07/12/2015 Newsnight

Here we go again, a deluge that leaves thousands of homes

Ike a current to it. It was that fast and that quick coming in, I had

no choice but to literally abandon it and take myself and my little one

upstairs. We can't protect ourselves

from everything the weather throws at us, but we'll ask

if we're even close to rising to the And Finland, the land of

Santa Claus, is pondering giving

a monthly income to everybody. Tyson Fury and the petition to take

him off the shortlist for Nature is a capricious beast

and has struck again, The rain has not just topped some

relatively new flood defences in that part of the country,

but has also topped the records: 34 cm in a 24-hour period - a

month's worth of rain in a day between Friday and Saturday

in the county. And the Met Office have said

a new record had been set for rainfall over a 48-hour period,

with 41 mm falling in 38 hours It's a county wearily familiar

with the consequences. The Prime Minister chaired a COBRA

meeting this morning, What we did after the 2009 floods is

spend millions of pounds building these barriers and they have

prevented floods in Carlisle I think on two occasions, but they weren't

enough on this occasion when we had But after every flood,

the thing to do is sit down, look at the money you're spending,

look at what you're building, look at what you're planning to build in

the future and ask, is it enough? It's pretty inevitable that people

will ask "are we doing enough" to prevent flooding, as they do

after each episode like this. It may be rational to say,

we're not going to bother defending against a flood that occurs only

once every 100 years. But what if we keep having

floods that are only meant The problem is that if some kind

of climate change is occurring, it may be that the statistics relating

to the last 100 years are hopeless Nick Hopkins has been looking

at how much we spend on flood Flooded and fed up. For so many,

Christmas will be spent crying out. Drying out. In the Commons today a

pledge from the Government to everyone who needs help will get it.

The Government will continue to ensure that all resources are made

available to support recovery from this flooding. COBRA will continue

to meet daily to oversee recovery efforts, and I will be travelling to

Cumbria and Lancashire after this statement to continue to ensure we

are doing all we can to help those affected. But as floodwaters recede,

recriminations begin. Labour today accused the Government of breaking

spending promises. The figures show spending on flood defences hit ?670

million in 2010. Before it was slashed under the coalition

Government. The winter floods of late 2013 and early 2014 prompted an

emergency injection of Government cash. But spending this year will

indeed dip. There is money to throw at the problem. Devastation two

years ago prompted Ministers to pledge ?2.3 billion of new spending

over the next six years. But experts warn cuts elsewhere could leave us

vulnerable. I think the question there is, how have the various

Spending Reviews affected all the other organisations that maintain

our flood defences of different sorts, all different assets, be they

highways, water companies and so on. Keswick in Cumbria. This is worse

than the flooding seen here in 2009. That was meant to be a once in a

century event. It wasn't. And that's no accident, say some. We need to

have a long-term strategy. We definitely need to use the science

that we are developing now, which indicate there is going to be a

continuous change in extreme rainfall in flooding and we need to

put that into policy to make sure our populations are resilient. So

that policy doesn't exist at the moment? In some parts it does, but

it could be improved. The threat of flooding is one thing. Ensuring

against it another. Premiums of ?25,000 a year are not unheard of.

Insurers will club together next year to spread the risk, a scheme

which should bring the bills down. I It will give people more access to

insurance, but it is a partial fix. Which sits alongside our choice of

where to build and our choice of how we build. Could extreme weather

require extreme answers? As some areas, are some areas now too great

a flood risk? I think it is realistic to that some places will

be unsustainable in the future. Now people might choose hot to live in

an area of flood risk. People who stay might have to consider flood

proofing their house, raising it up or changing the sockets. You can do

a lot of things, or learn to live with the flooding, which is another

option. Many people do live with flooding quite happily. It is about

a choice but we have to be able to support people in that choice. It is

not that easy when you are actually flooded and your home has been

destroyed to rationally think about whether you can stay in that area.

These floods weren't the first. And they won't be the last. And they may

get much worse. John Sweeney is in Carlisle in Cumbria and he joins us

now. Give us some of the impressions you've been picking up today as

you've been there. I've seen worse tragedies in my time, but it is grim

up here. I've been speaking to a chap who was helping his name, who

is 93, and it is her birthday today. Frankly she said to her neighbour,

listen, I don't want to go home ever again. I've had enough of floods.

