:00:38. > :00:42.Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:42. > :00:44.The trade unions launch a broadside against Ed Miliband. They're
:00:45. > :00:51.furious he won't promise to reverse Government spending cuts if Labour
:00:51. > :00:54.wins the next election. But Red Ed is unrepentant. The most powerful
:00:54. > :00:58.forces in the land - the Prime Minister and the Daily Mail - join
:00:59. > :01:02.forces to back a new Royal Yacht. As long as it's not paid for by the
:01:02. > :01:05.taxpayer. But as Nick Clegg said yesterday, is this a case of the
:01:05. > :01:08.haves and have yachts? Their lordships vote today on the
:01:08. > :01:12.Government's cuts to the welfare budget. They've struck down cuts in
:01:12. > :01:15.the past. Are they likely to do so again?
:01:15. > :01:25.And attack ads American style. Why don't we have this sort of thing
:01:25. > :01:28.
:01:28. > :01:35.here? He opposed the Contract with America, raised taxes. But now he
:01:35. > :01:38.tells us trust me, I'm a All that in the next half hour, and
:01:38. > :01:41.joining me throughout today's programme is the former Mayor of
:01:41. > :01:46.the Royal Borough of Maidenhead and Windsor, Shreela Flather, who now
:01:46. > :01:49.sits as a cross-bencher in the House of Lords. Welcome to the show.
:01:49. > :01:52.And as the former leader of Her Majesty's local council, Baroness
:01:52. > :01:56.Flather may be interested in the recent suggestion that the Queen
:01:56. > :01:58.should get a new yacht to celebrate her Jubilee Year. Education
:01:58. > :02:08.Secretary Michael Gove suggested the idea, but told the Commons
:02:08. > :02:12.yesterday he wasn't in favour of I think the right honourable
:02:12. > :02:17.gentleman should have been careful to look at the charts and to
:02:17. > :02:20.navigate out of rocky waters. The letter I wrote to the Prime
:02:20. > :02:28.Minister on 12th September clearly stated that I agree that the
:02:28. > :02:32.project for a royal yacht was one, and I was quite clear, when no
:02:32. > :02:37.public funding should be provided. Michael Gove making his thoughts
:02:37. > :02:41.clear on the issue of the yacht and whether taxpayers should pay for it.
:02:41. > :02:47.Should the Queen have a new yacht even if the taxpayers don't pay for
:02:47. > :02:51.it? I think the time for it has passed and I'd think the Royal
:02:51. > :02:55.Family itself will feel this is not the right period to get the new
:02:55. > :03:00.yacht, at great expense, whoever pays for it. We also have to
:03:00. > :03:05.consider how long it takes to get anywhere by sea. Would she want to
:03:05. > :03:10.take that amount of time to get to Australia or Canada or one of the
:03:10. > :03:14.Dominions? It is just not feasible any more. The government, no doubt,
:03:14. > :03:19.has set out its stall about austerity, we are all in this
:03:19. > :03:22.together, and then it doesn't seem appropriate. On the other hand,
:03:22. > :03:28.business people might suggest this would be a good floating embassy
:03:28. > :03:32.for Rule Britannia. When the Royal Family goes abroad, it costs a lot
:03:32. > :03:39.anyway, why not have a yacht that you could invite important people
:03:39. > :03:43.on to? In that case, we should take one of the existing ships and
:03:43. > :03:47.converted for that purpose, but to provide a royal yacht from scratch,
:03:48. > :03:52.I did think this is the time for it. I don't think it would look very
:03:52. > :03:59.good, even to the Royal Family. used to prise the government is
:03:59. > :04:03.even floating the idea? I am. why do you think they are? It is a
:04:03. > :04:07.romantic idea. We are very short of romance at the moment. We are all
:04:07. > :04:11.about cuts and things. It is a wonderful thought that there should
:04:11. > :04:17.be a new Britannia and it should go from country to country and the
:04:17. > :04:22.Queen should go on it. The age has passed. The age of ships has passed
:04:22. > :04:25.as well. If they really want a floating embassy, they could
:04:25. > :04:29.convert something for the time being, but I don't agree with that.
