13/07/2014 Sunday Politics East

Just two months to go until Scotland decides if it should stay

As the campaign heads for the final furlong,

what are the issues and arguments that will determine the result?

The SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me live.

David Cameron's scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday.

Many of those tipped for promotion are women.

So have efforts to promote diversity in public life barely started or

And don't know whether to support Germany or

In the east, our offshore political guide to the World Cup.

In the east, our offshore industry is holding their breath over

It's World Cup final day and as usual the BBC's snagged the

Yes, eat your heart out, ITV, because for top football analysis

we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, and Alan Shearer.

And for top political analysis you may

as well tune in to them too because all we could come up with is Nick

David Cameron will reshuffle his cabinet on Tuesday.

The Sunday papers are full of stories telling us who'll be

in and who'll be out, though they don't really know.

The Mail on Sunday has one of the more eye-catching lines,

reporting that former defence secretary and right-winger Liam Fox

is in line for a return to the political front line.

But there's general agreement that women will do well and some

of the old men in suits guard will do badly.

Here's senior Tory backbencher David Davis speaking to this programme.

It's good to make parliament more representative.

But you've got to do it in a way that doesn't create

injustices, and you can't put people in a job who can't do the job.

And I've seen that too over the last 20 years, people being

accelerated too far too fast and they come to

a screeching halt where they have to catch up with themselves.

I am not going to give an example. Is this not a bit cynical? He is

going to promote these women into cabinet positions, but they will not

be able to do anything. I am sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It

is an un-written pact in that the media and the government have a

great interest in talking it up. The government says, haven't we

refreshed ourselves? Generally it doesn't refresh the government.

David Cameron wants to send out a new signal. You're going to see the

old guard getting a P 45 and you will see a lot of women come in and

a lot of younger men. We will find there will be a lot of resignations.

A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I told you 18 months ago, I want to

move on. Because the Conservatives have this perception of not being

very good with women and not being good with black and ethnic minority

voters, they are going to want to do something about that. Why did he not

do it before? This reshuffle might be the triumph of the a list. A lot

of the women coming through the ranks have been from the a list

which was a half measure because they knew they could not bring all

of them in. You are going to see more women but that is a result of a

long-term strategy. David Cameron is not the world's most raging

feminist. He is doing this for practical reasons. He knows he has

an image problem for the party and he has to solve it. He was stung by

that picture of the all-male bench at Prime Minister's Questions

because visibly it gave you the problem that you have been talking

about. I do not think he has allowed it to be all-male since that

embarrassing image. I can understand the criticism made of this approach

if it was the case that all the women being promoted by talentless

but you have to be very harsh to look at them and say that they would

have much less to offer than the likes of Andrew Lansley. You can be

pro-feminist. The tests for David Cameron is that having raised

expectations he has to give them substantial jobs. They have to be

given departments to run or big portfolios to carry. If they are

given media campaign positions in the run-up to the election it looks

perfunctorily. He is under some trouble to perhaps suggest a female

commissioner to the European Union Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has

made clear that if he proposes a woman candidate they will get a

better job. Saying they would like ten out of the 28 to be women. We

are going to get the name of the British candidate at the same time

as the reshuffle. The first face-to-face meeting, he will be

able to put a name. There are other names in the frame. People like

Archie Norman. That come from? His name is in the frame. There would be

great scepticism of giving it to Andrew Lansley. People would think

he was the man who mucked up the reform of the NHS. Who is it going

to be? Either a woman or a man. I would not be surprised if they go

for someone believe dynamic. Someone who would square the party. Would

that not mean a by-election? It might. She is a high profile

Eurosceptic. She is a very competent former banker. It would be the smart

choice. I have no idea but my favourite rumour is Michael Howard.

That had some legs for a while. The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street

predict with confidence that the PM is going to promote more women

in his cabinet reshuffle. The move can be seen as part

of a move across British public life to do more to make our institutions

less male and less white. But as the list

of schemes to encourage diversity grows ever-longer, have we abandoned

the idea of appointment by merit? Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for

new trains. It does not get more macho than the Crossrail project.

