:00:43. > :00:46.Morning, folks, this is the Daily Politics. Are we heading for a
:00:46. > :00:50.European foreign policy, a European army and a European border police?
:00:50. > :00:55.That is what the foreign ministers of the EU's biggest countries say
:00:55. > :01:00.they want. Not including Britain, of course, where the idea of a
:01:00. > :01:03.powerful new pan-European foreign ministry -- midges -- ministry and
:01:03. > :01:06.a shared defence policy could be a hard sell.
:01:06. > :01:10.Whispers of green economic ships. Britain's businesses tell us what
:01:10. > :01:19.could help them prosper. Is the Football Association done
:01:19. > :01:24.enough to stamp out racism? MPs think it could do more.
:01:24. > :01:29.# Outsourcing jobs, playing cover- up, two years of tax returns really
:01:29. > :01:37.ain't enough. # And we will be asking, is Mitt
:01:37. > :01:40.Romney's campaign heading in the wrong direction?
:01:40. > :01:46.You never thought you would see one direction on the Daily Politics,
:01:46. > :01:49.and you didn't. It is a cover-up. All that and more coming up in the
:01:49. > :01:54.next hour. No PMQs today. Parliament has shut up shop for
:01:54. > :01:57.three and a half weeks. They have been back for two weeks, so only
:01:57. > :02:03.right that they should go away again to their party conferences.
:02:03. > :02:07.But never fear, Digby Jones will soon be here to find us. He is a
:02:07. > :02:11.former trade minister under Gordon Brown. He will be with us for most
:02:11. > :02:15.of the programme when he has sorted out his transport issues.
:02:15. > :02:19.First today, let's turn our eyes to the tragic shooting of two female
:02:19. > :02:23.police officers in Greater Manchester yesterday. Fiona Bone,
:02:23. > :02:27.who was 32 and Nicola Hughes, who was 23, were killed when they
:02:27. > :02:30.responded to a false report of a burglary of a hat as the housing
:02:30. > :02:34.estate in Mottram. The suspect, Dale Cregan, is also being
:02:34. > :02:37.questioned on suspicion of murdering a man and his father in
:02:37. > :02:40.two attacks in Greater Manchester earlier this year. It has emerged
:02:40. > :02:46.that he was initially arrested three months ago as part of that
:02:46. > :02:49.inquiry, but was released on bail. Earlier I spoke to the chairman of
:02:49. > :02:52.the Home Affairs Select Committee, Keith Vaz. I put it to him that
:02:52. > :02:56.people would find it hard to understand why a man wanted in
:02:56. > :02:59.connection with two other murders was out on police bail. They are
:02:59. > :03:03.right to be concerned. This is an issue that has been raised in the
:03:03. > :03:08.past by myself and the Home Affairs Select Committee. We need to look
:03:08. > :03:12.at the whole issue of bail. Baileys of course granted in the end by a
:03:12. > :03:17.judge. We don't know the circumstances as to whether the
:03:17. > :03:23.police objected to bail. I imagine they did, but that is just a guess.