:04:29. > :04:33.Let's see if it happens. I don't think so and I think the Royal
:04:33. > :04:37.Family would be very embarrassed by Now, troubles continue for Ed
:04:37. > :04:39.Miliband. Len McCluskey, general secretary of the trade union Unite,
:04:39. > :04:42.and one of Labour's biggest financial backers, has said the
:04:42. > :04:45.party is on the road to destruction and to certain general election
:04:46. > :04:48.defeat. He's furious that the Labour leader seems to be backing a
:04:48. > :04:52.freeze on public sector pay and refusing to commit to reversing
:04:52. > :04:55.this Government's cuts to public expenditure. Writing in today's
:04:55. > :05:00.Guardian, Len McCluskey singles out four Shadow Cabinet ministers who
:05:00. > :05:04.he calls the "four horses of the austerity apocalypse". Liam Byrne,
:05:04. > :05:07.Jim Murphy, Stephen Twigg and Ed Balls. The Shadow Chancellor
:05:07. > :05:09.galloped into this political minefield on Saturday when he said,
:05:10. > :05:16."We cannot make any commitments now that the next Labour government
:05:16. > :05:19.will reverse tax rises or spending cuts, and we will not." He said his
:05:19. > :05:23.comments wouldn't make him popular with the unions and he wasn't
:05:23. > :05:26.kidding. This morning, Mr McCluskey hit back, condemning this as a
:05:26. > :05:29."victory for discredited Blairism at the expense of the party's core
:05:29. > :05:33.at the expense of the party's core supporters." He goes on to say, "It
:05:33. > :05:37.also challenges the whole course Ed Miliband has set for the party, and
:05:37. > :05:41.perhaps his leadership itself." This leaves Mr Miliband in a tricky
:05:41. > :05:45.position, as union support is vital to Labour. They provide around 90%
:05:45. > :05:48.of its funding. Although, as many have pointed out this morning, Tony
:05:48. > :05:53.Blair managed to win a hatful of elections without praise from the
:05:53. > :06:02.Labour left coming to him on a daily basis. Well, this morning, Mr
:06:02. > :06:07.Miliband was sounding far from He is entitled to his view, but he
:06:07. > :06:11.is wrong. I am changing the Labour Party so that we can deliver
:06:11. > :06:15.fairness even when there's less money around. That requires tough
:06:15. > :06:20.decisions, it requires tough decisions to put a priority on jobs
:06:20. > :06:24.over public sector pay, for example. It also requires us to say we do
:06:24. > :06:29.believe the government is going too far and too fast with their cuts,
:06:29. > :06:32.but we will not make specific promises to reverse those cuts
:06:32. > :06:36.unless we are absolutely sure we know whether money is coming from.
:06:36. > :06:41.I think that is right, responsible and the way we will proceed.
:06:41. > :06:47.Joining me now is our political correspondent Iain Watson. Is it a
:06:47. > :06:52.good thing for Ed Miliband to be attacked by a leading union figure?
:06:52. > :06:59.I think there's a scenario where it could have been helpful. If he is
:06:59. > :07:01.trying to say Labour has economic credibility, we understand the
:07:01. > :07:06.harsh economic realities, to have trade unions saying we are not
:07:06. > :07:12.pleased about that not only creates a row for the media, it also allows
:07:12. > :07:16.him to distance himself from being in the pocket of the trade unions.
:07:16. > :07:21.The Unite union was crucial in Ed Miliband's Nehru leadership win.
:07:21. > :07:25.Where it is not helpful is the language Len McCluskey was using
:07:25. > :07:29.because it doesn't simply attack Labour's new policy to a -- stance,
:07:29. > :07:33.he attacks the leadership itself. He says Ed Miliband's own
:07:33. > :07:37.leadership comes into question. Given that Labour is now behind in
:07:37. > :07:43.some opinion polls when many give its supporters believe it should be
:07:43. > :07:46.ahead, and when some MPs are murmuring that they were not
:07:46. > :07:50.desperately impressed by Ed Miliband's performance, to some
:07:50. > :07:55.extent Len McCluskey knows what he's doing. He's not just putting
:07:55. > :08:00.the knife in, but twisting it a little bit. If Len McCluskey
:08:00. > :08:03.doesn't quite get the idea that Labour is still opposing many of
:08:03. > :08:07.the Government's cuts, if he doesn't understand that, perhaps
:08:07. > :08:11.many of the voters might not get that as well and some MPs are
:08:11. > :08:17.scratching their heads and saying, I'm not sure Ed Miliband has
:08:17. > :08:20.explained this change in policy clearly enough. Len McCluskey's
:08:20. > :08:26.intervention is only helpful because we are starting to talk
:08:26. > :08:31.about it and concentrating on luck -- on what Labour are saying.
