investigated, the process is going correct me. It shows the maturing of

the police service in Northern Ireland. There is lots of what we

call stakeholder management going on here, but in the end, the police are

investigating one of the most shocking of all of the murders from

the Troubles. And it is right to do that. The people of Northern Ireland

voted for the Good Friday agreement because they wanted the rule of law

established. It is also a reminder of the fragility of the situation in

Northern Ireland still, only a few weeks after we have the state

banquet with Martin McGuinness at Windsor Castle. We still have

tension when something like this happens. Unlike Martin McGuinness,

who has effectively admitted he was part of the IRA, Gerry Adams,

although he has often been described as chief of the Belfast Brigade of

the IRA, he has always denied any involvement. He said he supported

the IRA, but denied involvement with it. This creates a huge credibility

problem with Mr Adams, because I do not know anybody who believes what

he says on this issue is true. You mean that people do not believe he

was not a member of the IRA? Indeed. Is that a consensus view in Northern

Ireland? It pretty well is. If there is anybody who believes him, I wish

they would let us know. No legal action has been taken about it by Mr

Adams. Well, that is normal. They sometimes get solicitors to send a

letter, but they are never followed up. Where do we go from here? He has

been arrested but not charged, and the police are investigating. If he

was charged and this became a huge, high profile legal case, would the

Northern Ireland political process survive it? Oh, yes. I disagree with

Isabel on this. I don't regard the situation in Northern Ireland is

fragile. I think it is stable. It has had its ups and downs. A lot of

them were on my watch, and we got through most of them. But it is

stable now. The only thing on the horizon that could cause a problem

with stability is actually your folk, and the referendum in

Scotland. That is interesting. Are you saying that because if Scotland

was to vote for independence, the main historic link in the United

Kingdom between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is a Scottish

link? And that if Scotland goes, that would be one of the links with

the United Kingdom gone? No, I am thinking in terms that if the

referendum in Scotland goes with what I regard as the wrong result,

that will change the political context for Northern Ireland and

that would cause strains. How would it change it? In that what until now

has been a nonissue in Northern Ireland, there is a provision for a

referendum in Northern Ireland, but that has not been treated since

before 1998 and has subsequently been a nonissue because it was clear

that a majority would want to stay with the UK. So what would then be

the significance of a Scottish vote for independence? What was a

nonissue with then become a major issue. Do you agree? I think that is

right. There are two points. One is that if the United Kingdom were to

start to be broken up, it opens the question about how far that

unravels. Secondly, if absolutists in one country see absolutists in

another country, they say, now it is our turn. There are a handful of

people now think that uniting Ireland is the solution, they could

be a vocal minority and the SNP have shown how you can push that. This is

so important. It is not discussed particularly down here, but when you

talk about the impact on the rest of the union, it tends to be Wales we

discuss rather than Northern Ireland, as you say, it would become

a live issue in Northern Ireland where previously, it has been a

closed question. We shall see. Yesterday on the programme, we

covered the launch of Labour's campaign for the local and European

elections later this month. This morning, it's the turn of the

Conservatives to launch their local elections campaign. Having said

that, it feels like more of a European election relaunch after

being distracted by UKIP's advance in the polls. The prime minister has

said only the Conservatives can deliver a referendum on Britain's

membership of the European Union and that he should be judged on his

record of "standing up" to Brussels. Again, another big "local" issue.

The Conservatives have been trying to counter the growing support of

UKIP and Nigel Farage, as they currently stand third place in the

polls. Here's what the prime minister had to say this morning in

the West-Midlands. I have a track record of delivery, and believe me,

whatever it takes, I will deliver that in-out referendum . Labour will

not. UKIP can't. I will. Earlier this week, I made clear that I would

not lead a government that either could not or did not deliver an

in-out referendum. Let me be clear. The British people need to have

their say on our membership of the EU. For me, this is a fundamental

principle, and I would not be prime minister of a government unless we

could carry out our pledge of an in-out referendum. The British

people deserve their say, and I will make sure they get it.

