25/02/2014 Newsnight

Tonight on Newsnight: If they are the biggest party my view is Ed

should have the courage of his conviction and govern on a minority

governance. The Hyde Park bombing killed four

British soldiers and injured many others. Today one of the men accused

of planting the bomb walked out of court because of assurances given by

the British Government. What's going on?

Tonight, the Prime Minister... Poor Eric, I knew him well.

It's 30 years since Spitting Image began. Perpetrators and victims join

us for a memorial service for television satire.

Own joy coalition Government while you can you Liberal Democrats.

Sources in the Conservative Party suggest David Cameron is going to

rule out another coalition after the next election. Of course, there is

the possibility of a deal with Ed Miliband's Labour Party. But not if

the General Secretary of Unite, the biggest union in this country has

anything to do with it. They pay a fifth of Labour's bills. The union

has been blamed for the shambolic confrontation at the Grangemouth

refinery and for trying to fix the by-election in the safe Labour seat

of Falkirk last year. Len McCluskey has inherited the media's

traditional bogey man costume worn by people like Arthur Scargill. I

spoke to him this evening. Len McCluskey they say that David

Cameron is about to make a speech in which he will rule out a coalition

with the Lib Dems. Should Ed Miliband do the same? Yes, I think

he should. I mean I think one of the things that people are looking for

is something different and I'm afraid that's the reason why

politicians are not particularly popular at the moment is people

don't see any difference. So they're looking for people who have courage

of their convictions. Labour, I hope, win the next election

outright, but if they are the biggest party then my view is Ed

should have the courage of his conviction and govern on a minority

Government. When you look at what happened to

the Labour Party over the last year or so, after the Falkirk business.

And the reform of the role of the trade unions in the choosing of a

leader. Are you going to advice your members they should become associate

or affiliate members of the Labour Party? Yes. We are very much central

to Unite's political strategy is to persuade our members to join the

Labour Party and participate in politics so that the views and

thoughts and aspirations of trade unionists, ie collectism and

solidarity are at the core of Labour Party poll policy. So you could have

more power at the end of this, couldn't you? We certainly could, if

we work hard enough and Unite intends to. We intend to go out and

persuade our members actively through a host of different mediums

to join the Labour Party, to actively engage with the party

because, of course, we believe in recent years, the Labour Party has

lost the values that trade unionists bring to the party and we want to

have more influence in our party. When you look at what happened in

the Falkirk by-election, where members were recruited without their

knowledge, members were pressured into completing direct debit forms

and signatures forged? Jeremy, that's not true. You are repeating

stuff that didn't happen. That's the internal investigation of the Labour

Party? The internal investigation of the Labour Party resulted in the

Labour Party announcing that there was no wrongdoing. You recall,

Jeremy and this is important, last summer, I made it clear that Unite

had done nothing wrong and I called for an independent inquiry and the

Labour Party accepted that now and perhaps more importantly, police

Scotland made it clear there was no wrongdoing.

Can I ask you about the MPs that you sponsor? How many are there? Well,

when you say sponsor, actually we don't sponsor MPs. That's not

allowed in the Labour Party. We have constituency development plans and

we are reviewing them. I think at the last count we probably had maybe

102 Labour MPs who are members of Unite. What do you expect from them?

We expect them to represent their constituencies. We hope in

representing their constituencies that will correspond with many of

the aspirations of trade unionists. You are fillan tra fists are you? It

is our party. We created it. We want our party to be successful so the

voice of ordinary working people can be heard. There is nothing

complicated about that. Why do you think so many of your members appear

to be voting for UKIP? Because we are a free and independent union. A

number of our members can vote whichever way they want. You don't

want them to and they are, they are voting for UKIP? There is nothing

unusual wrong. It is called democracy. I know the Daily Mail

would have you believe that Len McCluskey flicks a switch and one

and-and-a-half million Unite members vote a particular way of the it is

not like that. We are the big society and we are diverse in every

sense of the word and of course, our members make their choices. Our

polls tell us that 53% of our current membership will vote Labour,

but UKIP, twice as many of our members will vote UKIP as they will

the Conservative Party. That's their view and that reflects what's

happening within... How can they be a member of your party and believe

in UKIP? But they are not... A member of your union and vote UKIP?