:08:31. > :08:35.With us is Harriet Harman. What is the difference now between the
:08:35. > :08:40.government's and Labour's policy on the economy? All the difference in
:08:40. > :08:45.the world. Not according to Len McCluskey. We are against the cuts
:08:45. > :08:49.that are too far and too fast. is quite wrong for Len McCluskey to
:08:49. > :08:53.say we are accepting the Government's cuts. We are fighting
:08:53. > :08:57.the cuts. We fought against the cuts and we will continue to fight
:08:57. > :09:02.against them in the number of police, educational maintenance
:09:02. > :09:07.allowance and in the House of Lords today. Why not commit to reversing
:09:07. > :09:11.them? We are also facing up to the harsh economic realities being made
:09:11. > :09:16.worse by those government cuts. if you say the cuts are that bad,
:09:16. > :09:21.they are damaging the economy, reverse them. What we are saying is
:09:21. > :09:25.that as well as fighting the cuts, we have to face up to the economic
:09:25. > :09:29.realities as we approach the next election. As the government says,
:09:29. > :09:34.the deficit must be cut back and therefore those cuts are necessary.
:09:34. > :09:39.Is that a recognition by you and Ed Miliband? It is a recognition that
:09:39. > :09:43.because of what the government is doing, the economic situation, grow
:09:43. > :09:47.flower, unemployment higher, will be worse in the run-up to the next
:09:47. > :09:51.election and therefore we will have to make our proposals of what we
:09:51. > :09:56.are going to commit to in the light of those economic realities. Whilst
:09:56. > :10:00.we are fighting the government cuts now, we are clear they are too far
:10:00. > :10:05.and too fast, when it comes to the next election and between now and
:10:05. > :10:09.then, we are going to be absolutely hard-headed and realistic. Why are
:10:09. > :10:12.you going along with the public sector if pay freeze? Why does Ed
:10:12. > :10:19.Balls say he can't make any commitments now to reverse tax
:10:19. > :10:23.rises? Why does Jim Murphy say if Labour were in government, they
:10:23. > :10:27.would make cuts. There are three different questions. They are all
:10:27. > :10:33.saying the same thing. They are different points. If one is about
:10:33. > :10:38.the pay freeze and when we were in government, in 2009, we negotiated
:10:38. > :10:42.with the unions to have a 1% cap on the pay bill because of the global
:10:42. > :10:44.financial crisis. We are not opposing the Government's
:10:45. > :10:48.continuing with that. One of the reason the government feels they
:10:48. > :10:52.have to continue with that is because the economy is worse than
:10:52. > :10:55.they predicted as a result of their bad handling of the economy.
:10:55. > :11:02.are alienating public sector workers if you go along with the
:11:02. > :11:07.pay freeze. We are prioritising jobs over pay. When it comes to a
:11:07. > :11:11.difficult decision, tough choices, we are saying that what must have
:11:11. > :11:14.priority is jobs rather than pay. If you look around the country,
:11:14. > :11:19.Labour in local government is negotiating with their unions, how
:11:19. > :11:25.can we make sure we keep our workforce and we don't have to make
:11:25. > :11:28.too many redundant? That is about keeping a cap on pay and that is
:11:28. > :11:34.being done through union negotiation. Does that sound like a
:11:34. > :11:38.coherent economic message going out to the electric? I would say not.