We can speak now to Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party, Bob Neill,

who's at the launch in Newcastle-Under-Lyme. Welcome to the

programme. Since this was the launch of your local election campaign, why

is the Prime Minister banging on about Europe? Good afternoon,

Andrew. It is all part of an entirely consistent message, that we

are the only party with a plan on all of the issues and that delivers

on it, on local issues in local Government and on Europe. We have

shown consistently that we have a plan, which is critical, and we are

showing that what we are doing with the economy, in local councils and

in Europe, that we deliver as well. What has it to do with emptying the

rubbish and keeping streets clean? The connection is twofold. Firstly,

the election happened to be on the same day. That is a simple fact. You

have already had your European launch. This is the local one. Yes,

and we are pointing out that we deliver at all levels of

Government. We have delivered in turning round the economy from the

mess we inherited from Labour. We have Conservative councils up and

down the country delivering lower council tax and better value for

money with front line services and we are standing up for our interest

in Europe, all of which is part of the same consistent picture. Is it

because people are worried that David Cameron cannot be trusted on

the European election? You and your party are running scared of UKIP.

Not that all. Any mature political party accepts the reality that

people want consistent performance across the board. We are pointing

out and making a very strong case that we have always delivered on

what we have promised. We have delivered on what we said when we

said we would turn around the economy and bring down the deficit,

which we are doing. We are delivering at a local level with

these elections. And also the veto on the European Treaty. We are

keeping out of the bail-out and we will deliver on the referendum

promise as well. It is all part of a party which keeps its word and

delivers. What is your policy for local Government? We have been very

clear that we have returned powers to local authorities. We have done

that through the localism act that I was involved with as a minister and

we have done that through reforms to the local Government finance system.

