14/01/2016 Newsnight

Tonight, the Chancellor tells Newsnight that there can be NO

This is the vote. There is no second vote. This is the vote, this is the

crucial decision of our lifetime. We sit down

with him in Berlin to discuss how the negotiations are going,

and what it means for Britain. Sparkling diamonds, they are giving

Hatton Garden sleepless nights! The nearest thing to an Ealing

comedy that real crime gets. Three men are convicted

for the Hatton Garden heist - what it is about jewellery

theft that makes it such And we talk to Juliet Stevenson

about her friend and co-star The Chancellor has told Newsnight

there can be no second vote on Europe and called

on the British people to focus on what he calls a 'once

in a lifetime decision'. His comments are being interpreted

as a direct response to some campaigning on the Leave side -

who had floated the idea - behind the scenes -

of having two referendums - so that people would feel freer

to vote to leave if it meant Britain then having another chance

at negotiating a BETTER deal - an idea the Chancellor

was quick to scupper today. George Osborne also suggested that

in key EU member states a consensus was emerging that Britain had made

a perfectly reasonable case for change which would

improve not just the UK - Whilst talk was of renegotiation

he also staked his claim The next Conservative manifesto

in 2015, will ask for a mandate from the British people

for a Conservative government to negotiate

a new settlement with our European And with that the Prime Minister let

the blue touchpaper for the big It was perhaps no surprise

that he appointed his long-term ally, George Osborne,

alongside the Foreign Secretary, And, over the past few

months in a flurry of summits and meetings,

Britain's demands have fallen One, sorting out the relationship

between euro members Two boosting competitiveness

and reducing red Three protecting sovereignty

by exempting Britain from ever close the union and bolstering

national parliaments, and four, measures to restrain

migration, such as limiting The Chancellor is in Berlin today,

continuing the arguments on all that with the German and French

finance ministers. Now obviously migration has

caused some friction And it is that that has attracted

most public attention. But don't let it detract

from the things going on in the renegotiation,

in particular, one way of looking is as a ginormous U-turn

in British foreign policy. You see, for years,

the mantra has been, we have to cling on to

the idea of one Europe, Britain in that Europe,

sitting at the top table alongside John Major talked of Britain

being at the heart of I want us to be where we belong,

at the very heart of Europe. Tony Blair referred

to Britain as full players I believe we in Britain should start

to have a little more confidence in our ability to shape

arguments, have influence, play our part in Europe,

without constantly worrying that Europe will turn

into a conspiracy against Britain. So the renegotiation

wraps all that up. You might even call

it a tear-jerker. Because what it tries to do

is put into writing, Europe, codifying the relationship

between members of the euro Britain still in the EU,

but not at its heart. One stop on his brief trip to Berlin

to was a trendy office space for business start-ups,

a tour with the French economy minister.

And there he sat down. And there he sat down with me.

Chancellor, many people think of the renegotiation is just for show.

People who support the efforts you are making, what do you see in it

that is important? There are some people in Britain who definitely

want to leave Europe and others want to remain. I think the majority want

to stay in a reformed European Union and that is why this negotiation

matters because it offers the chance of a new settlement between Britain

and Europe where we are not part of of a new settlement between Britain

ever closer union, with the Eurozone cannot impose changes on us,

ever closer union, with the Eurozone need consent. If we achieve that

settlement they will have finally put at ease that often fractious

relationship between Britain and put at ease that often fractious

Europe. Give me a practical example. put at ease that often fractious

Let's hold migration aside put at ease that often fractious

difference it makes. Welcoming put at ease that often fractious

is one practical example. Just put at ease that often fractious

before the summit the Eurozone tried to land Britain with the bill for

the Greek bailout. That would have had an impact on British taxpayers.

the Greek bailout. That would have because of agreements we had already

reached at a political level but it was a close run thing. We need

permanent changes so that British taxpayers do not bail and European

countries. Another example, some businesses were told they could not

locate in Britain because it businesses were told they could not

part of the Eurozone. businesses were told they could not

challenged that. But we want to enshrine it in the

challenged that. But we want to just enshrine it in the rules of the

challenged that. But we want to European Union but of a safety

mechanism that enables us to enforce those rules. You are saying that

this marks a significant rewriting of the relationship between members

and nonmembers of the euro, for example? For me, as the finance

minister, at least the most important part of what we are trying

to achieve is ensuring that Britain can operate alongside Eurozone that

is integrating and creating ever closer political and economic and

financial union, because Britain doesn't want to be part of that and

I don't want Britain doesn't want to be part of that and

choose, as some would say, between doesn't want to be part of that and

joining a single currency, something we never want to do, and leaving the

European Union. You know how these we never want to do, and leaving the

negotiations are going, have you made up your mind on how you will

vote in the referendum? What I want to do is achieve a successful

renegotiation, that is one thing I want to do in Berlin. But we can

achieve that we can recommend to the British people that we can stay

achieve that we can recommend to the this reformed European Union. Until

the conclusion of that renegotiation, we rule nothing out.