She is worried the police might have knocked down her front door and that

looters may have come in. I don't think it is a massive reality, but

the it is a fear. How did this happen? In 2005 there was a big

flood here. Flood defences were built and they were 23 feet height.

The water came in over the weekend at 25 feet. The result is thousands

of people have had their homes flooded, and many hundreds are

industrial without power, including this area where we are now. It is a

grim story and this is the film we've made about it, which we'll

show now. Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink. The floods

are not just a catastrophe, but the people here in Cumbria and the

north-west of England they are bad news for the Government and the

taxpayer too. Ten years ago a great flood happened here in Carlisle. It

was described as a once in a 100 years event. The bad news, it has

happened again. Not once in a century but twice in a decade. The

great flood of 1853 set the record for flooding here in Carlisle. That

level was toppeded in 2005 by half a metre. This weekend the water

summered a further half a metre, higher again. After the 2005 floods,

the Government spent ?38 million on new flood defences here. Some locals

could be forgiven for wondering whether that money was poured down

the drain. You could hear cracking. We thought the French patio doors

had cracked, but it was the wooden flooring, it has risen up. Have you

got kids? We've got a 1-year-old and a 17-year-old. They are my aunty's.

And how were they? Milly is special needs. She was really scared. She

ended up going out on a boat with the Life Guards yesterday afternoon.

You can blame this flood on global warming, or say that it has got

nothing whatsoever to do with it. There's a big argument about that

happening in Paris right now. But people in Cumbria say the flood

defences have let them down. Tonight the tally stands at 4,000 homes

flooded. Many are still without electricity. For now, from here,

Britain's flood defences don't look that great.

Here with me now to discuss some of these issues is the Conservative MP,

Neil Parish, who is chair of the Select Committee for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs and also has a farm in Somerset, which was struck

Good evening to you. Just on the funding, and I don't want to get

into pernickety argument about whether it is 1 periods up or 1%

down, but is the settlement higher than previous Parliaments? It is

about the same as previous Parliaments. I think the big

argument now is, do we need to spend more? My heart goes out to the

people of Cumbria. We were flooded in 1981 with sea floods with where I

farm and that was really bad. Lost a lot of sheep and the house was

flooded. Are we spending enough of our resource to defend ourselves

from the sea and from Inland Regional Centre flooding? That's my

question to you. Are we spending enough? More or less. We are saying

we are doing well because we are keeping spending higher than it was

in the 1990s, but is it remotely enough? Figures show that for every

?1 we spend on flood protection, it is worth ?4 to ?9 for the local

economy. Therefore I would argue we need to spend more. We need to

defend our holes against floods, and we need to defend our coast against

floods. I think whether it is global warming, whether it is patterns,

what wherever it is, what we can't do is allow our homes to be flooded,

nor should we allow our country to be flooded. It is not just with

these floods now. I've been on about this for many years. In Somerset we

suffer floods a lot of the time by its very nature. You've got to

accept that some areas will flood. This flood that happened now,

probably if you get a month's rain in a day, you are going to have

problems. But we still have to face up to this. These are one in 100

events, but these are happening every five years. If you are on a

trajectory that's going up, it is obviously going to happen more than

once every 100 years. Run that figure by me again. For every ?1 you

invest there are ?4 of benefit? Yes. Are there schemes that we are not

doing, not taking up, where that kind of benefit to cost ratio

exists? Yes, we need more money. So hang on. Before you move on, how do

we justify to ourselves that there are schemes where we honey believe

for ?1 we spent we get ?4 of benefit and we say, can't be bothered to do

it? We'll have the Permanent Secretary of Defra in front of us in

January, along with the Secretary of State. That's precisely the

questions we'll be asking. And he will say incidentally. She will say.

Sorry. She'll say that they don't have the money. The Chancellor will

say for infrastructure, there's never been a better time to do it

because interest rates are low. So therefore we have to look at flood

and sea defence, because in the end we have to defend our country. You

only have to spend the Netherlands, who spend a fortune on it, or they

wouldn't have a country, we don't spend enough. We'll probably have to

persuade the Chancellor, whether a Conservative or Labour Chancellor,

but we've got to face up to the fact we need to spend more money. Some of

the benefits come not just next year but in 50 years' time or possibly

100ees' time. Do you think Government in this country is well

tuned to thinking about the 50 to 100 years' time? We'll need to,

because the insurance companies will need to reinsure these properties,

so they've got to have some confidence. We have to make sure

people can afford their premiums and don't have huge excesses. We are

going to have to be much longer thinking on this issue. You have

been very honest, one of the government's ideas is through the

private sector, maybe localities, to put more money in themselves to

their own flood defence. It frankly hasn't been working, has it? There

has been some money coming in but not as much as we would like to see.