You have done that. What is your policy going forward? The policy

going forward is to continue to deliver those powers. We have

reforms around planning and business rates reforms. We are giving local

authorities more discretion to spend money in a way that is not dictated

by Whitehall, as with the previous Government, but according to their

priorities. We are highlighting how Conservative councils like

Westminster, Chelsea and Hammersmith, by merging their

back-office functions, can deliver more efficient services at a lower

cost. That is both a plan and a good example of delivering the plan. If

you are so good at delivering your promises and plans, why have you not

got all councils to introduce weekly bin collections? Is that Brussels's

fault? Don't be silly! Precisely because we said part of our scheme

is giving local authorities more discretion. They would choose how

they deliver the services at a local level. What is important is that we

have given councils the opportunity through grants to be able if they

wished to return to a weekly bin collection without having any

financial penalties, as was the case under the previous regime. It is

their call, which we don't believe in, dictating from the centre, just

as we don't believe Brussels should dictate from the centre. But you are

dictating from the centre on council tax. Central Government has very

strict rules about the council tax freeze. I think you are being badly

served by your research. That never happens, I can assure you! Let me

tell you now that there are no rules in relation to the council tax

freeze. A grant is made available to local authorities that they can take

if they wish, enabling them to freeze council tax. Any authority

wanting to increase the council tax by more than 2%, by a central

Government mandate have to put their plans to a local referendum. Yes. So

what we have done... You are telling them what to do. That is simply

wrong. You may be thinking back to the old days when the previous

Government used to cap the increases and Jen -- John Prescott used to say

how much they could put their council tax up by. We are saying

that if you want to put it up above the certain level, you have to ask

the voters. That is not thus dictating. Yes, it is. If you

believe so strongly in devolution, why not leave it to the council is

to determine that? Perhaps you have missed the point. Devolution does

not stop at the door to the town hall. It is about giving power back

to the communities, and the communities are the residents in

that area. How many seats are you going to lose? If I was a pundit,

then I would be doing a pundit's job. We are defending seats from

where we were four years ago at the same time as a general election. We

will have to see how that comes through in the polls. I am here with

the message that we have a very strong case to take to the

electorate and I believe we will get that across very well. We are

running out of time but don't go away. Stay with us. Let me bring in

the pundits. I am glad you are not taking their job, but I think you

did for a minute. What do you make of the local election launch,

Conservatives? It is interesting that they are not trying any

expectation management. Last year they were briefing that 750 seats

could be lost by the Tories but this year they are talking about

retaining seats, and privately they have said they want to win in Tower

Hamlets and places like that. Much more upbeat than last year. They

have obviously had lots of sugar in their tea! If I was facing the loss

of 500 seats and issues in London, I would be talking about the European

issues, too. Is that what they face? They will be whitewashed in

London. And Tower Hamlets, yes, there are seats there, thanks to the

corporation that changed the social mix there, but there is not a

majority there for them. The Tory candidate will come a long way

behind the Labour and independent candidates. It will be a very bad

day for the Tory party across the country because the European

election vote will bring up the turnout in local elections. There

are lots of angry votes looking for a home out there. Wipe-out in

London, what do you say to that? I have been on the doorsteps of London

a great deal and I have found that electors are rather more discerning

and they do make a distinction between what they feel about

policies at one level and at a local level. We have seen in the past that

people have voted differently in different elections in London. In my

experience, where we have good authorities doing a good job, we

have every reason to work hard to keep those seats. I think you will

find that across the country you will not get uniform patterns of

movement. I think it is very unwise to make sweeping predictions. Local

factors play much more in these issues than people think. Briefly,

since the pro-minister has raised it, you are vice-chairman of the

Conservative Party, if as the polls suggesting at the moment, you come a

poor third in the European elections, a very poor third

according to the polls, does the Tory party then revert to headless

chicken mode? No, Andrew, I think you will agree that the opinion poll

that really matters... You always say that. Every politician says

that. It does not make for constructive politics, does it? I am

confident that we have a strong message and my job is to go out and

help the Prime Minister and the rest of my team get that message across.

Thank you for being with us today. My pleasure. It is time for the

daily quiz. We have talked about the rise of UKIP this week and we have

had confirmation that Nigel Farage is on the way to becoming a proper

mainstream grown-up politician. Yes, somebody threw an egg at him on

the campaign Trail! The man who threw the egg in Nottingham said his

name was Fred. He told reporters that he did not agree with you get

policies, which we could have worked out. He said he saw the men outside

the time hall ten minutes ago, went to Tesco and bought some eggs. --

the town hall. The Tesco share price does need help these days! And who

said the political process is dead? And given everything I have just

said, which of these politician is the odd one out? John Prescott,

David Cameron, Nigel Farage, Peter Mandelson? At the end of the show,

we will get the correct answer. Don't tell us now. Have you any

idea? I think so. Not just pretty faces! The Conservative peer Michael

Heseltine says the Government should have greater powers to intervene

when British companies are the target of foreign take-over bids. He

was speaking to the BBC this morning as the drug company AstraZeneca, a

largely British company based here, has been targeted by a largely

American pharmaceutical giant called Pfizer. It is run by Scots men

actually. Michael Heseltine also advises the Prime Minister on

business and economic matters and expressed reservations about the

deal and the potential impact on Britain's science base. This morning

Pfizer up to the bid to ?50 per share, some in cash and some in

shares in what would be the new combine the company. He wrote a

letter to the pro-minister saying it would go ahead with AstraZeneca's

planned research and development based in Cambridge. -- they wrote a

letter to the Prime Minister. And they would also retain manufacturing

facilities in Macclesfield. The Prime Minister was asked about the

bid this morning. British jobs, British science, British

inventiveness, British research and development. We are seeing a revival

in those things and I want to see that go further. AstraZeneca has a

fantastic role in the British economy. You see that in the jobs it

has created, investments it has made, medicines it has delivered and

we should be proud of that. Of course decision on any merger is a

decision for the two companies and their shareholders. My job is to

protect the United Kingdom's interests. I want to see great sign

here in Britain, great medicines delivered, great jobs in these

here in Britain, great medicines industries in Britain. -- great

science here in Britain. And that is why we have sought reassurances from

Pfizer if a deal goes ahead. That was the Prime Minister at the local

elections campaign! Chuka Umunna joins us now. If you were in power

now, how would you handle the take-over bid? I think first of all

there is an issue with the way the whole take-over regime operates.