:11:38. > :11:42.On the one hand, there is this feeling that things are not
:11:42. > :11:47.terribly good, therefore something will have to be done. On the other
:11:47. > :11:53.hand, it is criticising what is being done. We don't know what
:11:53. > :11:57.Labour will do if and when they win the election. But at the same time,
:11:57. > :12:00.everything is room at the moment. You're having your cake and eating
:12:00. > :12:05.it and that is how the electorate will see it. If Len McCluskey
:12:05. > :12:09.doesn't understand your position, you say he is wrong, how will the
:12:09. > :12:14.electorate understand it? It is complex to say the way you release
:12:14. > :12:18.the deficit to is not by cutting so far and so fast that you increase
:12:18. > :12:22.unemployment and you choke off economic growth. I'm sorry if that
:12:22. > :12:27.is complicated but that is the economic reality. You can't reduce
:12:27. > :12:31.the deficit by making cuts and savings, which would be logical,
:12:31. > :12:35.you are saying we don't support the cuts, but we would not reverse them
:12:36. > :12:40.either, that is not very logical. No, we are saying this scale and
:12:40. > :12:45.pace of the cuts, and we agreed the deficit should be reduced by half
:12:45. > :12:49.over four years, but if you go too far and too fast, or austerity is
:12:49. > :12:54.self-defeating and you make the economy worse. Of course we can't
:12:54. > :12:58.say now what we were promised in the next manifesto in 2015 because
:12:58. > :13:04.we have to address the economic realities as they will be at the
:13:04. > :13:10.time. Can I ask a question? Why didn't your leader say, like you're
:13:10. > :13:18.saying it now? He did on the clip. He didn't. He didn't say the cuts
:13:18. > :13:24.at the moment are not the right cuts. He did. Too far, too fast?
:13:24. > :13:29.you are voter, that is a formula statement. It is not. The reality
:13:29. > :13:34.is that if you cut so far and so fast that businesses lose work,
:13:34. > :13:40.that people become unemployed, you have a downward spiral. If you look
:13:40. > :13:44.at America... I accept that. won't you reverse the cuts? What
:13:44. > :13:48.you are setting out on the one hand is cuts that have gone too far and
:13:48. > :13:53.too fast, they are damaging, they are causing the deficit to go up.
:13:53. > :13:59.If they are wrong now, they will be wrong next year. And the year after
:13:59. > :14:03.and he should reverse them. By way of example, we have said they are
:14:03. > :14:08.wrong to cut 16,000 frontline police officers between now and the
:14:08. > :14:12.next general election. When we get to the next election, we won't
:14:13. > :14:16.necessarily be able to say we will reinstate all 16,000. We will have
:14:16. > :14:20.to make proposals based on the economic reality at the time.
:14:20. > :14:26.you are saying to teachers, widowed and liked the cuts come if you vote
:14:26. > :14:33.for Ross, I can't reassure you we will reverse them. What is the
:14:33. > :14:36.voters' supposed to do? It is not true to say wait and see. We
:14:36. > :14:41.strongly support the work the public sector does. We think the
:14:41. > :14:45.way they are going about the pay freeze is unfair, we don't agree
:14:45. > :14:49.with regional pay bargaining and they are making it more perilous
:14:49. > :14:54.for public-sector workers by kibosh in the economy, by cutting too far
:14:54. > :14:58.and too fast. I don't see what a public service work it is to do in
:14:58. > :15:04.terms of choosing between Conservative and Labour. Would you
:15:04. > :15:09.support the welfare cuts as they are now? The 26,000 cap on families
:15:09. > :15:13.claiming benefits. His Labour- supporting this? There should be
:15:13. > :15:17.responsibility for people at the bottom as well as the top. We want
:15:17. > :15:21.people to be in work. We are fighting against, in the Lords now,
:15:21. > :15:25.the fact that they are cutting support for people who are still
:15:25. > :15:30.receiving chemotherapy. Across the board, we are saying the way they
:15:30. > :15:35.are going about it is unfair and unthought out. Labour said they
:15:35. > :15:41.were going -- not going to do similar things. Do you support that
:15:41. > :15:45.cap on families claiming benefits? I think the realities are very
:15:45. > :15:49.different from what of the Conservatives are saying. The
:15:49. > :15:54.danger is that they push more people, including families with
:15:54. > :15:59.children, into poverty, they encourage -- precipitate a
:15:59. > :16:03.situation where people lose their homes. We think the way they are
:16:03. > :16:12.going about this is unfair and we don't support their approach on
:16:12. > :16:22.that. We don't support the Tory approach. Should you have talked to
:16:22. > :16:24.
