20/04/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/04/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics.


It's bad news for the Prime Minister, but even worse for Nick


Clegg! Tory backbenchers are warning David Cameron that there


will be a rebellion "off the scale", if he presses ahead with the Deputy


Prime Minister's pet project, House of Lords reform. Could this be the


row that breaks the coalition? Troublesome Lib Dem peer Matthew


Oakeshott joins us. And, as Theresa May endures that


ritual of British politics, the Home Secretary getting a thoroughly


good kicking, we ask where the Abu Qatada debacle leaves the Home


Secretary? And, it was billed as a decisive


moment in the UK's efforts to reform the European Court of Human


Rights. But, has the Brighton Declaration lived up to the hype?


Ken Clarke thinks so. The President of the Court, who's also British,


not so much. We'll ask Tory MEP Martin Callanan,


and former Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer.


And, it's an election frenzy on the Daily Politics today. We'll hear


what's happening in Wales. Meet the Uruguayan immigrant


standing as the BNP's candidate for London Mayor.


And, talk to a French socialist hoping to be elected as the member


All that in the next cosmopolitan, sophisticated and truly


international hour of public service broadcasting.


And, alongside me throughout, Agnes Poirier, UK editor of French news


magazine, Marianne. And, rather less exotically, it has


to be said, Matt Chorley from the Independent on Sunday.


Welcome. So, it's not a great morning for


anyone with Prime Minister in their title. For David Cameron, the


headlines about Theresa May and her troubled relationship with the


calendar are bad. The poll that puts Labour a whopping 13% ahead,


even worse. And that's before we get to his restive backbenchers,


who warned last night that they would not support plans for House


of Lords reform. That's where Nick Clegg's headaches begin. With his


party desperate for a victory on constitutional reform, to make them


feel better about this whole coalition business.


So, what's been going on in Westminster overnight? Our


political correspondent Carole Walker joins us.


4th 4th of the Prime Minister was not at this meeting of Tory


backbenchers. From all of the reports, they were in rebellious


mood? I think the word will certainly get back to David Cameron.


Tory MPs have had a testing time with rows over the pastry tax,


granny tax, the possible fuel strike. It seems like they seized


on this issue of House of Lords reform to say pretty strongly that


they will not put up with it. They feel this is a pet project of the


Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister. They are concerned at the


idea of a largely elected House of Lords would lead to difficulties


and conflict between the two Houses of Parliament. They think any plan


to radically reduce the House of Lords will clog up the Houses of


Parliament for quite some time and dominate the headlines. Their


constituents will be wondering why they are preoccupied with the inner


workings of Parliament when they are more concerned about jobs and


the economy. So, it is pretty clear there is a huge amount of hostility.


There was some surprising guidance from Downing Street, saying those


who spoke out against reform were not representative of Tory


backbenchers. But there were over 40 who took this line. If they are


representative, what does Mr Cameron do? He is in a very


difficult position. Because, this issue of House of Lords reform,


part of the constitutional reform agenda was part of the price of the


Coalition for Nick Clegg. There is no doubt the Prime Minister will


have a huge problem in terms of his own party. I have spoken to MPs


from a number of different wings of the party and all of them are angry


about this on a number of different levels. The key one is this simply


do not feel this is the issue that the government should be focusing


on and driving through, with all of the battles that will involve, at


this current time. So he will have a difficult ride. Quite a few MPs


now say that, if it is going to go ahead and there will be reform of


the Lords, they should be a referendum. That is something on


which you could see rebellious Tory MPs finding common cause with


Labour of which could make it even more difficult to get any proposals


through. So, there could be trouble ahead. And, who better to ask about


it than troublesome Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott. Alongside former


Labour Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer.


The Conservative MPs are not up for this? Troublesome. Totally on


message. The coalition and Liberal Democrat message. About 40 of them


spoke against it. I can tell you plenty of gazetted MPs are in


favour. There have been some very good ones on the Joint Commission


reported on Monday. You think that this committee meeting of the 1922


Committee last night, which every MP who spoke, except one, was


against proceeding with reform, as Nick Clegg once. But it doesn't


matter? I didn't say that. The important thing is Liberal Democrat


MPs are totally united in favour, it is coalition policy. Electing


the house of Lords was in all three major parties's manifestos,


including yours, Charlie. You made it quite clear you, of the party


was in favour of an elected House of Lords and getting rid of the


hereditary principle. Those policies were put to the country.