Once everybody hops on the take-over bus or train, it inexorably tends to

move to a destination that is completion of the deal. I think we

need more grit in the machine so that the directors in particular

when they are making recommendations to shareholders in these situations

of a target company, have more confidence in taking the long-term

view. I think the thing that has alarmed people about the Pfizer

potential take-over of AstraZeneca is its record and whether or not

this is actually looking with a view to long-term investment. Pfizer has

made a series of acquisitions. Warner-Lambert in the US, one in

Sweden, another in 2009, when they took over those companies,

essentially took out what they wanted, let people shut down

research and development. We saw Pfizer do that in Kent, in Sandwich

in 2011. That does not fill us with confidence that they will take the

long-term view and I have concerns that this is being driven by tax

rather than looking at a long-term growth and element of the UK

pharmaceutical sector, which is our priority. That is an interesting

analysis of the situation but what would you do? First of all I am not

going to criticise the Government for seeking assurances. We need to

see the assurances. Where I am critical of the Government is I

don't think they have equally engaged with the AstraZeneca board

as they have with the Pfizer board. I am interrupting you... You have

asked me what I would do. I did not ask what the criticism of the

Government is. I am happy to come onto that. What would you do? One

thing we would implement in this type of situation, not just this

deal but all deals, would be to ensure that those looking at this

and decided on the deal are those that are long-term investors. We are

in and offer period right now. We would stop short-term speculators

coming in and stop them being able to vote on this kind of transaction

because they are not taking a long-term view of the company.

Secondly, going to the point that I was making about how the different

actors involved in a take-over tend to take it to the destination. We

need to know what arrangements there are for those advising on the deal.

Advisers if this goes ahead could make ?140 million in fees. We want

to make sure they are receiving awards based on the quality of their

advice is not on getting it to the destination. But none of that deals

with the central issue of whether this should go ahead or not. Never

mind the fees. Should it go ahead or not? I am not persuaded at the

moment that this is in the best interest of the UK plc. I have been

clearer about that. I am not convinced that they are looking at a

big investment in the UK pharmaceuticals industry. I am not

sure this is a long-term proposition. It is looking

increasingly like it is being driven by tax. That is not necessarily a

completely bad thing. A tax haven in this country. What is not to like

about that? This goes to the heart of the issue. Do you look at the

short-term view of the immediate return for Vics Jacko or a long-term

view at what the Exchequer can receive over a period of time? --

return for the Exchequer. Do we want to be a global pawn in a tax playing

game? Do we want that to be the primary rationale? They have said

they will proceed with things in Cambridge. They have made promises

before. I am just saying that we learned the hard way with the

Cadbury transaction. They say they will base their headquarters in the

UK for most of their European operations and some of their

global. They will proceed with substantial investment. If they

could convince you, why would that not be good enough? Because it still

seems to me that they had of the beast is still in the US. That is

where the senior management will be. They are refusing to give firm

guarantees. It will still have its rhymer relisting in the US in New

York -- the primary listing. The only reason they are having the UK

holding company here of the new entity that would be formed if the

transaction goes ahead is purely for tax reasons. Do we really want to be

in a club like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands? Surely we want

people to invest in British companies because they want to grow

them. You can name some successful takeovers. Let's say everything you

have just said is true and that the arguments were convincing. You

should stop this takeover. Well, I am not in the business of making

threats. It follows from what you are saying. You have got to be

responsible. Pfizer has until the 26th of May two putting a firm

offer. AstraZeneca have knocked them back for two reasons, firstly

because of price and secondly because they have referred to the

tax inversions struck that they will put in. -- the tax structure. I'm

sure they are worried about the reputational consequences for one of

the jewels in the crown of our British industry is being used for

tax planning purposes. Let's see what happens by the 26th of May. But

if a Labour government came to power, would you reserve powers to

stop this sort of takeovers? There are currently reserve hours. Would

you use them? This is something we are looking at and have been looking

at for a long time. You call AstraZeneca a jewel in the British

crown. But its share price was languishing until this date came

along. This pipeline of new products is witty much empty. That is wrong.