So you, George Osborne, really could actually recommend to the British

people that we the European Union? As I say, we rule nothing out.

Accent I don't go into these things, David Cameron is not going to these

things, my Cabinet colleagues do not go into these things thinking that

we will fail. We watched as exceed in these negotiations. Here in

Berlin just weeks before a crucial European Council when we will make

these decisions, I am pretty optimistic. We can see the central

pieces of the deal falling into place. We will achieve a more

competitive Europe, make sure we will not be part of ever closer

union. We will be able to secure our rights as a country not part of the

euro and I think we will be able to deal with the abuse of free movement

and people travelling just to claim welfare benefits. Achieve those

things and you are dealing with many of the major concerns people have

about the status quo in Europe. A big step forward. Is the Treasury

planning contingencies for bricks at -- Brexit? This is where the

resources of the Treasury are deployed... Six months from

negotiating an exit, you are open-minded about whether we will

stay in or go out and you are not prepared for it! As I say, our

efforts on making sure that we achieve a successful renegotiation.

And I see, not just in Germany but in France, in other key states,

consensus emerging that Britain has made a reasonable case for change,

and this new settlement is not only better for Britain but potentially

better for the rest of Europe as well. I am optimistic. One of the

reasons we got this far is because a lot of hard work has been done, not

just by the politicians but by civil servants, to achieve it. In the

interests of plain speaking and clarity, most people know that you

support EU membership and you will be optimistic that you will be

supporting it because the renegotiation is going well enough

for us to stay in. You would not defer from what I have just said is

a summary of your position? I will put my way. I hope to be able to

recommend that we should stay in a reformed European Union. I came into

the House of Commons in 2001, I'm a Eurosceptic like many of my

conservative colleagues because I'm Eurosceptic like many of my

concerned about some of the things that happened in the European Union.

That's why I want to make this changes... Let's talk about seeking

a position where we can achieve this changes. Then we can have the best

of both Wells, we can be in the European Union, yet not run by it.

To use an old, but apt slogan. Let's talk about something that matters

more on the continent and possibly more to the people of Britain, which

is migration, refugees, flows of people. David Cameron implied that

is migration, refugees, flows of for Europeans to come to Britain

they would need a job. Then he implied that if they were there for

six months without a job they would have to go home. It seems that all

of that has been dumped and we have a much watered-down objective in

of that has been dumped and we have terms of the migration of objective

and renegotiation. Is that right? The objective that we are seeking is

the one we put in our manifesto that button voted on last year. That is,

you cannot abuse the free movement of people just to come to our

country and claim benefits. And we need to address this... It has been

watered down from what the prime ministers said in 2014. I don't

think that's true. David Cameron, in a speech at Bloomberg, said we had

to address the abuse of free movement. Benchmark one Commons

select committee was told, on a specific proposal of curbing

benefits, he said it would not have much impact, do you agree? I don't,

actually. Budget have you looked at the impact that it will have? The

work that has been done, including by bodies like independent Europe,

respected think tank, is that this would help reduce the flow of

migration to the UK. Paige will it get it down? Do you seek European

migration coming down, post renegotiation? If you remove the

unnatural drawer of our welfare system, you will be able to reduce

it... Down to 10s of thousands, the overarching objective of this

government? It will contribute to it. Has 10s of thousands will

include migration from non-European countries so we will take measures

to make sure that that is not abused either. Many people have said you

have been clever with the living wage proposal, raising it to ?9 or

more by the end of parliament. If that helps British workers it will

be an enormous drawer to Polish or central European workers, won't it?