If it is not going to come from the private sector, they will need to be

more public sector support, but I think it is right to get the private

sector to contribute, but we don't want that stopping schemes, we have

to let them go forward. This evening Donald Trump has

generated a great deal of interest. The first is that the latest polls

show his lead solder fine -- solidifying in I/O outcome of the

first state in next year but Mac primary season, at a rather

unassailable looking 33%. The second is yet another round of very

controversial comments on Muslims in the United States. Donald Trump is

proposing a total ban on Muslims coming into America. He did so in

this press release. It dropped into our inboxes an hour ago, many people

thought it was a fake, a parody but it is for real. It says Donald Trump

is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the

United States and tell our country's representatives can figure out what

is going on. Now, we have spoken to his spokespeople, they have been

saying that this man would -- this ban would apply to tourist train to

come into America and also Muslim immigrants seeking entry as well.

Quite how they would find out the fate of people entering America is,

they are not sure on that detail, and not sure if it would apply to

American Muslims who leave the country and want to come back but it

has been fiercely condemned by the White House less than 24 hours after

President Obama made a plea for racial tolerance. Saying this is

contrary to American values, and it has been said by Jeb Bush to be

unhinged. Donald Trump has been saying so much in this campaign,

trashed a war hero, made sexist remarks about a journalist, imitated

a person with a disability. One wonders what else the guy is going

to do to court controversy. Will this make a difference, is this the

one where people will say we're not going to vote for the guy now, or

will it carry on adding to his own momentum? We have been asking that

question ever since he started insulting people and is not must

have gone up. What has propelled his candidacy, not just the celeb take

his money, his hardline stance on immigration. It was set out in that

very first press conference in Trump Tower when he called Mexican

immigrants rate this and criminals and vowed to build a wall between

Mexico and America. Recently he called for a registry of American

Muslims, yet every time he has made what many people would think of as

racist comments, his poll numbers have gone up. I should add there has

been a very strong condemnation from Muslim groups in America this

evening. One group has said we are now entering the realm of the

fascist. Whether this disqualified him from the presidency, who knows?

Every time he had said something outrageous in the past, as I have

said, his poll numbers have tended to go up.

We learned today that sometimes government happens more slowly

The final decision on a third runway at Heathrow was kicked into this

parliament from the last one, and then when we got the verdict of

the Davies commission, was kicked into December from the summer.

And guess what - today we learned that it has now reportedly been

But laugh as we might at the endless obfuscation, that is not the only

Hopes of wrapping it all up for Christmas have gone.

The President of the EU Council, Donald Tusk,

What did we learn today? He gave us this new goal of February, he said

he wants it done and dusted by then. He suggested that dithering so far

over Britain's renegotiation had caused instability across Europe.

There will be some relief for British Conservatives. They were

worried it would be a never-ending referendum. They would go on and on.

Now you could have a deal in February and conceivably have the

referendum done by mid-to-late June. It is really tough. It would require

everything to fall into place like clockwork but is still slightly

possible. If it is going to be February, the agreement, it requires

a lot of work to be done. The actual exercise Donald Tusk has done is he

has gone round the other a youth member state and says what do you

reckon about what Britain is asking for? A massive fact-finding mission,

and he has found, what a surprise, the problem is the tax credits

issue. David Cameron, they would like to say the new migrants coming

to Britain in the future, you would have to wait four years before you

could get in work benefits. We have reported that Jeremy Hayward has

told the Prime Minister you are not going to get that, it would be

illegal, you might get six months. Task is coming back essentially

saying what we sort of knew already, just at a more formal level, that it

is looking pretty tricky. David Cameron has some good news in that

the Tories really don't want this to dominate the next parliament, but

equally there is no way, no clear way through on tax credits yet.

It's an idea that's been around for decades, but few countries have

been brave enough - or perhaps stupid enough - to adopt it.

The idea is to scrap welfare as we know it, and instead to offer every

So step forward Finland, because the Prime Minister there

Everybody would be given 800 euros a month - ?600 or so to keep.

It has enormous appeal, but does it work?