The share price is around 40. They have made reforms which have helped

transform the company. They have got decent products in the pipeline. In

particular, if you look at diabetes prevention drugs, and Cancer

research for lung and breast cancer and also stroke prevention, you are

looking at one of the companies that could potentially find a cure to fan

cancer in the future. But Pfizer has the same expertise, indeed more so

in oncology, which is one of the reasons they want to merge. Pfizer

does not invest in R It does not have the same commitment as you have

at Astra. It invests more. No, it doesn't. The turnover of AstraZeneca

is much smaller. That is true, but 18.9% of the turnover of AstraZeneca

is invested in R, which is a really good thing. They are taking a

long-term view in that company, whereas if you look at Pfizer, for

God's sake, they shut down the plant at Sandwich which had been there

since the 1950s and had been world beating and the vote of Viagra --

developed Viagra. They shut it down altogether in 2011. That is why I

have worries about this. In absolute numbers, you accept that Randy and

-- Pfizer invest more in R? It is a bigger company, but in percentage

terms, it invests less. Less than GlaxoSmithKline, our biggest

company. What do you make of this? The interest that politicians are

taking in this is fascinating, because neither the

taking in this is fascinating, nor Labour regard this as just a

transaction between companies. nor Labour regard this as just a

reassurances on the UK's science race, but I wonder whether the focus

of all additions in deals like this is actually on making the UK as

attractive a place for research and development so that this clinical

trials that Pfizer and AstraZeneca are involved in can continue, so

that it is not just about taxes, but the logician 's do not have anything

to do with the takeover bids -- politicians can focus on making it

an attractive climate to carry that out. I think a major drugs company

is more important than a chocolate company. There are a lot of reasons

why politicians should care about this. In a sense, what you are

seeing Labour and the Tories edging towards is, is there a coherent

account of economic patriotic as where you can say it is in the

national interest and act decisively? It is very good for

Britain that we get capital from around the world that wants to

invest in us. It said Jaguar and has given us the biggest car industry we

have ever had. What we cannot have is a kind of intellectual asset

stripping. There must be something in AstraZeneca that Pfizer want,

otherwise they would not be paying over the odds for it or trying to

get it. It is happening all over the world. It is a cost saving merger.

Because of the big hits on pharmaceuticals that have come and

gone, the whole industry worldwide is having to cut its costs . But if

they like the company so much, they could move their entire headquarters

over here. The real worrying thing is, because of the way the tax

system operates in the US, with this tax inversions regime where if you

have a merged entity, so long as more than 20% of the shares lie

outside the US, you can basically have a domicile wherever. We could

see the same thing that is happening to Astra happening to other

high-tech companies. We need to think about what the consequences of

that could be. Ultimately, I am interested in ensuring we grow our

industrial base and bang the drum for British business. This is a

world beating company. Thank you. Firefighters in England and Wales

have begun strike action today as part of their long-running dispute

with the government about pensions. The five-hour walk-out began just

over half an hour ago, and there'll be more strikes over the bank

holiday weekend. Let's speak now to Sean Starbuck, from the Fire

Brigades Union. Why a holiday weekend to choose a strike? You been

trying to avoid strike action for three years. We have been discussing

possible improvements in the government proposals. We set the

government a limit to say we needed to get some proposals from them by

the 24th of April. They have in considering proposals and discussing

it with us since the 3rd of January, the last time we took strike action.

They have been sitting on the proposals and have not gone forward.

So it is not about the bank holiday weekend, that is just a coincidence.

It is about having a workable pension scheme for firefighters.

Because it is a pension scheme and is complicated, in a nutshell for

our viewers, what is your main objection to what is being proposed?