We have got individual, our members, who vote Conservative. We have got

Conservative MPs who are members of Unite. Have you? Yes, we have

indeed. You mentioned the right-wing media. What's it like being seen as

an ogre? It is not particularly nice and it is not nice for friends and

family to see you that way. Sometimes I have to wear it as a

badge of honour and my members are the ones that I'm responsible to.

They pay my wages and I have to make certain that anything I am saying is

ensuring what they -- is in tune of what they believe and what the

leadership is saying. I draw sustenance from that. Some of the

attacks I read and they don't resemble me. Do they upset you? Not

particularly. I'm a sensitive guy. You are loving it, aren't you? I'm

not so much loving it. You are attacked by your enemies and you can

scratch your head and think maybe I'm doing the right thing. Len

McCluskey, thank you. Well, here to discuss all that is

Laura Kuenssberg. On this question of coalition, both David Cameron is

going to talk about it. There is advice for Ed Miliband. Why is it so

current? Well, it is fascinating. We are just over a year before the next

election and we are in a new world. We are in the pre-election coalition

bartering before there may or may not be any real negotiations about

coalition and the people on the sidelines, powerful people on the

sidelines like Len McCluskey want to get their demands out there and

David Cameron is reported to be saying he will rule out coalition,

but the Number Ten position is not that and there has been a bit of

cold water poured on that today in Westminster. But I think really we

need to think about the ambitions here and the reality, the ambition

for the Labour and Conservative Parties is outright victory. They bo

know they are likely to end up in a messier situation, but the other

realities are do existing ministers, Conservative or Liberal Democrat,

want to carry on being ministers? Absolutely. Do Labour MPs want to be

ministers when they grow up one day? Absolutely and do backbenchers in

the Liberal Democrat parties want to be ministers? Absolutely. They will

have to deal with the reality of the arrit a arithmetic of the election.

This hasn't been your main Business Today. Your main businesstoday is

trying to find out more after the mess you made last night with

Harriet Harman's interview? Well, this time last night Harriet Harman

went on the record after days of allegations about her involvement

when she worked at the National Council for Civil Liberties and a

group called the Paedophile Information Exchange. She has always

denied they had any influence over policy, but she did today regret

that there had been a link between the two organisations, but we were

able to go into the National Council's archives today to look at

how the groups were linked. Opening up the files, opening up the

past, some of the papers from the National Council for Civil Liberties

history. History shared by the deputy Labour leader, shared too by

characters she might rather forget. Some of the documents are in Harriet

Harman's own handwriting and these files illustrate just how hard she

and other campaigners are worked on some of the defining issues of the

day like equal rights for gay people. But what's also shown in the

documents is that the Paedophile Information Exchange was part of the

conversation that took place at the National Council for Civil

Liberties. Despite countless documents from the

paedophile group in the archives, Harriet Harman is adamant she was

never influenced by them. Insistent the attempts by them to infill

straight had no -- infiltrate had no impact and regrets the link. I'm not

going to apologise. I regret this vile organisation ever existed and

it ever had anything to do with NCCL, but it did not affect my work

at NCCL. They were pushed to the margins before I went to NCCL and to

allege I was involved in collusion or paedophilia or apologising for

paedophilia is wrong and is a smear. Harriet Harman continued her

campaign against The Mail's use of pictures of scantly clad young women

using the digital pages of a Twitter. One of her senior Labour

colleagues told me they were amazed that Harriet Harman refused to admit

the affiliation when the paedophile group and her employer had been a

mistake. Members of the public objected to the paedophile

exchange's existence, never mind their campaigning. Jack Dromey has

been one of the leading figures in the campaign against the Act.

Harriet Harman says her husband, Jack Dromey, now also a Shadow

minister, had squeezed out the group's influence before she even

arrived at the National Council in 1978. Records from the time show

they were one of dozens of organisations pushing for gay

rights. But could a paedophile organisation really have been just

another name on the list? Harriet Harman told us last night

that the Paedophile Information Exchange was just one of more than

1,000 groups that was affiliated to the National Council for Civil

Liberties. She said its work was never influenced by that group. But

this list we found shows the leader of the Paedophile Information

Exchange had a position on the NCCL's gay rights committee. Sources

close to Harriet Harman say paedophile hijacked the committee in

the 19 70s and one of her former colleagues told me their agenda was

never shared, let alone promoted. We had a lot more important things to

do. It was not an influential organisation. It did not have any

influential. It did not have any status and that's the way it was.