When Crossrail looked at the construction industry they realise

that less than 20% was made up construction industry they realise

women and they asked, can we fix it? They are trying with a recruitment

drive that has brought in female engineers like this woman. She even

has a tunnel named after her. Having more female engineers and

construction brings a bigger range of opinions, a bigger range of

ideas, more diversity, into the industry, and makes it better as a

whole. It is the issue being grappled in another male dominated

workplace, the Cabinet. There is about to be a reach shuffle and the

rumour is David Cameron is going to promote a lot of female ministers.

It was a lack of promotion that annoyed Harriet Harman this week.

She claimed Gordon Brown did not make her Deputy Prime Minister

because she was a woman. It was strange that in a hard-fought highly

contested election to be deputy leader of the Labour Party, and

having won against men in the Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy

leader of the Labour Party I discovered that I was not to be

appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. For women in this country, no matter

how able they are, the matter how hard they might work, they are still

not equal. There are initiatives to make the world feel more equal. In

the City the EU wants a quarter for women in the boardroom but that goal

of making 40% of the top floor female. At the BBC the boss of the

TV division says no panel show should ever be all-male. In the ever

glamorous movie business the British film Institute announced their new

thematic system to get lottery funding projects improving diversity

on screen and off and helping social mobility. Employers like Crossrail

are not allowed to positively discriminate but under the quality

act of 2010 if two candidate for a job are just as good you are allowed

to base your decision on characteristics like race, sexuality

and gender. Some worry it has chipped away at the idea of hiring

on merit. A woman and three men going for a job, two of the men are

really good and the woman is not quite as good but she gets the job

anyway. That will create injustice, a feeling that she did not deserve

the job, resentment. It does not advance equality in society at all.

On this project they want to leave a concrete legacy of a more diverse

construction industry. The question is, what tools do you use when it

comes to the rest of society? I'm joined now by

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a columnist for the Independent,

and by Munira Mirza, the deputy mayor of London responsible

for education and culture. Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches

though. Should David Cameron be promoting women? He is going to do

it anyway. He should have a long time ago. It does not feel quite

right that a few months before the election it would do the party a lot

of good to be seen as a party properly reflective of the entire

population. He should promote women because they are women? I think he

should think about lots of different factors, whether the people he wants

promote have proven themselves in their current reefs, whether they

are good performers in the media, whether they represent different

parts of the party, but the main principle is to promote on basis of

merit. There are many talented women who fill that description. It should

be that merit is the important thing rather than what you were born with.

The thing about positive discrimination as it flies in the

face of that kind of principle. You are shaking your head. We have

always had positive discrimination. Men of a certain class have

appointed in their own image because they feel most comfortable with

that. We have had unspoken positive discrimination in this country and

every other country throughout history. We are asking as women,

every other country throughout history. We are asking as women all

minorities, let us get into the same game. What do you say? You cannot

solve the racism or the sexism of the past by more racism and sexism.

It is not the past. There are complex reasons why a smaller number

of women will appear in certain industries. It has a lot to do with

childcare, education, expected. You cannot short cut that by setting a

target. That is not how you achieve equality. Things are changing and

more women are appearing in engineering and so on but it will

take time. My worry is that these kinds of measures are

counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it on

their own merit rather counter-productive and undermine the

perception that women can do it than because they need a helping hand. It

is not a helping hand. It is to say, we are as good as men and these

hidden barriers. Dot. Either they are not as good or they do not want

it, which is just how we persuade are not as good or they do not want

it, which ourselves that it is not happening, or there are barriers.

How we judge meritocracy is at the heart of it. Are lots of industries

won there are not that many women, such as engineering. We need more

engineers generally. I think it is fine to try to encourage more women

to study that subject. By setting a target you put pressure on an

organisation. You tried to ignore the complex reasons why women do not

go into those sectors. I think an all-female short list achieved

miracle in Parliament. This is following up from having an

injection of women coming up because the system was changed and a large

percentage of women went into Parliament under the all-female

short list were brilliant, so why not? So if the Prime Minister is

mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has to be female and vice versa? Yes,

absolutely, 50-50. We need to reflect the population. If we want

to play this as a symbolic gesture, ideally we should have one of each.