:16:24. > :16:29.They have been ongoing discussions. This policy was originally
:16:29. > :16:35.established by negotiation in 2009. She should you have taught to Len
:16:35. > :16:38.McCluskey about not promising to reverse the cuts? The retort to the
:16:38. > :16:43.unions or the way along. But just as we fight the cuts, we have to
:16:43. > :16:47.face up to economic reality. That is what trade unions themselves are
:16:47. > :16:51.doing in both the public and private sector.
:16:51. > :16:55.As we see on an almost daily basis at the moment, government attempts
:16:55. > :16:59.to reform the benefit system are proving controversial, none more so
:16:59. > :17:02.than the decision to limit the amount people can claiming housing
:17:02. > :17:07.benefit. Although it was introduced last April for new claimants, the
:17:07. > :17:10.Government wants it to start affecting existent tenants from
:17:10. > :17:13.this month onwards. Opponents say the move will force families in
:17:13. > :17:18.affluent areas out of their homes, but should the state pay for people
:17:18. > :17:23.to live in places most of us could not afford?
:17:23. > :17:29.Flat hunting in central London. Frankly, never fun, and certainly
:17:29. > :17:33.never cheap. This is Maida Vale. I could not afford to live here,
:17:33. > :17:37.because renting a two-bedroom flat around these parts will set you
:17:37. > :17:40.back upwards of �300 a week. And yet some of the people who live up
:17:40. > :17:44.the road manage it on housing benefit. But they may not be there
:17:44. > :17:48.for much longer. In the past, the government paid the average rent
:17:48. > :17:53.for the borough, no matter how expensive it was. But that has now
:17:53. > :17:58.been capped at a maximum of �400 a week. That has left people living
:17:58. > :18:03.in places like this with tough choices. We know there are 5000
:18:03. > :18:07.local families whose rent is now unaffordable for them. It is too
:18:07. > :18:13.early to know what those people will do. There are different
:18:13. > :18:18.options. Some will move out, some will choose to overcrowd. There
:18:18. > :18:22.might be several families moving in together into a single property.
:18:22. > :18:26.And some will be forced to make a homelessness application, which is
:18:26. > :18:30.a very expensive and difficult thing for the local authorities to
:18:30. > :18:36.cope with. So why is the Government doing it? Be for the reform, you
:18:36. > :18:40.could get up to �2,000 a week in housing benefit, �100,000 a year. A
:18:40. > :18:45.lot of people who are working hard and perhaps commuting four hours a
:18:45. > :18:49.day to their jobs might say, how is it fair to people who are not
:18:49. > :18:54.working to get so much more than me in housing benefit and be able to
:18:54. > :18:58.afford to live where I cannot afford to live? The government is
:18:58. > :19:01.hoping, by starting to cap housing benefit, that they will bring down
:19:01. > :19:07.rents in the private sector at the same time and save money. But is
:19:07. > :19:12.that likely? I can't see landlords dropping prices. There is not
:19:12. > :19:17.always a huge demand by private tenants which will continue to fill
:19:17. > :19:21.those void properties. Tenants on housing benefits will end up being
:19:21. > :19:25.squeezed out of the area and will have to look further afield to
:19:25. > :19:29.cheaper areas where they can afford a property. So how far are we
:19:29. > :19:34.talking? Perhaps somewhere like this, Wembley. It is seven miles
:19:34. > :19:39.away. It is even on the same tube line. But critics say that is
:19:39. > :19:43.missing the point. The problem is, this is a national cut in housing
:19:43. > :19:51.support. It affects nearly 1 million families across the country.
:19:51. > :19:55.And thousands of families will have to look for cheaper accommodation.