The Conservative manifesto, you keep saying this was in the


Conservative manifesto and coalition agreement. It isn't. The


Tory manifesto says we will work to build a consensus. To replace the


current House of Lords. It doesn't say we will reform, but we will


work to build a consensus. Clearly, there is no consensus. You have


consistently said the coalition agreement... The coalition


agreement simply says, we will establish a committee to bring


forward proposals. For a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber.


Bringing forward proposals. That commits nobody to anything. It does.


It is a clear understanding between the two parties that is what we


would propose. That is the deal. Your party could save the day, no


matter how disillusioned the Tories are, by voting with the Liberal


Democrats for a second elected chamber? We could and we would if


they were worthwhile proposals. But they're saying everything is


wonderful in the current arrangement, except the Lords are


not elected. So let us change, but keep anything else, including the


primacy of the Commons. A nonsensical idea. Once we are


elected, we will assert ourselves against the Commons and there will


be gridlock. You can't have an inferior second chamber which is


also elected. Get back to the drawing board. A back to the


drawing-board. An excuse for never doing anything. Let me say, 800 of


us, very complacent dinosaurs, what will you do about the hereditary


principle? I don't believe and I see no reason why an elected House


of Lords as all three parties are in favour of, should mean there


should be a change in the power balance. At the moment, the Commons


actually is now had more power by using this financial privilege.


We're having some movement away. I think we should stick to the


balance there has been. You reject the unanimous conclusion that had


Lords Bill, Commons, Tories, Liberal Democrats, off the existing


conventions go up the window. Excuse me, I was on that committee,


it did not say that. It did not accept, and those of us in favour


of reform, supported that on the basis that was a separate issue. We


did not say on that committee you had to change the powers before


changing the composition. I was there. I was actually there, I was


on that committee. You were not. You obviously never read the report.


Can I remind you again of the words of the Conservative manifesto. We


will work to build a consensus. It doesn't sound like you have done it.


He don't have to have unanimity in the Conservative Party to have a


decision. You are relying on the manifesto which has been shot to


pieces. Also, you are very unrepresentative of most of the


Labour Party, the Labour leadership in the Commons, you are a dinosaur.


I think you are getting a phone call from your leader! I think what


my party once, is a sensible Bill. And yours is total rubbish. What he


wants I am sure is a form and a democratic House of Lords as well


as Commons. We won't get it while dinosaurs are blocking the way.


hit is an issue which nobody cares about, according to the polls.


you ask people what are the most important issues facing Britain,


the reform of the Lords gets 0%. How all this play about? If the


entire summer is dominated by this, it will play out very badly. It's


the opponents who say this is mad to make this a number one priority.


Nick Clegg wants it. His party wants it more than he does. For he


wants it. After losing the alternative vote referendum. Number


10 is still saying the promised it is still committed. -- the Prime


Minister. How do you let the second chamber in France? It is elected to


start with. They got rid of Lords during the Revolution! Which is an


easy way to go about it. There is an intellectual case for it. I am


amazed you say 0% of people are concerned. It is very important.


you ask every opinion poll, it says most people are in favour of


collecting it. It is not top of their list. The only reason it will


clog up Holland visit the people who are against it spend time time-


wasting. People want current paces macro to have a long period before


change. If there is a referendum, it looks a good idea... Let me be


clear. You are speaking for the party that now wants to give us a


referendum on an issue no one cares about. But the party which wouldn't


give us a referendum... In relation to the Lords, we always said there


would be a referendum. In relation to Lisbon, and cut remember the


precise timing, it went away for some reason -- I can't remember.


You support an elected, your party supports an elected chamber. Stop


the politics and support him. upping macro, it is a very bad


proposal which would be bad for the country -- no. I'll be asking the


Deputy Prime Minister about this issue, when he joins me on the


Sunday Politics. On BBC One, this Now, the papers this morning don't


make great reading for the Government. Do we detect a theme


here? Many are splashing on the news that the radical cleric Abu


Qatada could be released on bail within weeks because of the


confusion surrounding his deportation. It's a further blow to


the Home Secretary Theresa May, and her department. Mrs May insists


that Abu Qatada's lawyers have his deportation. But a spokesman


for the European Court says the appeal, lodged on Tuesday evening,


was "just in time". The judge here who approved Abu Qatada's arrest at


the start of the week, Mr Justice Mitting, says that "if it is


obvious after two or three weeks that deportation is not imminent"


then he would reconsider bail for Abu Qatada.