Why should a man get the job if you have a great female prime minister

and a great female Deputy Prime Minister? I personally wouldn't mind

this. I hear the disgruntled man and I want to come -- them to come with

us. You're choosing people on the basis of traits they were born

with. Are there too many Indian doctors in the NHS? I would argue

not. Given that we tend to have male prime ministers rather than female

ones, and we don't see another female one coming down the pipe very

quickly... In the time before women short lists by the way. If you had a

male prime minister with a female Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that

give some balance? Why women? Why not working class person, which

group do you prioritise? I would go with you that we need something

fundamental to change. This idea that what we have now is a

reflection of a genuine meritocracy is highly questionable. I would

argue that when you look at the statistics things are changing.

argue that when you look at the statistics things There are more

women appearing in parts of public life, that is a long-term trend,

women appearing in parts of public life, that is a long-term trend but

if you are trying to appoint people on what they were born with... That

is not the only reason but it is an additional reason. She has to be

able to do the job, obviously. I am saying the policy of hazard to

discrimination explicitly state that you should choose somebody who is

female because they are female. At the moment there is already enough

suspicion about women who are successful to get to the senior

position and if you institutionalise it you reinforce that suspicion.

it you reinforce that suspicion Harriet Harman is still complaining

women are not being treated fairly. I think the policy reinforces the

prejudice that women are not getting there because they are treated on

the same basis. Although you may not want to have the all-female short

list forever, wasn't it the kind of shock to the system that made a

visible change in female representation, which the Tory side

hasn't got? Of course it will work short-term but longer term it has a

very degrading effect on the principle of equality and the fact

Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't treated equally, whether it is true

or not, the perception is still there. A number of women find this

position must be reserved for a woman lying patronising, and

speaking of patronising women, you spoken your Independent column, she

presses all of the buttons for white people... Was that patronising and

offensive? Probably. I wrote it because I felt that at the time but

the point is that I was a token when I was appointed. The paper brought

me in because I was a woman and I was a muslin or whatever. You are

not writing about yourself. I was writing... It doesn't mean you don't

criticise other women. We absolutely have to be tough, Manira is tough

and so am I. Do you want to take back what you wrote? No. Do you

really think positive discrimination has gone too far? I think there is

already a suspicion out there that in certain sectors women are being

promoted for the wrong reasons or ethnic minorities are being promoted

for the wrong reasons. That is a shame and my worry is that by tying

funding to your ethnicity or your gender, by saying you will get a

promotion if you check that box, but promotion if you check that box but

you feel that resentment and prejudice and undermine the case for

inequality. I wanted to be treated equally, because I am capable of

doing that job. Only two months to go before Scotland takes its biggest

constitutional decision in 300 years - should it quit or stay with the

UK? For some in Scotland campaign has been going on forever. What has

been the impact on the campaign to date?

Alex Salmond says Scotland would remain part of the European Union

with sterling as its currency in a monetary union with the rest of the

UK, but he has also promised more public spending, increased child

care provision and free personal care for the elderly. The SNP claims

it would leave people better off by ?1000 though that partly depends on

the price of oil. With the Better Together arguing against

independence, it has naturally been attacking the SNP on all fronts.

attacking the SNP on all fronts George Osborne says there will be no

monetary union. President Barroso told the BBC it would be extremely

difficult for Scotland to join the EU after a yes vote. His successor

this week said he agreed. Unions claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by