:03:24. > :03:31.I think this forms part of the inquiry that needs to happen,
:03:31. > :03:35.conducted by Greater Manchester Police. The inquiries that the
:03:35. > :03:38.Chief Constable spoke of yesterday, in order to find out what brought
:03:38. > :03:45.these two young police officers into this position where they lost
:03:45. > :03:52.their lives. It is essential that we know why. The figures are
:03:52. > :03:55.shocking. 142,000, 537 crimes were carried out by suspects already on
:03:55. > :04:01.bail for a separate events, according to official figures. That
:04:01. > :04:07.can't go on. These are shocking figures and it can't go on. We need
:04:07. > :04:11.not just an ability to understand why this happens, it is also a
:04:11. > :04:15.proper dialogue between the prosecution part of the criminal
:04:15. > :04:21.justice system and the judiciary. We are not trying to put pressure
:04:21. > :04:24.on judges to find out why they make these decisions. But it is
:04:24. > :04:28.important to go back to the judiciary and say to them in an
:04:28. > :04:33.open way, as a result of the decisions that have been taken, X
:04:33. > :04:37.number of people have subsequently committed offences. The point of
:04:37. > :04:44.putting someone on bail is to give them their freedom in exchange for
:04:44. > :04:49.them not committing offences. This therefore adds a new dimension to
:04:49. > :04:53.already tragic events. What about the case which will now be argued
:04:53. > :04:57.no doubt more forcefully for arming police officers? Britain has always
:04:57. > :05:01.been proud of the fact that we don't wittingly armed police
:05:01. > :05:06.officers. They don't walk down the streets with heavy weaponry. Should
:05:06. > :05:10.that change? I am certain that this will be a debate we have to have. I
:05:10. > :05:15.am against the idea of arming our police, and I think the police
:05:15. > :05:21.service itself is against having answer on a routine basis. But do
:05:21. > :05:25.you think it will happen? For no, I don't, because once you start
:05:25. > :05:31.arming your police force, it will mean those who are criminal
:05:31. > :05:35.elements will ensure that they also carry arms. And that will start an
:05:35. > :05:40.escalation process. In America, of course, police officers routinely
:05:40. > :05:46.carry weapons. But the situation in America is quite different. Here,
:05:46. > :05:50.even if they want to use Tasers, they have to be specially trained
:05:50. > :05:56.and a senior officer has to authorise it. This is something we
:05:56. > :06:00.need to ask the police. I am personally against it. But at the
:06:00. > :06:03.end of the day, circumstances of this kind will raise these issues.
:06:03. > :06:08.On the issue of capital the -- capital punishment, it has been
:06:08. > :06:11.debated long and hard, but now there are renewed calls for that to
:06:11. > :06:15.be looked at in the context of police officers being murdered, not
:06:15. > :06:21.just from the families of the victims, but also from Norman
:06:21. > :06:24.Tebbit, not surprisingly, and another Tory MP. I can perfectly
:06:24. > :06:29.understand what the families have said and I can understand why they
:06:29. > :06:34.want to take this course of action. However, I am against the death
:06:34. > :06:39.penalty and I don't think one can extend it to certain classes of
:06:39. > :06:43.people and professions. If you want to have a debate about the death
:06:43. > :06:47.penalty, the place to have that debate is in Parliament. I am not
:06:47. > :06:51.surprised Norman Tebbit has said this. He has always held this view.
:06:51. > :06:57.I hold a different view. This is something that members debate from
:06:57. > :07:02.time to time, but I don't think we should change our position.
:07:02. > :07:06.Digby Jones, welcome to the programme. What is your response?
:07:06. > :07:10.It is an absolute tragedy. Arming those two female police officers
:07:10. > :07:15.would not have stopped them being killed. They would not have gone
:07:15. > :07:19.into this situation with guns drawn. That is not what this is about. In
:07:19. > :07:23.my view, this guy should not have been out on bail. In America and
:07:23. > :07:30.France, he would never have seen the light of day when they
:07:30. > :07:33.suspected what he had done. There is a problem with a lot of the
:07:33. > :07:38.liberal elite, which is that they concentrate more on the freedom of
:07:38. > :07:42.the individual, which in other circumstances is acceptable, rather
:07:42. > :07:47.than the Risk Society has won a certain sort of person goes back
:07:47. > :07:52.out on the street. If there is going to be interference or
:07:53. > :07:57.pressure put on judges to make decisions... Well, we are back into
:07:57. > :08:06.the whole issue of 42 days and all that, which was probably too long.
:08:06. > :08:10.But the whole concept of how to protect society from people who,
:08:10. > :08:15.without charge, can walk the streets. This is not about arming
:08:15. > :08:20.the police. 80% of the police, when polled, say they don't want guns.
:08:20. > :08:24.But they want to be protected. we want them protected. I can
:08:24. > :08:28.remember as a kid when Harry Roberts shot those three police
:08:28. > :08:32.officers in 1966, and this is the worst one since then. I remember
:08:32. > :08:37.seeing those bodies on the street of those three detectives, and I
:08:37. > :08:43.was about 10. It had quite an effect on me. And yesterday brought
:08:43. > :08:47.it all back. We have to look very seriously at the rules about bail,
:08:47. > :08:51.release and charge, as opposed to arming the police. It would not
:08:51. > :08:54.have helped those poor ladies yesterday.