Meanwhile the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke hailed a new declaration,


agreed in Brighton, to reform the European Court. Mr Clarke says


there will be more "subsidiarity" and a "margin of appreciation" -


that means more decisions made by national courts. However, the


President of the European Court, a Brit called Nicholas Bratza, said


he was "uncomfortable with the idea that governments can in some way


dictate to the court how its case law should evolve or how it should


carry out the judicial functions Not a lot of enthusiasm there from


the President. Charles Falconer is still with us and we're joined from


the home of the European Court, Strasbourg, by Martin Callanan the


Tory MEP who heads the right of centre European Parliament grouping


of which the Conservative Party are members. Welcome to both of you.


Charlie Falconer, let me come to you first. You are a lawyer as well


as a former politician and former Lord Chancellor. Did Theresa may


get the old days right or not? think she might have got it wrong.


-- did she get the date right? The convention says you have to make


the appeal within three months and the guidance documents say it


includes the day of the judgment but other cases say it does not


include the day of the judgment. It is very confusing, but if you are


confused by that, the right thing is to wait until the last possible


date and then it said you were going to deport. Instead she took a


risk. I don't know what advice she had got. I read in the newspapers


she was evasive about saying what advice she got. I do not know who


took the risk. The right thing to do if your stated stance was to say


you would only move to deport him once the time for appeal had gone,


then you should wait for that time for appeal unequivocally. And get


clarity from Strasbourg as to what they considered was the right thing.


She should have waited until the end of the next day and there would


have been no argument one way or another. The problem she has ended


up in is that somebody, whether it was hurt or a lawyer, took a risk


that the view it ended on the Monday was right, and it has now


turned out to be wrong. The court has now said it was within time.


is a technical issue, but there are bigger symbolic issues. Let me go


to Martin. If Abu Qatada gets released on bail, is that curtains


for the Home Secretary? No, I don't think so. I think Theresa May is on


the side of the angels and is doing an excellent job. It is just the


angels are not sure what day it is. This argument about dates is


interpreted and reinterpreted by the court, and this is the problem


with it, it makes the law as they go along about what people ought to


save rather than what it does say. But going back to the principles,


this guy has been illegally in the country for 20 years and successive


Home Secretaries have considered him a threat to national security


and he was labelled a terrorist sympathiser by a judge and he


detests what we stand for in the UK. Everybody wants rid of him. We know


that, but none of you can find a way of doing it. The problem is


that the European Court of Human Rights substituted judgment on


elected politicians in the UK and even in the UK courts and the UK


taxpayer is funding both sides of the case. We know that, and we have


heard it endlessly, politicians come on to this programme wringing


their hands about this all the time. Should the Home Secretary do what


the French and the Italians do and just put him on a plane to Jordan?


No, she can't. That would be contrary to the law and we abide by


the law in the UK and a thing that is correct. What we should do is


change the law and abnegate the European Convention of Human Rights,


withdraw from it and then it will be perfectly legal for Abu Qatada


to be deported. Kenneth Clarke says the Brighton agreement, which has


been unveiled this morning on the European Court, will make a big


difference to the way it works. The President of the court says it will


not change the way it -- we do our jobs. Who is right? Eyes suspect


the President of the court is right, because the job of interpreting it


lies with him and his fellow judges, most of whom are not even legally


qualified. Most of them are political appointees and they will


interpret the law as they see fit. That is what they have done all


along. It sounds like you do not trust your justice secretary on


this. I am suspicious of his motives, I have to say. I prefer


the interpretation of Tereza May. The point is, Charlie Falconer, can


you point to any of the clauses in the Brighton declaration that would


have made a difference to the Abu Qatada case? They are saying they


will streamline the process is. The subsidiarity staff won't add any


difference to the result -- the subsidiarity stuff. But they are


saying their procedural changes that will make it quicker and there


are complaints about what happened with Abu Qatada because some people


say he's ability to appeal means the process takes so long. It has


taken 10 years and everyone is exasperated about that. I am more


hopeful than your other guest that it will make a difference. I have


no idea what difference it will make. We have a situation in the UK


way you have a final court of appeal that will hear around 60


cases per year. What you need the the European Court of Human Rights


is a coarse -- a court that he is a small matter cases, sets out the


principles, and decides things in a reasonable time. People are fed up


with any party's ability to sort this out. This man was allowed in


illegally under a Tory government, then in 2001 under the Labour


government for nine years, you fail to get progress in getting him out,


and now we have a Tory government back in and we are not quite sure


what day of the week it is. question about the timing is one


that could have risen in an English case. The problem is that the time


these things take. It is right to have a court out of the country


that is saying, regionally, for Europe, what is the standard of


human rights. That is a good thing and insures people are protected.


What is a bad thing is... Why can't they be protected by the British


Supreme Court which is nine of the best qualified judges in the world?


The Kozuka always have a government saying you can disagree -- because


you can always have a government that disagrees and says the courts


in Britain were wrong. You have to have something outside the UK.