being part of the UK. A poll this morning shows a significant lead of

57% for the no campaign, leaving the SNP to claim it will go their way in

the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister of

Scotland, joins me now. You want an independent Scotland to keep the

pound, stay in NATO, stay in the EU, Scotland already has all of that

but you cannot guarantee it would have any of it in an independent

Scotland, why take the risk? All of these things should be the case

because they are in the best interests of Scotland and the rest

of the UK but we want the powers to enable us to grow our economy

faster, to be productive, and overtime increased the prosperity of

people living in Scotland. We also want powers over our social security

system so that we can create a system that meets our needs, one

that also has a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our

society. Independence is about letting us decide our own

priorities. You didn't answer my question, you cannot guarantee you

would be able to keep the pound within a monetary union, stay in

NATO and the EU, you cannot guarantee you could produce any of

these things, correct? I would argue that we can because these things are

also in the interest of the rest of the UK. No country can be prevented

from using the pound, I suggest we use that within a formal monetary

union. We have had the UK minister quoted in the Guardian saying the

position of the UK Government right now is one based on campaign

rhetoric and following a yes vote, of course there would be a currency

union. Who is that minister? The Minister is unnamed, but

nevertheless that story in the Guardian was a solid one and not

substantially denied. So you are basing your monetary policy on one

on named minister in one story? Basing it on Common sense because

monetary union would be in the best interests for Scotland but also

overwhelmingly in the interests of the rest of the UK, given their

trading relationship with Scotland and the contribution Scotland's

exports make. We are having a very good debate and the UK Government

and the no campaign, and this is not a criticism, want to talk up in --

uncertainty to make people feel scared, but after independence there

will be constructed process of negotiation. Let's stick with the

monetary union because most economists agree it would be very

good for an independent Scotland to have a monetary union but George

Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander are unequivocal, they say you won't

get it. You claim they are bluffing but again you cannot guarantee that

so why the risk? I would say the benefits of independence are

substantial but I would also say to George Osborne and his counterparts

in the other parties that it would be a very brave Chancellor that says

to businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary

additional transaction costs of half a very brave Chancellor that says to

businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary

additional transaction costs of half. What we are doing is making a

case that is based on common sense and voters in Scotland will listen

to that case being put forward by the other side as well, and they

will come to a judgement of the common-sense position. Let's look at

EU membership because you haven't been able to guarantee the monetary

union. When President Barroso said that a seamless transition to EU

membership for an independent Scotland was anything but certain,

and one said it could even be impossible, you dismissed him

because he was standing down, but been -- venue EU president says the

same, do you dismissed him? What we are doing... I should say at the

outset of this, we have said repeatedly to the UK Government,

let's go jointly and ask for a formal opinion on the EU

commission. The EU commission have said they will only do that at this

stage if the UK Government ask for it, they are point blank refusing to

do that, you have to ask why? It is in their interests to talk up

uncertainty. Scotland is an integral part of the European Union, we have

been for 40 years, we comply with the rules and regulations... Mr

Juncker knows all of that but he still says it will be anything but a

seamless transition. He said you could not join the European Union by

sending a letter, that is not our proposal. We set down a robust

proposal and the timescale we think is reasonable under these

circumstances. There are many nationals of other states living in

Scotland right now, if we were to be outside of the European Union for

any period of time, something the current treaty doesn't even provide

for, they would lose their right to stay here. The interests of Scotland

and the interests of European Union are in favour of a seamless

transition. It comes down to common sense and people in Scotland will

make sense and people in Scotland will

their own judgement on who is talking the common-sense. What about

NATO, two years ago you told Newsnight the SNP's position is that

we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a democratic debate, we looked at

whether it would be in the interests of an independent Scotland, which

forms a significant part of the territory of the North Atlantic and

the party changed its mind. It did so in a thoroughly democratic way.

That is the nature of democracy. Would you accept the protection of

the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is no doubt the SNP's position is that

we do not want nuclear weapons in Scotland. That is not what I asked.