The way it was, went too far for one Labour MP. It is hard to believe

now, but they thought it was progressive. They had to take on the

board the views of paedophiles. It seems extraordinary in this day and

age, but that's what was happening through the 1970 s and into the

1980s. Ed Miliband is backing Harriet Harman. The most senior

woman on his frontbench, but the record of this episode has not yet

been left to gather dust. Well, with us now from Washington is

Professor Lawrence Gostin. He is adviser to President Obama, but

between 1983 to 1985, he was General Secretary of the National Council

for Civil Liberties, the organisation that's been attracting

so much heat if not light in the last few days. Professor Lawrence

Gostin what was an organisation like the Paedophile Information Exchange

doing with the NCCL? Well, it was an affiliate

organisation. When I came to NCCL it had been, but I think Harriet Harman

is correct, it did not at least in my time have any influence on policy

and I've always drawn a distinction I would be horrified if NCCL or

Liberty were to take the position of the Paedophile Information Exchange

because I think that children are vulnerable. They need to be

protected, but it is the role of a civil liberties organisation to

defend freedom of expression and to discuss those things in the Press,

in Parliament are what a civil liberties organisation should do.

Not to take the side, but to defend freedom of expression because that's

what civil liberties do, they are party political neutral and they

defend the right to freedom of expression.

OK, we will come to that in a moment or two. Can I clarify one thing? Is

it possible that Harriet Harman was unaware of the presence of the

Paedophile Information Exchange within the NCCL?

I wouldn't have thought so and my understanding is that Harriet has

not said she was not aware of it, she was saying there was no

influence by it in the policies of NCCL and that would be correct.

Isn't it also the case that Mr Tom O'carroll sat on the NCCL's gay

rights group? Well, I don't recall that. I don't recall it. It probably

did occur and you know, it is important to make the distinction

though, a human being, it is the Paedophile Information Exchange or

it is about information, it is not the act and so I don't see a

contradiction defending the information. It is defending the act

that I worry about. Sharing information between people

who practise the act Orban are interested in the act, is

objectionable, isn't it? You know, there are so many things

that I find actionable. I find neo-Nazi rhetoric objectionable. I

find discussion about race is horrible. Do I think that

paedophilia is horrible? Absolutely. It is unconscionable. But the

discussion of it in a free society does need to be defended. That is

why you have civil liberties organisations, to defend that. At

this time, your belief was what? I disagree with what you say, but I

will defend to the death your right to say it? That was the principal?

That is a core principle of civil liberties organisation. In a society

when people are always willing to condemn , what can't be condemned is

the right of speech. If a journalist were to discuss views on both sides

about any horrible issue, you would defend that. Every human being,

every citizen, has the right to speak. That is not the right to act.

There is a very strong line between the two. I would be appalled if NCCL

or Liberty or the American Civil Liberties Union were to take the

position that it was all right, we had to lower the age of consent. But

to defend the right of all sides to openly in a free and fair society to

discuss it, yes. In fact if you look at the European Union member states,

there are wide variations is to the age of consent for sex. It is

something that different societies have a friend views on. My own view

is very strongly that a young person cannot consent because there is an

imbalance of power, and I am very much opposed to it. But would I be

opposed to somebody speaking about it? No, I would have to defend that.

Someone in the administration of UK Justice has blundered. Big-time.

They gave an assurance to a former IRA man that he wasn't wanted by the

police. When he then passed through Britain last spring on his way to a

holiday in Greece, he was arrested and charged with the murder of four

soldiers killed in the Hyde Park bombings of 1982. His defence argued

that the trial shouldn't go ahead because of the letter he'd been

sent. The judge agreed. Jim Reed reports.

The first blast killed two soldiers and hurt 23. A second explosion less

than two hours later left six dead as 24 injured. The images are some

of the most graphic of the IRA's mainland arming campaign. Today, the

man suspected of planting that first bomb walked free from court. The

case against John Downey collapse after he was sent what amounted to

an immunity letter by mistake. The police service of Northern Ireland

wrote to him saying: But Mr Downey, who has always denied

murder, was still wanted by the Met police in connection with the

bombing when he flew into Gatwick Airport last year on his way to

Greece, and he was arrested. The judge ruled that the letter meant he

could not be prosecuted. The decision was welcomed by Sinn Fein.