United States doesn't. But they have judges who can strike down


legislation. So you have an independent protective in the US of


people's human rights. Why is this not an issue in France? I do not


know why in Britain we always blame Europe. Because we stick to the


rules and in France you just put them on a plane. Mr Sarkozy has


just done it. But we did not involve the European Court of Human


Rights on this. It might be down to the more authoritarian nature of


the French state, perhaps. And it is very difficult to get to the


European Court of Human Rights in France. The funding is more


difficult. We are a nation where we make access to the courts,


including the European Court, very easy would you are rich or poor. I


am not sure if it is like that in France. Frankly, the political


establishment do not know what to do. The reforms, most people think


they won't make much difference, and he says we should just leave.


David Cameron is not going to just leave and couldn't give a coalition


with the Liberal Democrats. It is a stalemate for the future. It is,


and a lot of legal process is complicated and people cannot


Follett. When you get down to a Monday or Tuesday, people can


follow that. People think if you have waited 10 years and you cannot


wait another day... Everyone agrees that we should get rid of him, so


why, do that? You want Britain to pull out of the European Court of


Human Rights altogether. Do you want us to have our own British


Bill of Rights? I think that is a matter Parliament can determine.


was asking you. What benefit accrues to the UK from our


membership of this court? I don't feel my human rights are under


threat. We are the country that had the Magna Carter, the British Bill


of Rights and by human rights are well protected. The idea not one to


be protected by judges from Belarus and the Ukraine. -- I do not want


to be protected. There are only two courses in the Magna Carter that


are still part of British law and a British Bill of Rights was at the


end of the 17th century. If you are so convinced this is the right way


to go, how come you have not convinced your prime minister?


think David Cameron probably does support that view. He doesn't


support the idea of full withdrawal from the European Court. Let's see


what is in the next Conservative manifesto. The problem is we are in


coalition with the Liberal Democrats to believe it is fine for


us to be dictated to by these various tribunals and courts.


doubt Abu Qatada will be here to read the next Conservative


manifesto. Probably! Thank you for joining us. We had trouble getting


you earlier, but it's good to see. Now, we're going election crazy on


the Daily Politics today. First up, France. It's the last day of


campaigning before voters go to the polls on Sunday in the French


presidential elections. Nicolas Sarkozy is in Nice and Francoise


Hollande in Bordeaux making their final pleas for votes today. The


campaigning starts tonight, Saturday is quiet, and then they go


to the polls. Opinion polls show the two men are neck-and-neck, but


Socialist candidate Mr Hollande is favourite to win a run-off vote.


Probably by quite a big majority if the opinion polls are right. Here's


Susana Mendonsa with all you'll need to know your onions on the


French election. I should warn you that her report contains some flash


The French Presidential Election is upon us and there's everything to


play for for the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. He'll need the help


because this is a very tight race, and if the voters decide that it's


"au revoir", he'd become the first French president not to be re-


elected for a second term in more The French elect their president in


a two stage process, starting with stage one this weekend. To be


elected on the first round alone, one of the ten candidates would


have to win an absolute majority at the polls on Sunday. If none of


them achieve that, then the the top two candidates will face each other


The front runners are Conservative Sarkozy, and Socialist Francoise


Hollande who's promising change. Polls this week put him at 29%,


edging every so slightly ahead of Sarkozy who's on 28%. The rest of


the candidates veer from the far left to the far right and will most


likely be eliminated this weekend, but where their supporters go could


be the tipping point, with Hollande favourite to win the second round.


And this is the man whose votes he'll hope to pick up, the Left


Front's Jean-Luc Melenchon. While Sarkozy will hope that far right's


National Front leader Le Pen's supporters will vote for him. But


that's forced both men to appeal to the extremes. One of Melenchon's


more controversial ideas is to confiscate all income over 360,000


euros a year. Holland followed that up with a pledge to tax income


above one million euros at 75%. Sarkozy has sought to claw back


right wing voters with policies like pulling out of Europe's


borderless zone unless there's a crackdown on illegal immigration.


And after the shootings in Toulouse by the son of Algerian immigrants,


he's proposed tougher laws against But it's on the economy that who


wins in France affects us here in Britain. Sarkozy's support for a


financial transaction tax on the banks is looked upon with suspicion.


And Hollande's tax and spending approach might force Germany to


look towards Britain. I am glad I gave a warning about the flash


photography. And I'm delighted to say we are joined by the Socialist


candidate for Nord Europe - the constituency for ex-pat French


nationals which includes those living in the UK, Axelle Lemaire.