In one word, it is unworkable. They expect firefighters to work until

they are 60. This is firefighters riding the red trucks until they are

60, not working in back-office jobs. They have got no evidence to say

that firefighters can work until they are 60. We took part in a

review which proves otherwise and says that without protecting

existing members, ie keeping them in a scheme with a lower pension age,

we will be faced with a lot of firefighters who are being faced

with dismissal just for getting older. The national employers have

said that is what is on the cards. This is a situation where they want

to maintain the discretion to get rid of firefighters. They plucked 60

out of the air. They could have easily plugged 73 or 92. There is no

evidence to say that firefighters can work to 60 in the numbers that

they say they can. According to the government, under the new pension

scheme, a firefighter who earns ?29,000 will be able to retire at

the age of 60, as you say. They will get a ?19,000 a year pension, rising

to ?26,000 when you include the state pension. It would be the

equivalent of a private pension pot worth over half ?1 million, and if

it was try that, you would have to contribute twice as much. I would

suggest most people watching this show that that is a fairly good

deal. It sounds a good deal when you lay it out like that, but with a

normal pension age of 60, if you can't get there, it might as well be

a normal pension age of 80 or whatever. In reality, the review

said that 66% of current firefighters will not maintain their

fitness until they are 60. So plan B comes into operation. Firefighters

already paid for thousand pounds a year in contributions out of a

salary of ?29,000. If they cannot reach 60, if they have to go at 55

rather than be sacked under capability, these people will get

their pension reduced by around 47%. So instead of getting something like

19% in the best case scenario, they are looking at about ?9,000. That is

not as generous as they like to portray, and this is the reality. It

is not cloud cuckoo land of every firefighter working until they are

60. This is actually what will happen. Firefighters are saying, let

us mitigate the impact of the normal pension age increase. We have the

discussing that for 17 weeks. We know there was a league to letter to

fire authorities which says that Brandon Lewis is sitting on improved

proposals, but he would rather we walk out of the door than give us

these proposals. Our message is clear. Give us the proposals and let

us discuss them. Then we will not have strikes in the fire service. We

have to end it there. The FBU action is one of a number of

recent strikes. This week, there's been a tube strike in London, with

another scheduled to start on Monday, and last month teachers

walked out over pay and workload pressures. Well, we've got our

finger on the pulse here at the Daily Politics, and we've been

working with the polling firm Populus to bring you the latest

information on what people think about key issues. They've been

working on something called "voter segmentation" which breaks the

electorate down according to their values. Apparently, you do have

values. What have we been asking this week? Yes, you guessed it -

they asked people about their views on industrial action. 54% said they

had a little or no sympathy for London Underground workers striking

over plans to close ticket offices. 35% had some or a lot. 54% said they

had little or no sympathy for teachers striking over pay and

workload pressures. 40% had some or a lot. However, 41% said they had

little or no sympathy for firefighters striking over plans to

increase their retirement and changes to their pensions. 52% said

they had some or a lot of sympathy. When asked about their views on

whether trade unions have too much power in Britain today, 30% agreed,

with 31% disagreeing. 48% said they agreed that the public has more to

fear from the conduct of big business than the actions of trade

unions these days, with 13% disagreeing. To steer us through

this, we're joined by Rick Nye from Populus. What are the headlines

overall? The headline overall is the kind of reputational challenge that

big business has in this country. When you have got figures like that,

half of the population, including 31% of people who currently say they

will vote Conservative at the next general election, said the public

has more to fear from big business than from trade unions. So you

understand white Chuka Umunna comes on your programme and talks the way

he does about the proposed Pfizer takeover of AstraZeneca. Isn't it

inevitable that people would be more worried about big business? If it

was 30 years ago in the 1970s, the polls showed that people were more

worried about the unions than big business. The unions are now a lot

less powerful than they were 30 years ago. Big business is at least

if not more powerful than before, so naturally they would be more

worried. Some of it is definitely a function of power . When you ask

people whether they think the strikes are a legitimate weapon if

there has been a ballot and a majority who voted have voted for a

strike, people agree with that, even people in Tory voting segments. So

the idea of trying to restrict it to a turnout threshold is not

necessarily the easy win that some conservative politicians seem to

think. Certainly, people have sympathy, particularly in a tight

economic climate when people are thinking about their own pay and

conditions, and they certainly have sympathy when they are firefighters

who save lives. On your market segmentation of the different kinds

of groups that you have divided society into, what are the distinct

attitudes towards unions in those groups? Not surprisingly, at the end

where you find it cosmopolitan critics, there is overwhelming

sympathy for almost all strike action in every manifestation. At

the other end among the grumpy old men, you find the least sympathy for

unions. But even in the middle among the people who are most directly