It was the decision we were expecting. John Downey should never

have been arrested. I welcome the fact that he is now released and

free to go home. You said this was the result of an agreement tween

Sinn Fein and the government? This was part of the Good Friday

agreement. The police service of Northern Ireland apologised for what

the judge called a catastrophic failure in sending out the letter.

That should only happen if there was no realistic chance of conviction.

Through this case it emerged that another 186 selected IRA members

have been sent similar assurances. When the Good Friday agreement was

signed, one aspect was so contentious, it couldn't be dealt

with at the time. Republicans wanted by the authorities but living free

outside Northern Ireland. In 2005, Peter Hain try to legislate to clear

up their status, but the new law was rejected by Sinn Fein because any

protection from prosecution would also have covered British soldiers.

Peter Hain was accused by unionists of doing a deal behind their back by

sending out secret assurances. Everybody knew that we had to deal

with this anomaly. It was before Parliament. And then Sinn Fein, who

had asked us to introduce this legislation, withdrew their support

for it when they knew it would apply to British soldiers as well. And

when that report was withdrawn, was it acceptable to say that we would

have an agreement behind closed doors where letters were sent out

rather than something in the open? How do you solve conflict? How do

you end wars and terrorism except by negotiating a solution. There was

nothing secret about this. The public didn't know. The public knew

that there was this anomaly because we tried to introduce it legislated

Lee. When that wasn't possible, what was the answer? Does anybody really

think it would be better to go back to the war and the terrorism and the

horror of Northern Ireland in the past, or to have us where we are

now? For the families of victims, all talk of deals might not mean

much. 32 years after the Hyde Park bombing, a monumental blunder, they

say, has robbed them of any chance of justice.

The lady is for returning! Karl Marx once wisely observed that

while gold and silver may not naturally be money, money is by

nature gold and silver. Gold is also present in devices like mobile

phones. But how to ensure that money spent on a phone doesn't end up

funding armed groups involved in atrocities like killing civilians or

mass rape? Not very easily is the short answer, especially if the gold

you bought went through Dubai. A former partner of Ernst Young has

told Newsnight he audited the biggest refiner there and found

clear breaches of international rules designed to stop the trade in

"conflict gold". After his firm - slogan "building a better working

world" - turned a blind eye, he resigned, taking his story to the

campaigning NGO Global Witness, who passed documents to Newsnight, Al

Jazeera and the Guardian. Andy Verity's been investigating.

Forget blood diamonds. Is the gold on your finger, around your neck or

in your smartphone tainted with blood? In the eastern Congo, abusive

armed groups exploit more than 400 gold mines. Extracted under harsh

conditions, it is smuggled out in pockets and plastic bags across

porous borders to Uganda and Burundi, out to the rest of the

world. And unlike these pale imitations, they could be sold to

you with no trace of its origin. Millions of people have died in

eastern Congo from this war, and it is funded by minerals, including

gold. This conflict gold is entering the global supply chain.

We've learned that auditors from Ernst Young found that Dubai's

biggest refiner, Kaloti, was failing to carry out all the checks on its

supply. They alerted the regulator in Dubai, but the regulator changed

its audit procedures to ally the most serious findings to be hidden

from the gold buying public, and Ernst Young's managers went along

with that. The auditor resigned and went on the record to tell me why. I

wouldn't be able to live with myself. I wouldn't be able to come

back home and look at my children and look them in the eye. Dubai has

turned itself into an extravagantly glamorous destination for business

people and holiday-makers. According to Global Witness and the United

Nations, it is also big destination for conflict gold.

With about a fifth of the world's trading physical gold, that is an

image Dubai doesn't want. So it's metals regulator adopted

international standards to show that traders were checking their gold

supply thoroughly. There would be a third party auditor to check up on

them, someone respectable like Ernst them, someone respectable like Ernst

Young. Refiners are the choke point in the supply chain. They have

an important role to play and must carry out checks all the way up the

chain to the mine to find out what conditions of extraction work,

whether the gold has funded conflict and what has happened along the way.

A year ago, Ernst Young's auditors came to this cull of the refinery in

Sharjah to find out how carefully it was checking up on its suppliers.

Kaloti's managers hadn't bargained on how thorough the audit would be.