The world rid themselves of nuclear weapons. One of the interesting

point is of the 28 member countries of Natal 25 do not have nuclear

weapons. An independent Scotland... I asked if you would accept the

nuclear umbrella. The key feature of NATO's military dog train is now

clear shrike. We would accept the basis of which NATO is founded but

we would argue two things. We want Trident removed from Scotland rather

than have a situation where might we are spending ?100 billion over the

next generation replacing Trident and we would argue within the

international community that the world should move much more quickly

to rid itself of nuclear weapons. That is the principal position and

won the SNP has held consistently for many years. You would get rid of

one of the key parts of the NATO deterrent based in Scotland. You

would kick that out. You would not accept all of the club rules because

you do not like the idea of nuclear. Why would they like a member like

you in? Because Scotland is a significant part of the territory of

the North Atlantic. You do not subscribe to the rules. 25 of the

member states of NATO are non-nuclear members. You are saying

you do not follow the doctrine. NATO has said it wants to move away from

reliance on nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland would be

entering the majority mainstream of NATO as a country that did not have

nuclear weapons. By leading by example our moral authority and

encouraging others to do likewise would be increased. Money and oil,

the finance minister has said that an independent Scotland would

increase public spending by 3% a year. He would pay for that by

borrowing. Your First Minister says he is going to stash money in an oil

fund. You're going to borrow and save. How does that work? There are

two points. Firstly in terms of the outlook for finances and what is one

of the central debates of this referendum campaign, austerity that

we know will continue if we stay as part of the Westminster system

versus prosperity. The economy can afford a higher level of increase in

public spending while we continue to have deficit levels at a sustainable

level. What is the point of borrowing and saving at the same

time? People who have a mortgage and the savings account would not

themselves what the wisdom of that is. This is based on recommendations

of our expert fiscal Commission that as borrowing reduces to sustainable

levels it makes sense to start saving a proportion of our oil

wealth. In Norway, which has many similarities to Scotland, they have

an oil fund worth ?500 billion. Scotland is part of the Westminster

system is sitting on a share of UK debt. We can continue to allow our

oil wealth, our vast oil wealth, to be mismanaged or we can decide we

are going to manage that resource better in the years to come. Your

figures do not add up unless you are about oil prices and revenue and you

have been consistently wrong in your predictions. Last year you forecast

that revenues would be the .7 billion more than they actually work

-- 3.7 billion. The cost of the Scottish school system gone. There

were particular reasons for that in terms of interruption to production

and bigger levels of investment. and bigger levels of investment

Used ill have to find the money. Let me explain. They are based on robust

assumptions, firstly a production estimates that is in line with the

estimates of the oil and gas industry. Use of figures that are

based on production of 10 billion barrels of oil. Oil and gas has been

wrong as well. It is 24 billion left to be recovered. That is what is in

the UK Government's oil and gas strategy so production in line with

industry estimates and an oil price of $110 per barrel which is flat in

cash terms would be a real terms reduction. The Department of energy

is estimating $128 per barrel so our estimate compared to that is

cautious. These are robust estimates based on robust assumptions. Except

they have been wrong. Finally, we hear a lot from you and your fellow

nationalists, you want a Scandinavian style social democracy,

you know how to spend the money but you never tell us about social

democratic levels of taxation. Also should grizzlies have higher levels

of tax in Scotland does at the moment -- all social grizzlies. I

want a Scottish style of social democracy. Free education, free

medicines and balancing the books every single year. We want to get

more people into work in Scotland, raise the level of distribution in

the Labour market and make the economy more productive so we are

raising the overall tax revenue. Over the last 33 years we have

generated more taxpayer head of population than is the case and the

rest of the UK. Those last 33 years, some of those years oil prices would

have been high and in others they would have been law but we take

different decisions. A report showed that if we go as part of the

Westminster system down the plate -- route of replacing Trident then the

cost will be as high as ?4 billion every year. Our share of that is the

hundred million pounds a year. Let us get access to our own resources

so we can make different and better decisions about how to spend the

resources we have. You are promising Scandinavian style social democratic

levels of public spending but you say you will not need a top rate of

tax of 56% which is what Scandinavia has, that all 25%, which is what

Scandinavia has and VAT of 15%. You are going to have the spending but

none of the taxes that make it possible in Scandinavia. For

mischievous reasons you are met -- misrepresenting what I am saying.

The Scottish economy can afford it and we want to generate more wealth

in our economy. We want to use the existing resources Scotland has. We

are the 14th richest country in the world in terms of what we produce.

We do not want to be wasting resources. We want to be spending

resources on the things that other priority for the people of Scotland.

These are the benefits and the opportunities really get if we take

the opportunity of voting yes and becoming independent.

Hello unwelcome to the last Sunday Politics before the summer break.

After accidents in dark alldyways are blamed on Essex's streetlight

switch off, concerns that pdople are paying too high a price to cut the

council's energy bill. I went doctors yesterday. I've got to go

for an extra, she probably broken or fractured. And

our offshore industry independence referendum. New

investment has stalled whild the outcome is awaited.

Here with me this week, Bernard Jenkin, MP for the Conservatives,

the chair of the Public Administration Select Committee,

Administration Select Committee and labour's Gavin Shuker, Shadow

international development mhnister. international development minister.