impacted, there is ridges dual sympathy -- residual sympathy for

people being able to exercise their right to strike if it is done

democratically. It is fascinating how much sympathy there is for

teachers striking, who may not have articulated the reasons for their

strike. So far as I could work out recently, it was more about the fact

that they do not like Michael Gove than anything else. But perhaps the

public do not like him either. The attitude to the trades unions is

interesting. They get more sympathy now because they are not as

important as they used to be. I think Margaret Thatcher is Ed

Miliband's greatest assistant. Having reformed the trade unions and

subjected them to the proper rule of law, you can't make them into

bogeyman anymore. Where as you can with big business. You can. Ed

touched on this when he said there is good and bad capital. You can

laugh about it. But people are in favour of the market economy, a

growing economy, where we all share in the prosperity, but people do bad

things and don't seem to be held to account. That can sway populism for

Nigel Farage but there is the populism of the left being

articulated by Ed Miliband at the moment. You cannot turn Len

McCluskey into a bogeyman anymore and that is good for him. And with

the Westminster bubble, we think it is a bad thing that edge talks about

what he would do to business, but that could poll quite well. -- Ed

talks. But he did not go as far as Michael Heseltine, who called for

reserve powers for the Government this morning. Chuka Umunna would not

go that far. The logic of everything he said would suggest that but he

didn't. Why? I think Chuka Umunna would be in office like Peter

Mandelson. The big promoter of British interest. It was interesting

that he came back to the national interest again and again. He will be

cautious. He is not a Government minister. He has been cautious in

this take-over. He cannot stop or reflect this and he will use this as

a way to mount a critique, and from that he will make a policy, this is

what I will do. He certainly gave a critique this morning. When we get

strikes, demands come to introduce laws to restrict the ability of

central services to strike. Do we have attitudes to that? We did not

ask that this time. It is suggested in the results. Half of people have

some if not a lot of sympathy for the Fire Brigade in their industrial

dispute which does not suggest to me that they think it should be banned.

People don't understand what they are striking over, but they do think

people have a right to strike. The more admirable your profession, the

more sympathy people will have regardless of the cause. Try nurses!

Let's leave it there. In the latest of our award-winning series on

political thinkers, our guest of the day, former adviser to Tony Blair,

has chosen Machiavelli. You can draw your own conclusions from that! This

is Giles Dilnot. Ah! When it comes to political

philosophers, not many have their name used in everyday speech that

one does. Machiavellian. Cleverly deceitful and unscrupulous. It is

dark and sinister, isn't it? I am going to meet one strategist and as

he describes it recovering spin doctor who thinks that Machiavelli

is about much more than just an adjective. John, good to see you.

Let's get a table. What I really love is that you have brought your

well thumbed University copy of The Prints by Machiavelli. Why do you

like this guy? It is the best book about politics because it is written

by a practitioner. Machiavelli was at the top politics for 50 years. He

writes about the challenges we have to face and what to do about them. I

would advise Prime Ministers across the world that we have the same

issues to face up to and this is a handbook for us. He is the

insider's insider. It is the only book I would give to young people

about politics today. That is remarkable for a book that is 500

years old. But I want to give you and everyone else a sense of

Machiavelli's time and place and I have just the place to take you.

To give you a bit of atmosphere we have brought you to London's oldest

Catholic Church for Italians and it is Italy we are talking about. Not a

country at the time but a landmass ruled by warring city states.

Machiavelli writes his book in the context of this. What is he saying?

He has been at the centre of power for 15 years in Florence. The Medici

get power. He gets accused, tortured and exiled to the family farm and he

wants to get to the centre of power is he writes a job application

called The Prince. The book describes what Florence and Italy

needs, a strong leader. Someone to be feared and not loved. Love passes

but fear never passes. A leader who understands ruthlessness, acting

decisively or doing nothing and not being caught in the middle. And it

is telling that the Catholic Church banned the book. Nobody likes it. I

don't think anybody likes it because for insiders, he has told the

truth, spills the beans. And outsiders say, is that how power

operates? No wonder it gets banned. Oxford University also points out

that Machiavelli gets a bad press as much from people misreading him or

not reading him enough. From the outset, Machiavelli was understood

through the stereotypes of militias, vicious, sneaky, Italian

poison. There were many attacks on Machiavelli. They were what people

had read, not the works themselves. In other works, notably his

discourses on living, what we find is a theorist of Republican

institutions and values, in which people have their voice. In which

institutions can strain the rule. And these popular Republican

institutions are what give the state its greatness. I think Machiavelli

would be proud of us because we are obviously and clearly at the heart

of power in the UK. You say he is relevant. How does he work behind

that door? Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, the two most important

post-war Prime Ministers, both had senior advisers are updating

Machiavelli. They both agree with me that you can apply Machiavelli to

modern politics. He talks about using violence. How does that work?