During the course of the audit, we do started discovering disturbing

findings such as cash transactions of over $5 billion by one refiner in

one year. We found tonnes of gold bars coated silver, smuggled out

through Morocco. As well as failure to verify the sources of high risk

gold. One supplier had even been linked

indirectly with armed rebels in eastern Congo, and later, Kaloti

told them that paying for gold painted silver was normal. To the

auditors, it was the worst sort of breach, classified as zero

tolerance. Kaloti is on the 35th floor, and the regulator, on the

first floor. Mr Rihan said it was far from keen on publicly shaming it

upstairs neighbour. In May, the Dubai regulator's guidance required

details of the auditor's findings to be made public, but the findings

disappeared. Mr Rihan says that he believes the moving of the goalposts

was no coincidence. Our final could lose in which state that the risk of

conflict minerals entering Dubai is extremely high. So eight by having

-- a Dubai -based regulator would not be happy. They went ahead and

change their own guidelines in such a way that our findings and our

final conclusions are not made public.

The Dubai regulator denies changing its rules to keep the detail of the

damaging findings out of public view. It says the rule changes were

based on a consultant's advice and in line with international

standards. Ernst Young's own code of conduct says its staff don't hide

from or ignore issues. Concerned his firm was letting a cover-up take

place, Mr Rihan wrote to Mark Otty, urging him to public the findings --

publicise the findings. Since we were auditing, the guidelines say

that the auditor shall notify the UK-based regulator within 24 hours.

So I notified Ernst Young about that, and they decided not to notify

the UK-based auditor. Ernst Young's managers said the firm

wasn't required to notify the UK regulator, and claimed it would be a

breach of confidentiality to do so. These confidential documents show

that the audit team's findings were initially accepted by the refiner

Kaloti, which privately acknowledged there had been a zero tolerance

breach of the rules. But in November, after the goalposts were

moved, Kaloti was able to declare itself fully compliant, and Ernst

Young endorsed that is a fair view. Once melted, gold is clean. It can

be sold to jewellery manufacturers, banks or governments, and if it has

a murky origin, customers will be none the wiser. If refiners do not

ask the right questions, the whole regime for cracking down on conflict

gold simply doesn't work. Kaloti, the DMCC and Ernst Young all say

they acted properly. Kaloti said allegations of non-compliance were

without merit and it has adhered to all regulatory requirements. The

DMCC say they haven't concealed any breaches or sought to influence

Ernst Young. They claim their sourcing guidelines were not altered

to favour any refinery or interfere with the audit process. Ernst

Young Dubai say they did highly professional work in auditing Kaloti

and have secured improvements in supply chains. Instances of

non-compliance were fully reported to the regulator and client and

corrected. They say they took the views of Mr Rihan seriously and

acted on expert advice. 30 years ago this week the then

Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, seized control of British

television. Every Sunday night for a few weeks and then for several years

afterwards, she and John Major and a leather jacketed Norman Tebbit and

assorted vegetables had the undivided attention of anyone who

believed that while the first duty of democratic citizens may be to

choose their rulers, the second is to hold them in healthy contempt.

Spitting Image and its bestiary made the careers of some satirists and

finished those of some self-important politicians. Anthony

Wall, editor of the BBC's Arena programme, has just finished a

documentary about it. We asked him to take a look for us. His report

contains flash photography. Say it to the whole Cabinet. Speak

up, man. Say what you mean. You are not on the platform now. Nigel

pinched my pen. Nigel, is this true? I know my policy on stealing from

one's friends. Cabinet what do we call it when people go around

stealing other people's property? You? A free-market economy. Rubbish.

What do we call it David? Socialism. Well done, David. It knew no

mercenary from 1984 to 1986, spitting image savaged politicians

and anyone unlucky to get in its way. The show brought politics to a

mass audience. It connected young people in numbers not seen before or

since. If the satire of the 60s was broadsheet about issues, this was

tabloid. Margaret Thatcher returns to Downing Street... Spitting image

was born in a time of upheaval. Thatcher's was the most unpopular

Government of the century. The show's rejection of deference. No

one was safe. Not even the Queen. I name this baby Henry. May God bless

him and all who sail in him. Hello, how marvellous to talk down to you.