:08:54. > :08:59.Now, some of the more keen-eyed viewers among you may recall a
:08:59. > :09:04.speech we reported last week by this man, a Jose Manuel Barroso. He
:09:04. > :09:08.is the president of the European Commission. Here, he was giving us
:09:08. > :09:14.his so-called State of the Union address in Strasbourg, in which he
:09:14. > :09:17.called for a federal Europe with a directly elected President. Now a
:09:17. > :09:22.group of the EU's most powerful foreign ministers have weighed in,
:09:22. > :09:28.calling for radical new steps to strengthen the EU foreign, defence
:09:28. > :09:32.and security policy. Funnily enough, this group does not include Britain,
:09:32. > :09:38.surprise, surprise. So what is this group saying, and how seriously
:09:38. > :09:42.should we take the proposals? What do you know, JoCo?
:09:42. > :09:46.The future of Europe group, as it is known, consists of 11 EU
:09:46. > :09:50.countries, not including Britain. The group, which also includes five
:09:50. > :09:54.of the six biggest EU countries, has spent months brainstorming
:09:54. > :09:57.ideas for the future of the EU. Yesterday it published a report at
:09:57. > :10:01.a meeting in Warsaw, headed by the German foreign minister Guido
:10:01. > :10:06.Westerwelle. The report says the EU must take decisive steps to
:10:06. > :10:09.strengthen its act on the world stage. It suggests creating a
:10:09. > :10:12.powerful new pan-European foreign ministry. It also suggests creating
:10:12. > :10:18.a new police force to patrol the borders of the Schengen passport
:10:18. > :10:21.free zone. And it suggests greater defence co-operation, including the
:10:21. > :10:25.possibility one day of a European army. The report is a long way from
:10:25. > :10:28.becoming a reality, but will obviously raised more questions for
:10:29. > :10:34.David Cameron and issue of Britain's ongoing relationship with
:10:34. > :10:38.Europe. We are joined now from Brussels by
:10:38. > :10:43.the German member of the European Parliament Elmar Brok, who chairs
:10:43. > :10:50.the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee. Good to see you
:10:50. > :10:54.again. There has been talk of a European foreign policy, a European
:10:54. > :11:04.army and European security for some time. Should we take this report
:11:04. > :11:07.seriously? Go I think so. We have already made a lot of progress in
:11:07. > :11:11.this sector on implementing the Treaty of Lisbon, but we have to
:11:11. > :11:16.come forward with a response which includes the possibility of a
:11:16. > :11:21.coalition of the willing. But Europe's roar around the world
:11:21. > :11:30.cannot be handled by nation states, only by pulling and sharing out of
:11:30. > :11:35.-- abilities have we a chance to be taken seriously. If you look at the
:11:35. > :11:41.differing European attitudes, say, to the second Iraq war or even the
:11:41. > :11:44.invasion of Afghanistan and other foreign policy issues, Libya, for
:11:44. > :11:50.example, why would it be possible to ever have a common European
:11:50. > :11:56.foreign policy, given the disagreements on this? Your country
:11:56. > :12:01.would not get involved in Libya. not everyone has to take part in
:12:01. > :12:05.everything, but they should not stop others if they want to do
:12:05. > :12:09.something. Germany supported the Libyan case, but because of certain
:12:09. > :12:16.problems, including the reform of the German army, Germany did not
:12:16. > :12:26.take part in that militarily. But we supported everything else. We
:12:26. > :12:27.
:12:27. > :12:37.still have a lot of shortcomings. That is why we have to build things
:12:37. > :12:38.
:12:38. > :12:43.up further. Then Europe can play its role. The citizens, including
:12:43. > :12:49.British citizens, believe we need - - we need more foreign and security
:12:49. > :12:53.policy. Again, looking at opinion in your own country, in Germany,
:12:53. > :12:57.there was a poll this week showing that 65% of Germans wanted no
:12:57. > :13:02.further European integration. How does that square with what you have
:13:02. > :13:06.just said? We have totally different opinion polls. The
:13:06. > :13:11.majority of Germans are 70% in favour of Europe, but some are not
:13:11. > :13:15.happy with how we conduct Europe at the moment. But I did not say
:13:15. > :13:20.Europe. I did not say they were not in favour of Europe, of course they
:13:20. > :13:24.are. They are also in favour of keeping the euro. But the poll said
:13:24. > :13:30.65% of them did not want more European integration. And another
:13:30. > :13:33.poll said that 65% of French people, if they had a vote, would not vote
:13:33. > :13:38.for the treaty of Maastricht, which was, of course, the previous
:13:38. > :13:45.integration. So where is the democratic mandate for these
:13:45. > :13:49.foreign ministers calling for these changes? These foreign ministers
:13:49. > :13:55.have developed these ideas in order to bring the debate forward. They
:13:55. > :14:00.cannot decide anything, but I think it is a very good thing if such
:14:00. > :14:04.foreign ministers try to develop European debate. Others may come to
:14:04. > :14:14.different opinions. I would like to have an open debate between
:14:14. > :14:16.