:19:55. > :19:58.And we have a huge pool of low- income households, or chasing a
:19:58. > :20:03.decreasing pool of cheaper properties. Everyone thinks
:20:03. > :20:07.something has to be done about the benefits system. Everyone wants
:20:07. > :20:12.fairness. The problem? Agreeing on who picks up the tab.
:20:12. > :20:14.The welfare bill, which looks at this and other issues like
:20:14. > :20:21.disability and employment allows us, is now going through the House of
:20:21. > :20:25.Lords. Baroness Flather, this cap we were talking about with Harriet
:20:25. > :20:28.Harman on what benefits can be claimed, the consequences as set
:20:28. > :20:31.out by Labour would mean hundreds of families having to move out of
:20:31. > :20:37.central London to other boroughs where there is already a problem
:20:37. > :20:41.with housing? We do not know that yet. We do not know how it will
:20:41. > :20:45.work for them. But it is a question of fairness, as you have said. It
:20:45. > :20:50.is about a person on benefits living in a much grander place than
:20:50. > :20:55.we could afford. But they would argue that key workers need to be
:20:55. > :21:00.close to central London. But they are not working. But many of them
:21:00. > :21:05.are working. They are not all claiming unemployment benefits.
:21:05. > :21:08.They are claiming housing allowances. It still has to be a
:21:08. > :21:11.question of how much they are claiming. You cannot just say it
:21:11. > :21:20.has to be unlimited. If they are working in Westminster, should they
:21:20. > :21:23.be living next door? This is the problem. You cannot have people
:21:23. > :21:28.living in accommodation which would never be possible for them. But do
:21:28. > :21:31.you accept that the price of that could mean an exodus of people to
:21:31. > :21:36.outer London boroughs or even outside London? But all young
:21:36. > :21:43.people are in that exodus now. They cannot afford central London prices.
:21:43. > :21:48.If benefits provide central London, first-rate accommodation, it is not
:21:48. > :21:53.fair. Why should the taxpayer pay for people's accommodation? At the
:21:53. > :21:57.other element of fairness which you have talked-about involves large
:21:57. > :22:01.families. You have suggested an amendment to stop benefits once
:22:01. > :22:05.families have four or more youngsters. You have already
:22:05. > :22:10.singled out Bangladeshi, Somali and Pakistani families as groups having
:22:10. > :22:15.more children. Do you stick to that? Of course. But it is a
:22:15. > :22:20.sweeping statement. Absolutely, but people have a lot of children. It
:22:20. > :22:26.is not just Bangladeshis and Somalis, it is also white British.
:22:26. > :22:30.And single mothers. I am sorry in a way that I did not get a chance to
:22:30. > :22:34.mention everybody. But the main point is that people are having
:22:35. > :22:39.children because they get money for having children. Have you got
:22:39. > :22:44.evidence for this? Yes, lots of it. The trouble is that people do not
:22:44. > :22:49.want to come forward to talk about it. Is there an element of you
:22:49. > :22:54.being allowed to say these sorts of things without much redress?
:22:54. > :22:58.Because I am Asian? Absolutely. That is why I have stuck my neck
:22:58. > :23:02.out to say this, because nobody will say it. A working person
:23:02. > :23:08.cannot afford more than two children. Sometimes they have only
:23:08. > :23:12.one, because they want to educate them and give them a good life etc.
:23:12. > :23:20.But a person on benefits can have six or seven children. I think that
:23:20. > :23:23.is wrong. There has to be a balance between the working person who is
:23:23. > :23:28.paying for the person who is not working. Do you know how much
:23:28. > :23:33.support you will get? I don't know. And that is not the important
:23:33. > :23:37.factor. It is about voicing it in the first place, or write.
:23:37. > :23:42.Now, we know American politics can get ugly and that US election
:23:42. > :23:45.battles are often played out on the nation's TV screens. But the race
:23:45. > :23:49.to become the Republican candidate to take on Barack Obama in 2012 has
:23:49. > :23:52.shown that you do not have to be on different sides to get angry. Some
:23:53. > :23:57.of the most aggressive adverts have been made by Republicans about
:23:57. > :24:01.other Republicans. In a moment, we will discuss with British politics
:24:01. > :24:06.could head down the same road. Here is a taste of what US viewers have
:24:06. > :24:13.been seeing. One serial hypocrite exposed. He got paid to go the
:24:13. > :24:23.other way. Now another has emerged, Rick Santorum, a corporate lobbyist
:24:23. > :24:25.