Politicians became defined by their puppets. Thatcher's iron grip on

power became a sign of the times. Tomorrow belongs to me. Yes. John

Major. You are still in the shit. Who do you blame? John Major was

painted grey in the public imagination. What happens if we lose

the next election? We'll merge, David. The leader of the Liberal

Party, David Steel was never able to recover from the portrayal of him as

squeezy voiced and tiny, in the pocket of STP founder David Owen.

S magic was in the production. Characturists combined with John

Lloyd and brought the puppets to life. Spitting Image became English

characture and Punch and Judy. Most of the production team were

television amateurs, but the product was a work of genius. By the way

Norman, how are your children? Delicious, thank you. Clearly,

Norman you are a sight. Let me get you someone to blow your nose on. I

committed ?60,000 to a pilot. ?60,000 at the time was a lot of

money. It was more than you would commit to a game show pilot. It was

getting towards drama money. You have to go further than that to get

people's attention. Just cut in a style that will be upon lard. --

popular. Certainly, madam. Some worry that satire today lost its

poke, it doesn't deliver the goods like Thatcher and her enemies. As

media proliferated so have the spindoctors and back room flunkies

whose job it to protect their master from scrutiny. Satirists today have

to fire at more bleak targets. Are you saying I am no longer allowed to

make media appearances? Correct. Peu was going to say, I don't think that

war is unforeseeable. What is it then? Foreseeable. You want fucking

declare a war. It is not inevitable, but not -- - you better work on this

fucking line. Politicians r Politicians have had to give up

control of air their image. If you have lost your trust, that's how I

hope we can start to win it back. What's exciting now is the immediacy

of satire. Because of the internet, because of Twitter, everyone can be

a satirist now. When you look at Sit Spitting Inlg Image, if you are

outside it then you can't do satire. Now, because it is democratised

anyone can do satire. Every politician is a weasel. Every celeb

fair game. No one enjoys immunity from the tweet. Spitting Image did

more than most to dig the grave. In your opinion who but the bump in the

bump... Single mothers. Joining me now are John Lloyd,

producer of comedy programmes including Spitting Image, Blackadder

and QI. Edwina Currie was Parliamentary

Under Secretary for Health under Margaret Thatcher and also famously

portrayed as a vampire and Rory Bremner, comedian and impressionist.

You didn't really hate your characture did you, you have got it

here? She is here. She is beautiful. Which one is which? Shut up. She is

smiling. She is in better shape than yours, Jeremy. When I saw her, I

thought well I am not too bad, but she has crossed teeth and I went

straight to the dentist! Did it hurt you when you saw yourself par dayed

like that? Everybody who was not on it wanted to be on it and everybody

who was on it sort of half wished they weren't. But at least it was

recognition. John Lloyd, do you think that affection like that draws

the teeth of satire? Well, it is a complicated thing. The thing that I

think is, as you have seen from the clips, the forgiving, the forgivable

thing about Spitting Image, it is funny. It was breath takingly

outrageously rude, but likeable. I was talking to a young Scottish

journalist today who said seeing Major's puppet in grey was the first

time he liked him. It had a peculiar thing. Norman Tebbit who is the

villain in the leather jacket who once drank soup made from a human

body because if the unemployed are so hungry why don't they eat

themselves? He comes across, you can't help liking him. He is a

pantomime villain really. What happened to it all? That's a good

question. Margaret Thatcher, you got to say Meryl Streep let herself go a

bit! Television has changed and people aren't commissioning satire.

The commissioners I don't think they get it. In some ways, they don't

understand satire. The culture has changed. The culture has changed, we

are in the era of banter. It is banter everywhere and Twitter and it

is immediate and it is more aggressive. It is a different kind

of culture and the politics has changed and the politicians seem to

have so much power. There is a lot of them that are quite nonentities

in your time, one of the great achievements of Spitting Image was

making household characters. They were hardly all brilliant figures,

but Spitting Image managed to make them recognisable. They were more

interesting. When we built the Cabinet, Charles Denton, the

programme controller, somebody said, "Why are you building these people?

Nobody knows who they are except for Mrs That thatcher." -- Mrs

Thatcher." I said they soon will. That's why the politicians liked it

because if you were on, you would be recognised everywhere and you would

be taken a lot more seriously because you were on the programme.