:14:16. > :14:22.different opinions in Europe. If the German and Polish foreign
:14:22. > :14:27.ministers agree on such positions, that is a remarkable step forward.
:14:27. > :14:30.Stay with us, we have Digby Jones with us in the studio in London. He
:14:30. > :14:34.was once a government trade minister and is also head of the
:14:34. > :14:39.CBI, the British business organisation, a few years back.
:14:39. > :14:43.Where are you on this? The problem is that you get polemic views, and
:14:43. > :14:47.then you get the Euro-sceptic and the Europhile debate, instead of
:14:47. > :14:50.looking at the actual strengths of Europe. If you stop the average guy
:14:50. > :14:54.in the street in most countries, especially northern Europe, they
:14:54. > :14:58.will say this was about free trade between 500 million people getting
:14:58. > :15:03.richer, and probably about the environment as well. By the Germans
:15:03. > :15:07.and French have gone well beyond that. That is not where we are now.
:15:07. > :15:11.The problem is, if you look at Britain in this, we have a
:15:11. > :15:15.different world aspect of virtually every other country in Europe. We
:15:15. > :15:19.have a Commonwealth, we have a different relationship with America.
:15:19. > :15:23.And at the same time, we are a powerful economy and a powerful
:15:23. > :15:29.nation. We are militarily different to everybody else, with the
:15:29. > :15:39.possible exception of France. And because of all that, 54 I would not
:15:39. > :15:39.
:15:39. > :15:43.Is it your view that if Europe and there is a constituency for this,
:15:43. > :15:49.Elmar Brok is quite right, but if Europe wants to go down this route
:15:49. > :15:54.or a big chunk, which would be significant, no mainstream British
:15:54. > :16:01.politician could sell this to the British people? Absolutely spot on.
:16:01. > :16:05.What you'll end up with is you'll end up with the - a country called
:16:05. > :16:12.Europe and then there will be a trade relationship with others who
:16:12. > :16:18.are geophotographically in Europe. We'll be one of those who have a --
:16:18. > :16:21.geographically in Europe. We'll be one of those who have such a
:16:21. > :16:27.reslaitionship. It won't include -- relationship. The Swedes would
:16:27. > :16:33.never be part? No doubt about that. Elmar Brok, coming back to you,
:16:33. > :16:37.isn't it a bit daunting, like Groundlog Day that the British,
:16:37. > :16:44.whether it's Labour or Conservative government, are going to be yet
:16:44. > :16:47.again a drag on all the things you want to do? Firstly, we have to
:16:47. > :16:53.debate this. We would not leave the debates on Europe to the euro
:16:53. > :16:59.sceptics. We do it in a positive way. Everyone has to make its their
:16:59. > :17:04.minds. Even the conclusions - this was always about politics, not just
:17:04. > :17:08.trade from the very beginning. one told the British people that.
:17:08. > :17:13.That is your problem. It's not my problem. I agree with that. It was
:17:13. > :17:18.discussed that way. Secondly, Britain is not the most powerful
:17:18. > :17:21.country. Economically it's not a force in the EU. We have to see
:17:21. > :17:25.that on the world stage. Britain doesn't matter very much, that's
:17:25. > :17:27.what you are saying? Neither Britain nor Germany matter very
:17:27. > :17:32.much in the future. None of our countries will matter very much in
:17:32. > :17:37.the future. This special relationship with the United States,
:17:37. > :17:44.I think there are also other countries. If you had a referendum
:17:44. > :17:48.- You can become the 51st state of the United States. If you had a
:17:48. > :17:53.referendum in Germany now or in the next couple of years, saying you
:17:53. > :17:58.will abolish the German army and it will become wholly part of a
:17:58. > :18:02.European army, how would Germany vote? First of all, it's to develop
:18:02. > :18:06.a different direction, but we have all low budgets. Not every country
:18:06. > :18:12.should do everything. Europe has 40% of the military like the United
:18:12. > :18:17.States, but only with 10% - understand that. I asked you how
:18:17. > :18:22.would Germany vote? Germany will vote in this case with yes. What's
:18:22. > :18:29.the evidence for that, because I've seen no poll that would suggest
:18:29. > :18:39.that at all? It was never asked for that. If we talked to citizens it's
:18:39. > :18:39.