We'll hear from a proponent in a moment,

Should we replace the existing system of pensions, child payments,

disability allowances, housing support and all the rest with what

A simple flat tax-free payment to all adults that

That notion may now be taking a step away from the seminar room

and towards reality, with moves in Finland to start trials of the idea.

The body that administers social security there has commissioned

a new study, and the policy has support, according to

But then who wouldn't like a tax free payment every month

The Finnish proposal is to abolish existing benefits and replace them

with a monthly payment of 800 euros to every adult.

Paying every adult that would cost about 46 billion euros a year,

about in line with current Finnish benefit spending.

Counterintuitive as it might sound, the aim is to reduce unemployment.

In theory, paying people a flat rate of cash regardless of whether they

work or not should make it easier for people to move into work.

They won't lose benefit as they earn more, reducing disincentives.

Well, there are several, and some of them are pretty big.

Any move towards a basic income would create lots of winners,

amongst people who don't get much cash from the state at the moment.

Basically people in decent paying work without children.

But it what create serious losers too.

Disabled people, for example, who often get larger payments from

the social security system to help them cope with their conditions.

People with children, especially those with larger families

on lower income tax, who would lose out on child benefit payments.

And people who currently get support with housing costs

Of course, you could try and add in circumstances-specific top-up

payments, but then you would be undermining the simplicity of the

A basic income which doesn't cut the payments to the most vulnerable

be more expensive than the current system and implies higher taxes.

And that's the issue Finland will now have to face.

Joining me to talk about basic incomes, Newell Lawson, chair of the

left of centre campaigning group, Compass. He is an advocate of doing

this in Britain. It is a live debate as you are concerned, you are doing

a seminar on it tomorrow. Very live. What do you like about this scheme?

Our Social Security system is broken, it was invented in 1945 and

the world has moved on from working in factories. A new world is

coming, where technology will displace lots of jobs actually, and

there will be huge productivity gain from that. Unless we want food

riots, we are going to have to find a way of paying people to spend

money in the supermarkets. All the evidence suggests that people don't

do nothing, actually what they do is they work, they become more

entrepreneurial, they volunteer, they care for people, they do a

whole load of things. Our social security system is built on

believing the worst in people, and what a citizen's income does is it

gives them the belief of the best in people. That is what it is about.

Let's go through the basic problem with the basic income scheme, what

Duncan mentioned, if it isn't very generous, basically it is not very

nice to people who are in hardship, who can't but by going out to work

for example. We are modelling this at the moment, and actually if you

swapped to some kind of citizen's income in the UK where every adult

was given ?75 and you kept housing benefit and child benefit, one or

two other benefits, as a kind of way into it to begin to introduce it,

now then, if we are right... ?75 a week? Gas, which is enough, it is

not perfect, not as much as the Finns are doing it, and the Finns

are doing it, why can't we? It begins to introduce the system and

it puts a floor under people. If there are going to be huge

productivity gains from new technology, the question is who

gains from that? Does it just go to the tech companies or can we

redistributed through a citizens income? ?75 which doesn't sound like

a good enough wage. I wouldn't have thought somebody from the left would

think that. As soon as you start topping it up with a disability

premium, child benefit already in there, which I believe Finland isn't

proposing to do, then you have made it all complicated, you have just

reinvented universal credit with a lower withdrawal. You are treating

everyone as a citizen and giving them worth, giving them some kind of

floor under their feet. When you start giving people 70 something

pounds a week, the unemployed move into employment, those who are

taking very poorly paid jobs, refuse poorly paid jobs and go the better

paid jobs. So it helps all round. You get rid of the competitive

benefit system, the humiliation of means testing. You have got rid of

means testing and the humiliation, but in order to give me ?75 a week,

you have got to put up everybody's tax rate in order to find all those

?75. So you have given everyone a lump sum all week but the basic

income tax rate has to go up very substantially. No it doesn't, it can

go up a bit. But look, every time we introduce something radically

different and transformative, the NHS, the minimum wage, the Social

Security system itself originally, everyone says it is not possible,

right? It is possible, it is just whether it is attractive. Finland

are showing it is possible and if this technology thing is happening,

and if jobs are going to be displaced, then we have to find a

way to pay people. There is no way out of this. It is why people on the

left are supporting it, like me, but why people across the political

spectrum from the RSA to the Adam Smith Institute all sorts of

economists, and more than anything technologists, arriving at

citizen's income is the policy issue of the 21st century. If Finland, who

are considering it now, if they look at it, back away and say this isn't

going to work, will it change mine? Everywhere it has happened, been

tried, it has moved people into being productive and has helped

people reach their potential and fulfil their potential. If it can do

that, then it is a policy we ought to be looking at.