The vast majority of French people living in the UK are in the London


area. A lot of them work in the city. As a Socialist candidate, is


it quite hard to campaign for these people's boats as so many of them


have come to London to escape people like Francoise Hollande.


I've don't think they'd come to escape him. I think they came to


London and were attracted by offers in the job market. I think people


working in the city, what they want, they want a strong economy for


France and long-term policies and a stable economy likely to attract


foreign investments. This is something Nicolas Sarkozy has not


The French people I know who live in London escaped France because he


believed there were not the kind of jobs they could get in London, and


because taxes were too high. Well, Nicolas Sarkozy has actually


created 45 new taxes in five years. The public debt has doubled in 10


years. You are not going to cut these taxes. That depends for whom.


Mr Hollande wants to introduce progressive taxation. So there


would probably be more French people paying taxes, but the edit


is to make it progressive. That means the wealthiest have to pay.


It is already quite progressive. Mr Hollande is suggesting if you earn


over one million euros, your marginal rate will become 75%. How


much money would that raised? think he is doing that for the


symbolic aspect of it. And because this would concern 3,000


individuals. The important tax rate to look at is the 45%, which would


concern earnings between 150,000.1000000 Euros euros. Why is


it symbolically important? Because taxation is very unfair in France


and people are fed up with the richest paying less taxes, than


bloke and middle-class citizens. Mr Hollande were to implement the


centre by % tax, you would need to book far ahead on the Eurostar


because it will be packed with millionaires. I am not sure. The


reason I came to Britain in 1975 was because of the new President


then. I love Britain too much now to go back. Don't be so sure about


the reason why. In a country surrounded by other countries,


France has borders with anyone and a tunnel would Britain, why won't


they leave? They will be taxed anyway. Nicolas Sarkozy proposed it


because he proposes everything that Mr Hollande is proposing as a


desperate measure. He says they will be taxed anywhere. If Mr


Hollande wins, will Jean Luc Melenchon who wants to confiscate


all money above 350,000 euros, a real socialist policy, where he get


a job in the government? I can't say, I don't know how Mr Hollande


will form his government. Jean Luc Melenchon has already announced he


does not want to be in government. That being said, it doesn't mean Mr


Hollande should not take into account the messages sent by the


people who would vote for Jean Luc Melenchon, as he would do for any


other candidate. If he is elected, he will be elected by the French


people and he will have to rule in the national interest. What lessons


are there for British politicians? An interesting campaign.


Interesting issues. In addition to the two main candidates, the others


have been interesting as well. obvious parallel is the Labour and


Tories worried about losing votes to the UKIP party. And the respect


party. We know David Cameron would want Nicolas Sarkozy to win but he


does a -- not know if it will happen. There is a love-hate


relationship. Of the two, he would prefer to have Nicolas Sarkozy.


is not so clear that it is in the interest of Ed Miliband for Mr


Hollande to win. In a sense it would be a victory for the left but


if it quickly unravels, as it did with Francois Mitterrand's early on,


that is not good news. If the policies start panning out, rich


people start leaving, tax revenues go down, then that will play out


badly. If your man wins, you could win as well. London voted last time


roughly the way France voted. So, you could be representing London


and the other areas in the French Assembly. If he does win, who do


you think will bring him to his senses more quickly? The bond


markets or Angela Merkel? people, hopefully. I was very


interested to read in the Economist today, this idea from the leaders,


that the addition -- that leaders have to work together to promote


growth. That is the message Mr Hollande would send to Angela


Merkel and hopefully they would agree on a fat the markets have to


be stabilised, to promote growth. Good luck with your dealings with


Angela Merkel. Am I right in thinking the Nicolas


Sarkozy campaign which at one stage but it clique around the events in


Toulouse looked like it was having a head of steam. But that has


petered out. What happened is all candidates have the same space on


radio and TV. Nicolas Sarkozy is very good at fireworks. But he is


not there anymore. Therefore, he is plummeting in the polls. So I am


right. If you are right! The Now, over the course of the


next couple of weeks we'll be interviewing all the candidates


vying to become Mayor of London. Yesterday we spoke to the Green


candidate Jenny Jones. Today, we speak to the BNP candidate. He's


called Carlos Cortiglia. He's originally from Uruguay. We'll


speak to him in a moment but, first, let's take a look at what he's


offering. On transport: he wants to look at


the possibility of abolishing the congestion charge.


He's also offering free weekend travel on the Underground and


trains. On crime: he wants to introduce


minimum five-year prison sentences for knife crime.


And he also opposes the use of water cannons on streets to cope


with rioting. He's also promising there'll be no


amnesties for illegal immigrants in the capital.