:24:25. > :24:35.and politician with a record of Just like John Kerry, he speaks
:24:35. > :24:42.
:24:42. > :24:45.For thousands of Americans, they are suffering again -- the
:24:45. > :24:49.suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town of.
:24:49. > :24:54.We are now joined by Benedict Pringle, an advertising executive
:24:54. > :25:01.who runs a website called Political Advertising. Isn't this what a US
:25:01. > :25:06.election is about? They are always personal. It is nothing new. It is
:25:06. > :25:12.nothing new. There have always been negative attacks in US elections.
:25:12. > :25:16.Yes, these ones seem to be particularly energetic, but it is
:25:16. > :25:24.nothing new. What is the point in standing against a candidate if you
:25:24. > :25:29.cannot say why you should not affect them? We do not see that on
:25:29. > :25:35.TV adverts. Do you think it could come here? We do not have paid for
:25:35. > :25:40.TV advertising for political parties in the UK, but we do have
:25:40. > :25:47.press adverts, posters. And all the famous ones are incredibly negative.
:25:47. > :25:54.Like the demon eyes, or Labour isn't working. There is a rich
:25:54. > :26:01.heritage of negative advertising, mainly because it seems to work.
:26:01. > :26:08.our politicians focus on their rivals? There are many applets, and
:26:08. > :26:11.it is a particularly good medium, paid for advertising. These are
:26:11. > :26:14.people within the same party attacking each other, that is the
:26:14. > :26:20.interesting fact. In the end, does it just discredit the party itself?
:26:20. > :26:23.Barack Obama can just watch them destroy each other. It is different
:26:23. > :26:29.because in America, they have a much more candidate best way of
:26:29. > :26:35.organising themselves. So yes, all these candidates are part of the
:26:35. > :26:38.Republican Party. But it is not so tight-knit as it is in the UK.
:26:38. > :26:42.do you think of that sort of thing, Baroness Flather? They are all
:26:42. > :26:47.rivals. They are all backing for the same position. We do not have
:26:47. > :26:51.that. If we have a leadership election, it is not done in public.
:26:51. > :27:01.We do not ask the people to say who should lead a party. It was very
:27:01. > :27:07.close between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne. Yes, but not fought publicly.
:27:07. > :27:12.It is within the party. The constituencies can have their say,
:27:12. > :27:18.but you do not go beyond that. People do not go saying, I am
:27:18. > :27:23.standing for leader. Isn't it becoming more presidential here?
:27:23. > :27:27.Only with Tony Blair. Maybe it will die down now. I hope so. From an
:27:27. > :27:32.advertising point of view, apart from those who we clearly remember,
:27:32. > :27:35.it is surprising that the parties do not fully used -- used their
:27:35. > :27:40.political broadcasts more to attack. They have done in the past. More
:27:40. > :27:44.often than not, they use it as a platform for its positive message.
:27:44. > :27:49.But they did mention day of the chameleon, where they boarded out
:27:49. > :27:53.David Cameron changing his colours. Does it work? Negative political
:27:53. > :27:57.advertising tends to compress the vote for the opposition. If you are
:27:57. > :28:01.sending a negative message about another party or candidate, it does
:28:01. > :28:04.not necessarily turn out well for you, but the chances of you
:28:04. > :28:12.stopping their supporters turning out increase. It compresses the
:28:12. > :28:17.vote. How interesting. I did not realise that happened. That could
:28:17. > :28:23.change certain calculations. We do not like that sort of thing. We are
:28:23. > :28:29.British. Do you think that is what will stop it coming in? Who can
:28:29. > :28:34.tell what will happen in 10 years' time? But it is not the thing most
:28:34. > :28:39.British people think is the right way to go. Thank you for joining us.
:28:39. > :28:43.That is all. Thanks to our guests, particularly Baroness Flather.
:28:43. > :28:48.Andrew and I will be back at 11:30am tomorrow ahead of Prime