What we want our migrants who make a big contribution to our

What we want our migrants who make a paid their taxes, and that is a good

thing for our country but we want that migration to be controlled and

we don't want our migration system to be abused. OK if they come for

the minimum wage, as long as they do not come for benefits. Using to be

saying, yes if they are working, no if it is benefits. I am not saying

that migration is a bad thing per se but and must be controlled. On this

issue of borders which will clearly be a big part of the campaign, Alan

Johnson, on this programme last might, said that if we leave, you

will not get your borders back. Any plausible scenario, he said, about a

new relationship with Europe, we will, like Norway and Switzerland,

maintain free movement of people. Is that your view? If we vote out when

the referendum comes, we will probably end up with free movement

anyway? I agree with Alan that if you look at the other models offered

like Norway and Switzerland and the like, there are open borders in the

sense that this is part of the deal that they had to sign up to. I would

say Britain has the best of both worlds. The reason why we don't have

won a million refugees flowing in, in the way that Germany has had, is

precisely because we are in control of our borders. Benchmark will we

have a border or not after the referendum? Will we have free

movement, this is a basic question and we don't seem to have a clear

answer to it. We have a border today because

Britain is not part of Schengen from a -- the free movement. We are not

part of the single currency. You raise a perfectly good question,

which is, if it comes to the referendum, and there are people

advocating that we leave in that referendum, they will have to answer

the question, what is the alternative, are we going to have

free movement of people, are we going to have to pay into the

European budget to have access to their market anyway, will we have

European budget to have access to sign up to the rules even if we

don't have a vote on those rules, these are all the things that

countries like Norway face today. And they will be good questions to

put giving a referendum campaign. Do you think a referendum will settle

it? I think it will, for at least a generation, for my lifetime. Some

people talked about a second referendum. This is the vote. There

is no second vote. This is the crucial decision of our lifetimes.

Anyone who votes out on the assumption a year or two later you

can have another vote to go back in is being unrealistic. It is

important British people focus on the fact this is a

once-in-a-lifetime decision. Last one, you are going around capitals

of Europe and they are worried about migration, terrorism, Paris events,

ten killed in Turkey. Do they not look at you and think they have

bigger things to worry about? Talking to Germans here. Businesses,

some of the German people and the politicians, they understand many of

Britain's frustrations and share some of them. They want Europe to

succeed and create jobs and growth and offer security, let's achieve

the reforms and have that settlement so we can vote to remain in that

reformed Europe. It was like the plot

of an Ealing comedy. A gang of ageing criminals,

with bus passes and sleeping bags, pull off a ?14 million raid on safe

deposit boxes in Hatton Garden - astonishing Scotland Yard,

and perhaps themselves, too. Three of them convicted

at Woolwich Crown Court of involvement in the country's

biggest burglary. Of course, no crime is victimless,

and much of the money and jewellery But no one was hurt in the raid,

and for romantics of a certain Sparkling diamonds, their value

running into millions, are giving Hatton Garden

sleepless nights. Willie Sutton, the most famous

American bank robber, they asked why he robbed banks

and he said, because that is where Last Easter raiders got

into the Hatton Garden vaults, lowered themselves down a lift shaft

and used high power drills to access It was like a reboot

of the Lavender Hill Mob, except this lot were

like the Over The Hill Police say the gang who broke

into a vault in Hatton Garden... They said the thieves

were organised. There was a theory it had

to be an international gang like the Pink Panther, this

famous gang of robbers and thieves. That there was not enough British

ingenuity left to carry it out, that we have two imports doctors and IT

people and footballers and we have to import criminals, also. But the

elite international cartel theory took a dent after the flying squad

arrested a group of British criminals getting on in years. In

fact they had a combined age of 500. A lot of them are having to go like

this to hear the evidence. They have to to be excused periodically

because they need to pay a visit. There is a lot of talk about hip

replacements and bladder problems and so on. The firm included

76-year-old Brian Reader, also known as the governor, who admitted his

part in the job. He went as the governor, who admitted his

burglary by bus with the Freedom pass and apparently got cold feet

after the crooks fail to crack the vault on the first night. Kenny

Collins, 75, admitted his involvement, he drove the getaway

car and kept watch outside the vault but the court heard he fell asleep.