Carlos Cortiglia joins us now. Welcome to the programme. In 2010,


the BNP campaigned against, the immigrant invasion of our country.


And you are part of that invasion? Precisely. The reason is, the BNP


has to change. It wants to be a British National Party, has to stop


talking about 1930s ideas, which are ridiculous, and I invite anyone


who is a nationalist to watch the Battle of Britain, and to watch a


very good series done by Thames Television about the history of the


war. And to understand what British nationalism has to be about. It's


his not a continuity of that, but to start thinking about what is in


the best interests of Britain. are you saying you are not anti-


immigrant any more? We talk about illegal immigration, that is the


issue. People who are legally entitled, like me, to be in this


country, are not the issue. But the BNP national conceit is to offer


generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here, not illegal,


who wished to leave permanently. they want to. How much will it take


to send you back to Uruguay? A bid people want to make that choice,


they can. There is no argument that people who are legally entitled to


be here have the right to be a participant. So if we had a whip-


round to entice you to go back to Uruguay? You would have to raise a


lot of money. I established by family in the UK. My three children


are born in London. I have been here for almost a quarter of a


century. The reason I came here is still valid. I love this country


and I want to represent it and put an end to this chauvinism from


1930s which is not the solution for Britain's problems. The fact is,


immigration is your party's reason for being. People will find it


strange that someone who is an immigrant, who has done well in


this country, who is part of the reason why people think immigration


overall has been rather a good thing for Britain, particularly for


London, is representing a party that would send you back if it had


half a chance. The problem in this country, it is a situation all


political parties including the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats


and Tories agree on, -- Labour, it is not a question of stopping


people coming here. Countries, when they get people who can offer


something, if you have a country like the UK that has no control


over its borders because, basically, immigration policy has been


influenced by being a member of the European Union, we have elected


authorities, they should be running out immigration policy, not Europe.


But your party, there is a sense that you are a front man for this


party. Because you represented party, you don't say it yourself,


that would stop all new immigration. That is not at all. For that is BNP


policy, you would reject all asylum seekers. The issue of asylum


seekers is about illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. We have a


border a authority that just confessed they are not able to


manage the number of people coming in. That is different from saying


no more immigration. If we had that Lord today, you'll would not be


allowed in -- you would not be allowed in. I would say that is not


a policy of the BNP. It is their national policy. These islands off


the coast of Argentina. What you call them? The Falkland Islands.


Not the Malvinas Islands? In 1982, there was a dictator in Argentina.


Argentina was going down the drain. Who did you support? I supported


Britain. So this story that you tried to sign up for the


Argentinian forces? That is not true? It is not true, I was working


for the state education system, a teacher of mathematics that ear. I


did not move away from Montevideo. I was studying the English language


at the American Institute. I was studying journalism and I had


nothing to do with it. Why is such a well educated person representing


be BNP in this election? Because I do believe there is a need for


change. Why did you join UKIP? would say to you, David Cameron


said the BNP is a far-right party. I said jokingly, we are in the


middle. The point is... If you listen to the French election,


marine Le Pen, and Jean Luc Melenchon on the far left and right,


they're saying quite a lot of the same thing. If no, they're not.


Public services must be public services and one of our policies is


to stop the automation of the underground and maintain the


principle we need to protect public services. That is not a far right


cried but a socialist principle. To protect public services and workers.


The whatever you stand for isn't working, you are 1% in the polls.


would say to you, the issue of percentages is not the issue. In


British politics, it is participation. This is the first


time I have had a chance to talk about politics. In all of the


debates and hustings, including those organised by the BBC, and no


BNP is represented. We have run out of time.


Now, it's not just election time in London and France this spring. Oh


no, they'll be casting ballots in Scotland, across England and in


Wales too where there's good news and bad news for all four main


political parties. Labour's on the comeback trail, the Tories are on a


bit of a high, the Lib Dems have yet to face a major backlash as a


result of the Coalition in Westminster and Plaid Cymru made


gains at the local elections four years ago. So how might things pan


Thompson to Barry Island, home of Gavin and Stacey, to see who'll be


making the political weather in Barry, in the Vale of Glamorgan,


home to Britain's hardiest holiday makers and to a certain TV sitcom.


If you're not from Wales, Barry probably means Gavin and Stacey,


but politically this place as more about it than that, because what


happens in next month's local elections could give us a big clue


to the fate of the four main political parties in Wales and


beyond. So, what's occurring? At the moment there is a slim Tory


majority on the council and the one Westminster seat here as well.