The sports glitterati will gather at the SSE Arena in Belfast

for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year event.

They'll drag the show out for more than two hours, but the clue

as to the bit you're meant to relish is in the title - the crowning of

One winner out of twelve shortlisted contenders.

But, this year, there is a petition against one name on that shortlist:

boxer Tyson Fury, world heavyweight champion.

His remarks likening homosexuality to paedophilia, and suggesting that

the legalisation of homosexuality is a sign of the apocalypse have upset

many, as have comments about fellow shortlistee, Jessica Ennis, who, he

said "slaps up good" and "looks quite fit".

Now, do his comments make him unsuitable as a winner?

Or should those taking offence simply look

I'm joined by the boxing promoter, Kellie Maloney, and the

Good evening to you both. Good evening. Kellie, knowing what Tyson

Fury has said, when you saw him box Klitschko, who were you rooting for?

Obviously Tyson Fury, because he's British. It was one of the dull test

heavyweight fights I have ever watched, but his achievement was

unbelievable. He went into the lion's den against all odds. No-one

picked him to win, including myself. And he came away with the title, so

his sporting achievement is unbelievable. But? His comments

leave a lot to be desired. I didn't really know about the comment until

this morning people phoned me. At first I thought he should be taken

off the list. But the more I've listened to it today, even to Tyson

himself speaking, I think he should be left on the list and the British

public should make that decision. Right, so has he ever said anything

about transagendaered boxing promoters? No, but he said a lot of

things about Frank Maloney. He's been up before the board of control

before and has been fined for derogatory remarks against boxers

and their families and women before. It is not the first time Tyson has

let steam off. Do you think sports people owe a duty to be a role

model, upholding civic values and not making subtling remarks or

should they say what they think and be done with it Of course it would

be nice to think that all sports people should be role models, but

that's an unrealistic expectation to put on people. Sports people come

from all walks of life. To me it is like saying everyone in society

should be a role model and act in a certain way. We have different types

of people from different social, economic, academic backgrounds. Not

everyone is going to be able to uphold and put their best foot

forward. It is the same for sports people. Of course it would be nice

but unrealistic. With expectation there is's disappointment and that's

what happens. Let's talk about specific cases. Glenn Hoddle, an

English football manager, made remarks about karma and people with

disabilitiesment basically he lost his job as a result. Do you think

that was the right thing, Kellie? Not really. He should be judged on

what he does for sport. It seems there's some rules for certain

people in sports and some rules for others. If he had been winning he

would have... Kept his job. For me, and this is a little controversial,

I feel the media also have a responsibility. If you think about

it, the media love to give column inches and TV time to controversial

figures in sport. They love the give all that attention. So we entice the

comments? Exactly. We talk about, the media talk about people should

be role models, but think about it. If you gave them limelight and

glorified the great sports people in society that are doing the great

work, being great role models and stopped giving it to the

controversial, maybe it would inspire the controversial ones to be

better role models. Supposing he said something about black athletes,

would it change your view on this? Would you be more angry than you are

exhibiting at the moment? A lot of the time he's speaking about his way

of life. His community, how they are. Of course it is not we as a

whole society think, but at the same time it is what they do and they are

happy with it. But if they were happy with racist views, for

example, would you it is OK for him to be on a personality sports list?

It is not a winner's roster. But the public do decide, so the public make

that decision. If the public, I think he's, I think his remarks are

wrong and they are very very think he's, I think his remarks are

wrong and they are very a certain section of society. But he's a human

being, you have to understand where he is coming from. He is from a

closed community. Trained by his uncle. They don't have any

outsiders, they live in their own world. And we are talking about

sports personality of the year. Certain things, with what he said,

there's two different things we are talking about here. Sports

Personality of the Year, what are the the criteria? If they are about

your sporting prowess and what every achieved in your sporting field,

that's one thing, which I think it is. If some of the criteria are that

you have to be a role model and you can't do this and this... You

wouldn't have him there? Absolutely not, because it is not in the rules.