Daniel Jones ex 60 almost the baby of the group. Police found a copy of

forensics for dummies at his house. He took part in the theft. William

Lincoln claimed he had been at Billingsgate Fish market at the

time, but was convicted of his part in it. Noel Razor Smith has served

time for armed robbery and for many years has gone straight as an author

and journalist. Professional criminals are always after the big

one and the big one is something that is a job you can undertake and

retire and never go back to that is a job you can undertake and

criminality or prison again, and this was their big one, which is why

I'm surprised they messed it up so badly. Rule number one when you

start out in this game, if you are going to the trouble of doing a job

like that, do not have the gear around you afterwards. The number of

people who can do this is very small and it is a matter of the flying

squad looking at who is in or out, who is dead, who is abroad, and the

list is small. If you are on the list, you will be contacted. As

their dreams turn to dust the ageing ringleaders faced the prospect of

spending their declining years inside. Daniel Jones confessed and

told police he could lead them to his stash, under the headstone of

told police he could lead them to one of his dear departed in a north

London cemetery. Before that outing took place, officers came to the

cemetery by themselves and under another headstone belonging to

another member of Jones' extended family they found a second larger

hall of loot, which Jones had strangely omitted to tell them

about. When he was confronted about this, he said, oh, that, that was

for my future use. To most professionals, giving back what you

have stolen is anathema. You do not want to do the work, do the prison

sentence and come back to nothing. You do not want to give back what

you have stolen, a hard fact with criminality. Why do it and then give

the money back? Putting a job together takes patience and money

and skill. Today's criminals have not got that. They are the last of

their kind. The dinosaurs of the criminal world and the last to be

taken down. Police surveillance tapes captured the gang's hopeless

bravado. Danny Jones, one of the guilty men, tells Terry Perkins,

another of the guilty men, on this tape, well, at least, Terry, we can

say we gave it one last go. I think it would make a good title for the

film. You hear them talking about it is the biggest, expletive deleted,

burglary in the expletive deleted world.

He had a capacity to fell you with a look or lift

you with a word, Emma Thompson said today.

Paying tribute to her friend and co star, Alan Rickman.

When his death was announced earlier it felt to many like a thump

An actor whose powerful and commanding presence

gave him a unique voice - and the adoration of millions -

He reached film fame relatively late in life - but then his

list of successes - Die Hard, Sense And Sensbility,

the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood and Severus Snape

in the Harry Potter films showed his range and the depth

Juliet Stevenson played his partner in Truly Madly Deeply -

an achingly moving film about loss and grief.

She joins me, but first, a reminder of the scene

in which he appears to her from beyond the grave.

# A deep shade of blue is always there.

# The sun ain't gonna shine any more.

# The moon ain't going to rise in the skies.

# The tears are always clouding your eyes.

That film is unbearably poignant. Doubly more so today. Looking at it

I am thinking it is a good representation of what he could do,

which was basically everything. Make people cry, laugh, fall in love with

him. Very sexy, delicious, surprising, challenging. He could do

anything and you get a sense of his surprising, challenging. He could do

range in that film. Those scenes were improvised? That scene was

improvised because there is not much dialogue in it and it was the

hardest scene to shoot. The great gift of making that film with him

was it was clever casting by Anthony Minghella because we had known each

other a long time and I Minghella because we had known each

him like many people as a family member more than a friend, even. We

had a lot of history and it played in well to the story of the film. He

was inventive to work with, very creative, thinking all the time

about the bigger picture. He had his eye on everything will stop what the

camera was doing, what the design was. He thought very big and had

many kinds of talent that could was. He thought very big and had

address itself to all parts of the job will stop he had a lot to offer

in every department will stop he was more than an act but an inspiration

to everyone on the crew as I am sure he was on every group. The voice was

hypnotic. Sometimes there was a look, as Emma Thompson said, one

look, one word, and I broke, a glance. -- an eyebrow. He was the

most economic person. He is looking down now saying, just think before

you speak. He could make you roar with laughter with a couple of

words. He could say something insightful with just one line.

Astonishingly economic, but he had a laser beam accuracy about what

needed to be said, whether it was funny, insightful, tricky,

challenging. Is that from his stage structure that came before film? He

was a theatre actor for a long time before he became a big movie star.