Labour would like to take them both, and in general, Wales has been


something of a success story for the David Cameron team. How have


they done it and can they keep the area around Barry Blue? We have


broadened the base and branded ourselves as a Welsh party, at the


same time the other parties have moved to the left, so if you are a


centre right Botha in Wales, the only party is the Conservative


Party. But in Wales, lefties not necessarily a dirty word, and for


Plaid Cymru it is the key to building on the gains made in the


last set of local elections. We are to the left of Labour and that is a


message if it is bought in practical terms about the


difference it can make in the community can be positive, but we


do know that we face a challenge because when people are fearful, as


they are at the moment, the Labour Party says they have to vote Labour


to keep the Tories out and that is a message we have to counteract.


what about Labour? In the words of its former leader in Wales, the


party to go belting in the 2008 local elections. Since then there


has been a bit of a revival. But can Welsh Labour leader resurgence


of the party across the UK? There is a message in that we are less


associated with New Labour here. We have always been classic Labour,


not all Labour, but classic Labour as distinct from New Labour. I


think that has been a helpful message. If we can increase the


number of Labour-controlled authorities, in particular the big


ones like Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and Wrexham, that would be a major


advance and I think it would be a message for Labour, nationally.


Funnily enough, they are almost the main Welsh cities the Labour Dems -


- the Lib Dems are running. So can they avoid the mid-term blues this


time round? We are fighting the election in different circumstances


because of the power in Westminster, but it is clear that over the last


three years the Liberal Democrat councils have kept council tax


levels low and invested in schools and communities. There is no desire


for people to go back to Labour-led councils. The air is fun for


everyone in Barry, even on a day like this. And the main parties


hope they will be making the political weather on 3rd May. And


joining us from Cardiff to discuss all that, Vaughan Roderick, our


Welsh Affairs Editor. Good to see you in the Welsh Assembly. Mark our


card. As the results coming from Wales, what should we be looking


out for? Results in Wales are notoriously difficult to predict


because roughly a third of the councillors in Wales are


independent and because many of the parties, at least three of the four,


don't contest something like half of the wards. It is not a straight


battle between the four parties anywhere apart from the capital


city of Cardiff. This is the place you have to look at, the council's


mention their like -- by Rhodri Morgan, Cardiff, Newport, Swansea,


Wrexham, those are the ones fought by all the parties on party


political terms. Outside of those four, you have a mixture of


independence, at hoc groupings of small, local parties, which make it


difficult to draw conclusions. But we will want to look as well at


places that Labour should never have lost four years ago. The old


seat of Merthyr, and Neil Kinnock's old stamping ground. Labour lost


control of councils that covered those constituencies which they


should never have done. If Labour do not get those back, it will be a


very bad night for them. Now Labour are in opposition in Westminster


they will be looking to make some gains again in Wales. The Tories, I


assume, will try to hold what they have got because they are


historically in a decent position there compared to before. But Plaid


Cymru have a new leader. They have taken a bit of a hit in recent


years. Are they on the way back, do we think? It is the first big test


for Leanne Ward, the person who took over the leadership a few


months ago. Plaid Cymru think if they do not do well they can say it


is early days. But what may happen is that they will lose some seats


in urban Wales but they could offset that by gaining seats in the


rural areas from the independents. There does seem to be a gradual


decline in independence in Wales which will help the Tories as well.


When it comes to overall numbers we might see Labour going up but Plaid


Cymru and the Tory stain in the same place for which seats being


offset by gains elsewhere. For Roderick, thank you very much and


we look forward to the results and a couple of weeks' time. Vital


prescription drugs including those for breast cancer, heart disease,


diabetes are not being stocked in chemists around the country which


is leading to a dangerous short fall for patients who are having to


wait up will weep, which could be a bit scary. So who is to blame? The


manufacturers were not supply or the wholesalers selling drugs


abroad? In the studio we have Huw Irranca - Davies MP who has been


highlighting the problem and Samantha Ogden from The Association


of the British Pharmacuetical Industry. So, what is the problem?


The problem was illustrated by a constituent of mine who said to me


that she had been into the chemist looking for her breast cancer drug


treatment and was told she could not get it. The chemist had rung


the wholesalers and the local chemist and was now ringing the


manufacturers to get hold of this. She went for three days without it


and then they manage to get hold of one package. She is there every


fortnight asking for this. They know she's coming in. I was


disbelieving, but I went and looked at it and with the help of the


pharmacists organisations, what I have learnt is that this is a


problem across the UK and patients are at risk of damage to their


health. Who, in your view, is to blame? There is no one individual


calls for one individual to blame. The industry, across the supply


chain, has been doing a lot as a -- rectify this but evidence says it


is getting worse. It was acknowledged under Andy Burnham but


it has not been got to grips with. Some of the solutions are out there


and we are trying to persuade the government to take it seriously


because every debate we have in the Commons there is no acknowledgement


of the severity of the problem. can I come to this? In Britain we


are world leaders in pharmaceuticals. We are up there


with the Americans and the Germans. We own some of the biggest


pharmaceutical companies in the country and they are based here.