I want to start by talking about the local growth fund. More than ?400

million will come 175 million in the next year with

more money will help complete a number of

new relief roads, the along with other projects. So, Gavin

Shuker, airport, that is a good thing, isn't

it? Yes, and it shows you how RDA and put in the LDP. We think

that is the wrong agencies? The last time thex gave

out money,, this time before. These are led by business

people, assisted area status in Harwich and

Clacton, industry and things like th`t. So it

is a very different picture. in a much more dynamic way there.

Now, staying designed to cut Essex's eligibility.

Installing the system years time. Opposition to the

blackout is growing. There telling them to be careful where

they are walking because anyway. I don't drive and mx husband

and my son were having switch off but crime. The thieves

Kalex three separate times whilst stroke of 12... This happens,

leaving everyone different ages from all walks of

life that literally voluntary sector. I have to lock up

in the charges, the net saving over a ten

year here it is ?3 million. sum of ?6.5 million on a central

management system. suggest people are not feelhng safe

when the lights are off. It was introduction of this scheme. We,

unlike some the concern of the restaurant. The

important thing safety. If it were me, I wotldn t

want are far less likely to cont`ct their

MP and said I am 21 and I have of pounds of investment are on hold.

In the East, for that sector, a yes Clyde, but we do have deep water

ports. Looking at SLP, a local British government can to gdt

companies in, particularly politics is packed on Westmhnster

and people everywhere that we stay

together. We know conservatives in South Suffolk chose

a local will keep a bit safer. That is all

the time we have. So, plenty happening in Parliament

this coming week, including a controversial bill to make

so-called assisted dying legal and Lord Carey has intervened in the

assisted dying debate. Will it make a difference? It will make a

difference because we have established in the House of Lords, I

am not sure who they speak for and why they should have a privileged

position, but he was a big opponent and has made a change of heart. The

fact that the Daily Mail has printed this shows this is a big

intervention. The Bill being pushed through, is it now on the agenda? I

think it is. There are international examples of assisted dying

elsewhere. The state of Oregon passed a Bill similar to this in the

1990s and things have not got out of control. That has not been an

expansion or abuse. It has settled down and become part of the

furniture. That makes it easier for this Bill, to make the case for it.

Religious people may still have a principled objection but most other

people have a practical objection, which is how to put in place

safeguards to deal with unscrupulous relatives or anyone else who wants

to abuse this right? Once a controversial issue is only being

opposed for practical reasons it is on its way to getting its way. What

is the division, is it the Church against everybody else? Is it a

right and left division? What is stopping it? It is a very difficult

moral issue and there are people who can have genuinely held Christian

beliefs or non-Christian beliefs who can be on both sides. I think that

the Lord Carey intervention is potentially a game changer not just

because he is a former Archbishop of Canterbury but because he was on the

Evan Jellicoe side of the Church of England. That is quite a big move.

The response was to say, please withdraw your bell and let us have a

royal Commission. The Supreme Court kicked the ball back to Parliament

when they rejected the cases of three people who had been taking the

case and said, we could say that banning the right to life is against

the European Court of Human Rights, but it is a moral issue and an issue

for Parliament. Parliament needs to decide. The data act that is going

to be pushed through Parliament. decide. The data act that is going

to be pushed through Parliament In record time. To comply with a

European court judgement. Tom Watson and David Davis, some dissent. Are

you so prized with how united the establishment, left, right and

centre is? No. There is a great quote saying this has been enacted

under the something must be done act and that captures it exactly. Even

Cameron says he does not want to look people in the eye and say that

he did not do everything he could. There is no end to the power of

surveillance. It is all was about drawing a distinction. I am always

suspicious when politicians look something up and said, we have all

agreed. Are there at the centre is right or is the political

establishment right? I think the establishment is right. I think it

is stronger than other issues. We are in a unique position where all

three political parties have relatively recent experience of

government so they now that security threats are not made up by

unscrupulous people. The legislation being proposed is not dramatic, it

is to fill a gap that was created. I do not see the political

controversy. All three political parties support it. David Davis and

Liberty are against that, and always are. Would you not have expected...