He was a classical actor on stage and we met at the Royal Shakespeare

Company. A lot of busted who were friends of him. He had an incredible

technique. As for that capacity, he always have that. -- as a lot of us

were. He was instinctive, intuitive. His judgments came from an amazing

blend of the mind, intuition, hunch, observation. And great humanity. We

think about the baddies that he relished playing, but also the

uptight characters that gave so little away like the kernel in sense

and sensibility, when it was so English and restrained. Which he was

not in many ways. He did not come from the English upper class. I

think he was genuinely a classless person. There was no hierarchy for

his heart. He treated everybody with the same courtesy and generosity of

spirit. That is one reason he is very loved. He would be as courteous

to the driver, dresser, or the director of a movie and it is not

sentimental to say that. He saw the possibilities in everybody. He was

famously and and most generous. He would give people the courage to go

in a direction, help young people find their path. Was there a scene

or conversation or an exchange that lies in the heart of your

relationship together? There are so many of those. I have just come from

a house full of close friends and his wife, where everybody is

a house full of close friends and stories. We feel we have lost our

leader. Because he was who we look to for guidance. He was more than a

close friend, he was a great light in our community. We all

close friend, he was a great light have lost the steering wheel in our

car. We will rumble along the have lost the steering wheel in our

but not know quite which way to go for a while. I do not know if

but not know quite which way to go pick out a single thing. When I

played pick out a single thing. When I

measure and had success with it, playing a virtuous, intelligent and

forthright playing a virtuous, intelligent and

see a is good, but now I think you should

is good, but now I think you should play her as though she had bright

red six inch heels. I thought, what do you mean? And then, I see what

you mean. There needs to be sexuality in this character. He

always pushed you in a surprising direction you may not have

always pushed you in a surprising recognised, but he was almost

invariably right. None of us who loved him really know how we will

get along without him. Thank you so much.

For eight long months, one of the unanswered questions

of the general election is why the result took so many by surprise.

Where, in other words, did the polling go wrong?

Next week, we will see the findings of the official report into it.

But today, leading psephologist John Curtice made his

What emerges isn't rocket science, but a failure quite simply to talk

One pollster who got the prediction right -

And published it before the result came out

He says that the problem was much bigger than that -

that there was a failure to talk to the politically disengaged.

To put it another way, you don't ask those who go to church

You also ask those who only turn up at Christmas,

last to's general election produced the most unexpected result in a

generation. The opinion polls pointed to an incredibly close

contest. Pundits, forecasters and politicians thought I hang

Parliament was inevitable. They were all wrong. Before the election I

uncovered a series of statistical patterns that suggested that things

were not as they seemed. Looking at historical patterns, local

elections, by-elections and what people thought of the leaders I was

convinced that the headline numbers were wrong. But how were the opinion

polls so far off? Politics in were wrong. But how were the opinion

last Parliament was unusual. Two thirds of two ready ten Lib Dems

abandon the party. The pollsters got back right. Although they thought

more people would vote Labour than Tory. They were right in thinking

that the vote share of Ukip would quadruple although wrong in thinking

it would hurt the Tories much more than Labour. That is how the

pollsters ended up in complying with than Labour. That is how the

this result of 2015. After the election I dug into the results and

found the Tories were gaining more votes from the Lib Dems than

believed and Labour was losing more support to Ukip than indicated. The

narrative around the changes in the British political landscape was

wrong. Wax to Mark White? To measure public opinion, pollsters do not ask

everyone. One sample of 1000 people can be enough to give an accurate

estimate although it must be representative, or made

representative. Pollsters, put more weight on the types of voter

representative. Pollsters, put more they have too few of and less weight

on people whose opinion they have too much of. This time it went

wrong. The study conducted after every general election uses a

different method. Unlike convention in polling where you would call 1000

people and then wait them against that they looked like the general

population we take addresses more less out of the hat and we went to

those houses and interviewed the people who lived there. The end

result is that first you get a sample that looks more like the

general population without re-weighting. And secondly for

political purposes the number of people who said they voted for each

party looked almost the same as the election result and like most

pre-election polls. My analysis suggested they ended up with too

many political in gauge to people. Sampling was behind the mistake. --

politically engaged people. The young respondents were not

representative of their age group. As if they were putting too much

weight on Twitter users with a political axe to grind. People voted

for one the coalition parties in 2010 and switching to an opposition

party were overrepresented. Those who voted Tory in 2010 and stayed

loyal in 2015 were under-represented. In simple terms

we'd need more people who do not engage with politics. Or don't vote.

We overestimated the turnout. We will want to do a better job on that

next time. The huge challenge will be polling for Britain's EU

membership referendum, the electorate will vote across party

lines making weighting method is less effective than before, which

places an even greater premium on getting a representative sample.

Pollsters have been examining political activity, browsing habits

and even whether they watch Newsnight. If they are going to get

this right pollsters need to work towards more representative samples.