You were taken seriously despite being charactured as a vampire? I

think I was taken seriously anyway. It had an affect because it sent you

to the dentist? Margaret saw the characture of her with the mannish

voice and the masculine suits and she thought goed idea and she

changed. She became much less masculine and did very well at the

next election. What about the vegetables They did the same! In t

1960s Mike Yard, people would tune in and they would see their

politicians in a funny light or a lampoony light and they would

recognise who they were. We had the same thing with Alastair Campbell,

we said we've got to do Alastair Campbell. People said who is

Alastair Campbell and people won't know. People used to write to John

and to us saying we learnt our politics from your programme.

Newsnight doesn't get 12 or 15 million people like... In our

dreams, I think. Do you remember Sir Robert Armstrong... With the

actualality? We had a tip-off from Paul Foot saying this bloke Robert

Armstrong is going to do something terrible tun of these dayings, done

of these -- one of these days. We kept him in a cupboard and when he

did his thing Spitting Image was off air. It was the most infuriating

thing. With the current bunch of politicians, they seem a rather

colourless lot, don't they? Would it be possible to satirise them? I

pinched Rory's line when they said can you do Nick Clegg's voice and

they said even Nick Clegg can't do his voice! There is the spindoctory

thing is good. Watching your films earlier today, politicians don't

wear the right tie anymore. They used to know who they were because

Tories were proud to wear a blue tie and Labour wore red ones. I am a

soft Tory or time a tough Labour guy and everybody is so charming and

reasonable and what we liked at Spitting Image, the Tories were

conviction politicians, they said what they meant and they didn't care

what anyone thought and we were the same as television makers. We didn't

give a hoot what the newspapers thought. We wanted to do a

programme, it was terrific and stand-by it and so we fitted each

other. Conviction politics, and conviction television, you get

neither now. You are nodding away? He is right. What Spitting Image did

for many of the viewers, it made politics real.

I think it was true. It would be great to see something like that

today. You could have all the main politicians just as dare I say it,

just as faceless eggs or something, couldn't you? For Michael Gove he

could be his own puppet! We have conviction politicians now. We have

politicians who have convictions like Chris Huhne and Denis MacShane.

John said before that you do need satire needs a strong politicians,

but that's good for politics as well. The three most outspoken, the

most self characturing politicians are Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, and

Nigel Farrage. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are two of the most

popular politicians in the country. I think Spitting Image. I heard of a

headmaster sacked after a year in the job, he wasn't sure why he was

sacked and the governor said because you haven't managed to acquire a

nickname! He didn't have an impact and that's

the thing because politicians from Spitting Image knew who they were.

One of the reasons why politicians are not nearly as well trusted as

they have been in previous again raugsz, they are trying --

generations, they are trying to be like each other and the public don't

believe they would do the same if they got into power, they think

there are differences and there is a degree of hypocrisy and Spitting

Image identifies what they believe in. What they would really do and

puts it double sized onhe screen. Do you think Spitting Image would be

commissioned now? I don't think that there is any possibility. At the

peak of my time, when it was number three in the ratings, getting 15

million viewers, it was the most expensive light entertainment show

on television, but it was also the most profitable, because they were

selling the brakes for huge amount of money. People are prepared to

spend tens of millions on a series to get enormous sales. Now everybody

wants a little budget and a little result. As programme makers, we used

to make programmes that we cared about and were responsible for, and

so many people are worrying about what the Daily Mail will think, so

you get programmes that are just all right. Do you see any sign of the

tide turning? I don't think so. Alistair McGowan and Ronnie Ancona

were talking about doing a satire programme, and they said, it needs

to have a political edge, and you could feel the temperature in the

room drop. People said, this is BBC One we are talking about. That is

the climate amongst the commissioners. They are scared of

politics? Yes, I think the thing that politicians are the people they

talk to about the next round of broadcast legislation. That is self

censorship, exactly what Spitting Image was against. And I think it is

healthy to have it out of the open. That is all for tonight. And

tomorrow night's show... The same left-wing Bolshevik

nonsense that is on the BBC every night! Well, no more. Tomorrow

belongs to me! We will be talking privatisation. You will be first,

Jeremy. And who are all these people? Look at all this

overmanning. Planning editor? What she do. Barton Macfarlane, he sounds

like the commonest. Who switched out the lights? Arthur Scargill?

Good evening. Wednesday is set to get off to a pretty chilly start.

Heavy showers will quickly