Machiavelli is very clear. Leaders will need to use violence but they

should not do it themselves. They should have somebody who does it for

them. When I was Tony Blair's enforcer, he once said to me that

people would complain that I was roughing up the back benches too

much. You just have to break one of their legs, not both! Speaking of

violence, shall we go and play a video game? OK, finish what you

started. That is what I wanted you to see, Machiavelli in a video

ordering assassinations against the Borders. This man is part of our

modern culture. Yes, but it is not just in video games. There is the

Machiavelli stage name and clothing brand that Tupac setup after reading

him in prison. This guy has jumped cultures. He fascinates us because

he is full of contradictions. He wants to wage war to create peace.

He wants a strong leader to defend democracy. He is a guy who says that

we should use violence and the lower means of politics to achieve a good

society. We will be talking about him for centuries. Do you want to

have a go? The good thing is that you can break both of their legs. To

the left. Oh! Right, Machiavelli. The Prince was

basically a job application for him. He wanted to work for a bunch

of over powerful bankers called the Medici. Is that a good basis for

philosophy? It was a job application to get back into a citystate that he

loved, and to promote good Government in that citystate. The

thing about his book, he says in the end that high ideals sometimes

require very low means. That is the contradiction at the heart of the

book and that is why we love and hate him today. I don't think it was

published until after his death. It wasn't and you can understand why.

Do you think that he would ever have thought that in the 21st century in

a television studio that we would be talking about his book? He might

have thought that, in a funny way, because he refers to authorities. He

goes back all the time and tell stories of the Caesars, which are as

real to him as the Italian wars between the cities. He senses the

scope of history behind him and I think he could have imagined that.

He could have imagined a contribution to literature. He might

have thought it would be a discussion in a library not a

television studio. I understand that. The problem for supporters of

Machiavelli is that he has had a bad rap. The word Machiavellian, you

don't use that to describe somebody you like, at least not outside the

world of the spin doctor. He has. It was said in the package that people

don't read Machiavelli. Sometimes they read what you said about him

but more often they just hear the use of the word and contribute the

dark arts to him. It is a very readable book. And to be so old, so

short, so concise and still alive today, it is a great book. Are you a

fan? There is an interesting squeamishness about him which is

shown in the tension between the new politics that opposition leaders

talk about and then the practical politics that they employ! There is

that stuff about knife crime and I am sure Machiavelli would have

recommended the same behaviour. Did you stop breaking both legs after

Tony Blair asked YouTube? I was never breaking legs. -- Tony Blair

asked you to? They said you were more foul-mouthed than Malcolm

Tucker. I have never found you like that. Maybe Machiavelli... The point

in politics in the end, in modern politics, is to be feared or

respected. You don't have to commit violence, you just have to have the

reputation of being able to commit violence. Well! Let's find out the

answer to the quiz. The question was about being egged. John Prescott,

David Cameron, Nigel Farage or Peter Mandelson. What is the answer? Peter

Mandelson, isn't it, because he was covered in green lumpy custard and

the others were egged? That is it. And you thought that, too? That

image of him in the horrible green. Are we inevitably heading towards

European elections with UKIP a clear victor, Labour not a great second

and the Tories a bad third? That is what it is looking like. They are

setting the terms of the debate and they will have to be derailed by

other parties. There is also the Labour panic about whether they have

dealt with UKIP properly. There will be a fascinating aftermath. We will

be dealing with it on the Daily Politics. Thank you for joining us

now. The One O'Clock News is beginning on BBC One now. I will be

back on BBC One on Sunday with the Sunday Politics, to be joined by the

Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps and we will be talking about

UKIP. I hope you can join me then. Goodbye.