One of the intere Lunch Mac sting things is not

result, but what effect it had on the election result as a whole.

Tom Baldwin worked for Ed Miliband until he lost the election.

Rosie Campbell, from Birkbeck University,

has research interests in voting behaviour

Tom, looking back, what did it change? I think it made both

campaigns more risk averse. People were talking about it being a very

close campaign and a lot was at stake. And it changed the end of the

campaigns. In those final two weeks, all the news was about the risk of a

campaigns. In those final two weeks, Labour government propped up by the

SNP. The BBC was particularly obsessed by this story. We could not

get our 's story, the risk of a Tory second term, a Tory majority, up at

all. I think that changed the campaign and might even have had

some influence on the result. If the opinion polls had been accurate you

would have had a final stage of the campaign where people would have

been looking at a Tory majority government. Were people scared with

whatever they thought was going to be the result? That is the only way

you will get people to vote against it. Certainly you must talks if I go

opponents. The Tories were very successful at talks if eyeing us. We

were raising legitimate points about what would happen to the tax credits

and the NHS. But got no airtime in the final weeks. The contrast with

2010 when everyone expected a Tory majority and Gordon Brown pulled

back a bit of the end because people were talking about Tory majority

government, that did not happen this time. Rosie, the problem is that if

they get people who are not politically engaged, if pollsters

keep going to people who are offering good opinions, that cements

the problem. Some of it is about statistical literacy. We need to

know what is a good-quality pole and what is not. And actually the

high-quality darter discussed in the video, they make between six and

nine attempts to reach the same individual, whereas some of the

pollsters are making one attempt. That costs money. It has been an

investment in resources. Who was not spending that? Nobody apart from one

server is being able to put in that money and effort, so it's a plug for

social research, to understand what the electorate once you must invest

in high-quality surveys. While doing your own internal survey was there

not a sense from you, from the MPs, from politicians, we always hear

about the doorstep, does no one say anything helpful on the doorstep? I

think everyone got this wrong, the pundits, the politicians, the

pollsters. You are the party so innocents you know if someone likes

you. One thing that is true is come in every election I can remember,

including mine and seven, 2001, 2005, with the exception of 2010,

the Labour vote has been slightly overestimated in the opinion polls.

That is why a lot of us were a little sceptical about whether we

would win a majority will be the biggest party. Very sceptical.

Whether opinion polls affect the way that the media covered the campaign

and the fact that perceptions, that is the big question. Interesting

when we talk about lazy Labour, is the big question. Interesting

shy Tories, as if people were lying is the big question. Interesting

on the phone, they didn't, if this was right. There is no evidence of

lying. It looks as if it is a sample biased issue and Labour voters were

easier to read so if you made one attempt to contact the body you will

more likely to reach a Labour voter. The young people either on the phone

or the Internet were the kind of young people who are interested in

politics, a rare breed, and they are more likely to vote Labour. And

there's something else about Labour voters, they seem to be more readily

available. Tom, if you were doing it again now, knowing how the polls

were skewered, what would you have done differently in those last few

weeks? No Ed Stone, more focus on travel? What would you have told Ed

Miliband to do? Is a lesson to everyone. Pollsters and parties.

Opinion polls should not be the basis, the frame on which campaigns

run. There were 700 of them last year. It was driving a lot of what

we were doing, a lot of of the media were doing. We were not really

having a debate about different programmes of government, it was a

gigantic process story, what happens if Labour are propped up by the SNP.

That wasn't doing the electorate any favours. It wasn't allowing them to

make a rational choice about the options available. Would there have

been a different policy wore different language used by Labour,

knowing what you know now? We would have talked much more about the

prospect of a Tory majority government and what it would mean.

What does this mean, going ahead, we have a year

full of elections now, not least the EU referendum. Does this mean we

don't rely on pollsters, or we have collective amnesiac and go back in?

I think what we should do is treat opinion polls with caution. The

chances of collective amnesiac are high because copy will be needed for

newspapers so there will be polls, although I think the commentators

will take them with a pinch of salt. I am sceptical about the polling

industry funding the silver bullet that will solve its problems. Labour

has a credibility problem and I think the polling industry does as

well. Finding out you did not reach in of Tory voters is like us saying

that we did not rich enough Tory ones! Thank you both. I am afraid

that is always have time for tonight, but we will be back