The Lib Dems are in government, but a bit more rebellion on the Labour

backbenches? There is no political controversy put outside parliament

there's quite a lot of controversy about this. My paper has taken an

interest in this. It is interesting, it does not feel, it is not a

1950s, three public school boys setting, let us have this deal. The

Liberal Democrats and Labour have serious questions. There's going to

be a sunset clause that will run out in 2016. The Liberal Democrats, who

asked pretty tough questions, have said there are assurances. Ed

Miliband did not go to public school.

For many English football fans, tonight's World Cup final presents

How do you pick between two traditional foes

Well, if you're a political obsessive, like these

three, you could always back the nation according to how it votes.

The website LabourList has produced a political guide to the tournament.

At the beginning of the tournament, it was a fairly balanced playing

field politically with 15 left wing and 17 right-wing countries. England

found themselves isolated in a group with three left-wing countries. That

was the least of their problems. was the least of their problems

There was a clear domination of democratic regimes over

authoritarian with only six of oratory and countries making it

through to the finals and the only all authoritarian tie was dubbed the

worst match of the World Cup. By the second round 16 teams remained. The

left had a clear advantage with nine, seven from the right and

authoritarian countries all but wiped out. Two representatives

remained. Both were beaten by European democracies. By the

semi-finals, all was even Stephen. A right-wing Protestant Europe taking

on Catholics South America. With one victory apiece, Germany knocking out

Brazil and Argentina beating the Dutch, tonight's final repeats that

pattern. Who will win? Angela Merkel's Germany or Argentina?

We're joined now by Britain's only Labour adviser

Should we read political significance in to the fact that the

only time England has won the World Cup was under a Labour government?

Of course. The problem is we did not qualify for Euro 2008 when it was a

Labour government. We have had some pretty shoddy results under a Labour

government. As someone under the left, are you backing Argentina?

left, are you backing Argentina Absolutely not. I do not think it

has anything to do with politics. It is a bit of fun. People should

choose it is Don Hoop plays the best football and the Germans have been

fantastic. They were great in 2 10 fantastic. They were great in 2010

as well. They started this model in 2008 and that is the sort of thing

people should be supporting. Who should a Eurosceptic support? I

would not say Argentina because that is the country that has tried to

seize British sovereign territory within my lifetime. You were not

around for the Blitz. Believe it or not, I was not. There is a strong

political case to support Germany. They are probably going to win the

World Cup with a clear of -- with players of Polish origin. That sort

of cultural change they have forced themselves to go through... You talk

about them being right wing, but in fact the way that the German league

is structured, and I am an expert, is based on ownership. It is very

different from the Premier League. It is about football as a usual

good. The ticket prices are lower. The fans are involved in running the

club. It is a model that all English football clubs should emulate.

Germany had a strong football team under centre right governments and

centre left governments and a coalition. A strong football team

and a strong economy. The Conservative MP who is the arch

Eurosceptic wanted to get us out of the European Union and was for a few

weeks ago when people were making jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker, he

was outraged and said you should not do that, so he could happily support

Germany. What was interesting about the authoritarian and democratic

regimes, what is great is that the World Cup is run by this open and

democratic organisation Fifa. It is similar to the EU in many regards.

Two countries led by women. Maybe gender is the thing. We did not win

under Margaret Thatcher. There's one big difference with the EU, you

cannot flog six Dom Acta gets to go to a European summit. Did you know

that Italy won two world cups under Mussolini? Can we draw any

conclusions between a political system and the performance of the

football team? You can draw certain parallels between maybe national

cliches, so the Germans are efficient and effective, which might

reflect and the English are very polite so we let everyone score

first and go into the second round. We put ourselves at the back of the

queue. Is England going to qualify for the European? We are going to

win the European Championship. The first country Scotland have to play

is Germany. What could possibly go wrong? Who is going to win? Germany.

Germany. I am going to put a few bob on Argentina. Are you going to be

watching? Absolutely. Thank you. This is the last Sunday Politics

for the summer. But we'll be back in early autumn

and our first programme will be live from Scotland,

the weekend before the referendum The Daily Politics is back tomorrow

at noon and we'll bring you the last PMQs before the summer

on Wednesday morning from 11:30am. Remember, if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics, unless You have been selected to take part

in an antiques TV programme.