Maybe the BBC needs to change the rules and then he can't be in, but

for now let him in and allow people to vote. You think he should be in?

I do now, for what he has achieved in sport. Who would you vote for?

Jessica Ennis hill? I think Andy Murray for the Davis Cup. I think

Jessica Ennis, obviously. Thank you both.

Ten years ago, we could have done a piece on how coffee shops are

If we had, some of us would have said the growth of Starbucks

We would have made puns about there being too much froth

Coffee bars have continued to proliferate.

It's a lesson that sometimes you can extrapolate an unsustainable

So what is the success of coffee telling us?

At home the British may still be a nation of tea drinkers, but on the

Coffee shops, branded and independent, are spreading.

The idea of spending ?2, ?3 or even more pounds on a cup

of coffee no longer seems entirely alien to everyone.

Some have even spoken about a flat white economy.

If I'm honest I don't know what a flat white is

and I'm quite suspicious of the kind of people that order them.

But what I do know is that one of the fastest growing bits

Despite severe recession, despite a big squeeze

in household incomes, if you go back six years, about one in nine

Last year though, it was one in five.

In the last decade-and-a-half, the number of coffee outlets on

In the noughties that was driven by the growth of the brand of chains,

like Starbucks and Costa, but more recently there's been a pick-up

And the market has been entered by non-specialists.

Notably Gregg's the bakers and pub chain Wetherspoons.

We began our research 18 years ago and we were told the market was

already saturated then, there were enough coffee shops.

Today we are looking at over 22,000 coffee shops,

We think the market still has perhaps even double to go.

The rise of out of town supermarkets and internet shopping has impacted

on the high street, freeing up retail space and lowering rents.

That's giving major opportunities for quality coffee shops,

branded or nice quality independents to move in at affordable rents

People flock to coffee shops to socialise and,ing inially, to work.

People flock to coffee shops to socialise and to work.

And it is a meeting place of I guess people that

We have a lot of people that come in here and buy one coffee and sit

Combining the leisurely graces of 17th century England with

the colour, art and imagination of modern taste,

coffee houses like this one in Kensington are having a new...

The last decade wasn't Britain's first coffee shop boom.

Tastes change over time and the 1960s saw something similar,

But the first real coffee boom was 300 years before.

On the left we have something very exciting, a rather fetching blue

plaque marking the site of London's first coffee house, opened in 1562,

plaque marking the site of London's first coffee house, opened in 1652,

and within a couple of weeks Londoners were flocking here in

their hundreds to try out the bitter Mohammedan gruel,

a 17th century term for coffee, but I'm surprised no hipster coffee

Commerce was intrinsic to the coffee house experience.

Some of the institutions in the City, like the insurance

industry at Lloyds, and the stock markets, they all grew out of these

smoky candlelit coffee houses.

Until the arrival of coffee, most people were either slightly or

very drunk all day long, because you couldn't drink the river

So the arrival of coffee triggers the dawn of sobriety that lays the

foundation for spectacular economic growth in the decades that followed,

partly because people are thinking clearly for the first time.

Of course, 17th century coffee was very different.

Matthew Green still prepares it in the same way

It was routinely compared to oil, ink, soot, mud,

Coffee's relationship to the wider economy continues today.

Some people are using coffee shops as indicators of gentrification

I looked at coffee shops in an area and the number of chicken

My theory was if you find a place that has a high density

of coffee shops and low density of chicken shops and low house prices,

The presence of coffee shops might tell us if coffee prices in

But coffee doesn't tell us much about the state of the wider

economy, because this is a market that seems to keep on growing

The reason is because it is a narcotic and once we've started we

need evermore to keep us going. Before we go, we thought we should

mark the occasion of David Cameron's 10th anniversary as leader

of the Conservative Party. In that decade he left his daughter

in a pub and won a couple of elections. So here are some

of his highlights and low points. I want to talk about the future. He

was the future once. There is such a thing as society. It's just not the

same thing as the state. It is now formally a hung Parliament. I want

to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal

Democrats. Calm down, dear, calm down. Of

course I would rather you supported West Ham. I'm a Villa fan.

REPORTER: Do you choose West Ham or Villa? Sorry, I had, these things

sometimes happen when you're on the stump. Together, together, together.

Let's pull together. Let's come together. Let's work together.

Together, together, together, together, and together. Too many

twits might make a twit. Hello there. Sunny spells and scattered

showers for Tuesday. We've got early