You see one on the way to Heathrow when you get a plane. How can it


happen in Britain? Pharmaceutical manufacturers supply medicines for


patients and they also make an effort to go beyond that and stock


anything between 50 and 30% more. The challenges that a small


percentage of pharmacists to have a business that not only prescribes


and dispenses prescriptions also trade medicines overseas for profit.


So it is their fault? I think they are part of the problem, yes.


you know they are doing that, should and should tell them to


stop? You are still getting the money. If the money is not going --


if the pills are not going to the people who need them, but you still


get the money it is a win-win situation for you. The challenge is


making sure the obligation to the patient. You're not doing that.


There is no way the pharmaceutical companies can differentiate whether


medicines are going, so in good faith they cannot say they are not


supplying to someone. If you have a massive order and you know it is


going abroad could you say you will not supply? Now, we don't know and


we can do that. In some areas we are in full agreement with you. One


of the issues is if you had the focus all away down you have to say


you have enough patience stock first. But the first responsibility


is that in most European countries they have a patient service


obligation. It might not be the solution completely, but it says


you have to maintain stocks or your own patients first. Are you to


going to work together to stop this? Because it is quite scary,


particularly if you are older, that you cannot get your drugs. You have


chemists at the moment saying that they are spending as much a six up


to eight hours a week instead of being on the counter helping people


with complaints. Well, come back and talk to us. Thank you for


coming in. So, MPs returned to Westminster this week after another


holiday. They will soon be going on another. But I wonder if David


Cameron wishes they hadn't bothered. Here is Giles with the Week in 60


One month on, and the budget continues to dominate political


debate. Ed and David were back in the thick of it with the Labour


leader taking on the PM over the charity, caravan and taxes on the


pasty. Even people in Downing Street are calling it a complete


shambles budget. Labour failed to block the granny tax but only by a


geriatric whisker. The backbench Tory did not improve David Cameron


smooth with a question about whether real life was just like the


Prime Minister? They are a few occasions when the gentlemen needs


a sense of humour. The elsewhere Theresa May was tackling the Abu


Qatada case ending up with us not knowing if she was coming or going


or what day it was. There was a little more love in evidence from


Chris Grayling who called on business and not so much too hard a


holiday but higher one. And after all that, it looks like Ed Miliband


is on the up after a poll in the Sun newspaper put Labour 13 points


A 13 point Labour lead this morning, the sort of thing oppositions


expect to have in the mid- term. This phrase of a complete shambles,


although the more accurate term we cannot use, and a thing we did last


night and got bleeped out, is it systemic? Will they get through


this? There is a sense in Downing Street of panic. There is a sense


that once this keeps going for a couple of weeks, everything gets


seen through the same lens. It will be difficult to spin the Theresa


May think positively, but if all the right-thinking newspapers were


onside, they might have given her the benefit of the doubt and blamed


the European Court, but to get scenes -- scene as they do not know


what they are doing and once you get to that place, how can you


convince people you are competent? So we could have a while to run.


The MPs are going on holiday again and we are waiting for the Queen's


Speech and there is nothing for us to write about. It builds up a head


of steam. Until the Queen's speech comes, there is nothing they can do


to get back the agenda. On Sunday night we get the results. The exit


polls we get about 8pm. 8pm sharp. So, seven coquille. It is like


religion. We are watching our TV screens at 8pm and the results come


in. The exit polls are pretty reliable in France. They had been


so far. Does Francoise Hollande come into this? They are made and


tuck in the first round, it always has been, but could Sarkozy get


some momentum by coming first in the first round? He could, but


there are 10 candidates and Jean- Luc Melenchon, he might take a big


chunk. But, obviously, the Melenchon voters will vote for


Francoise Hollande in the second round. You have to be careful. We


all hope for a surprise, but not that kind of surprise. Not like her


father who got into the final round that time. We will leave it there


and we will be watching on Sunday night. Good to see both. Good to


see today and thank you to our guests. The 1pm news is starting on


BBC One. And Joe and will be back with all the political news on


Monday. I will be back on BBC One on Sunday with the Sunday Politics


and I will be joined by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. It is at


Download Subtitles