:18:39. > :18:45.very much not so. There isure poon and defence policies. -- European
:18:45. > :18:49.and defence policies. If you had a French general in charge of German
:18:49. > :18:58.soldiers, do you think the people of Europe would vote for that?
:18:58. > :19:08.have it already, a big part of the German army and 80% of the Dutch
:19:08. > :19:08.
:19:08. > :19:13.army are together. They are having one who is Dutch and then another
:19:13. > :19:20.germ nan and it works. There's a French and German brigade. We have
:19:20. > :19:23.similar things with Denmark and Poland and Germany, on top of that.
:19:23. > :19:31.Elmar Brok, it's always great to talk to you. Thank you for joining
:19:31. > :19:36.us. It's time for our quiz and today we are going to be marking
:19:36. > :19:45.education secretary Michael Gove on his French. He wants all of us to
:19:45. > :19:55.parlez Francais, so Digby watch this. Which one is direct? Vive le
:19:55. > :20:00.
:20:00. > :20:05.delifrpbs. -- difference. Let' find out whether he scored nil points.
:20:05. > :20:11.can answer now. Don't give me it. You'll muck it up. Don't give the
:20:11. > :20:17.answer now. Come closer. Closer. Whispering. Some people are
:20:17. > :20:19.beginning to talk about green shoots of economic recovery. Green
:20:19. > :20:24.shoots! Not Government ministers of course, they're not that stupid,
:20:24. > :20:28.well most of them. Even those using the words say it's all very early
:20:28. > :20:33.and it's fragile, but let's just assume for a couple of minutes that
:20:33. > :20:39.it's true, that there are some green shoots around. What sort of
:20:39. > :20:48.fertiliser is required to make them grow? You like this?! Here's what a
:20:48. > :20:53.few experts thought. # I want to break free... # For the
:20:53. > :20:56.economy to grow, businesses need to be set free, which means less
:20:56. > :20:59.regulation, simple taxes and lower tax rates and the second to be more
:20:59. > :21:02.connect today the world. That means the Government should unblock the
:21:02. > :21:12.planning delays that are stopping us getting new airport capacity,
:21:12. > :21:13.
:21:13. > :21:16.rail and road projects. # God knows I want to break free...
:21:16. > :21:21.# Access to finance is a problem for small businesses who can't get
:21:21. > :21:24.the finance they need for business, so we very much welcome the
:21:24. > :21:28.Government's announcement around the formation of a small business
:21:28. > :21:32.bank. # It's strange, but it's true... #
:21:32. > :21:38.British businesses are crying out, especially the smaller ones, to be
:21:38. > :21:41.set free from the legislation that makes their life a nightmare.
:21:41. > :21:45.need to look to the future to get the right technology for the
:21:45. > :21:52.internet age to actually deal with people in this country and abroad
:21:53. > :21:58.to strike new deals. Another initiative that we think they ought
:21:58. > :22:02.to look at, as we come up to the autumn statement, is the extension
:22:02. > :22:08.of the national insurance contributions holiday to all small
:22:08. > :22:11.businesses. Another thing the Government needs to do, it needs to
:22:11. > :22:15.use its force to convince, especially smaller companies, to
:22:15. > :22:18.export more. The way out of our present economic woes is through
:22:18. > :22:26.exporting, especially to the big countries. The Government needs to
:22:26. > :22:36.make sure it gets that message across with the most force possible.
:22:36. > :22:38.
:22:38. > :22:46.I'm joined by the Conservative MP Mr Quateng. Have you spotted any
:22:46. > :22:50.green shoots? It's too early to say. There's optimism. You haven't
:22:50. > :22:53.spotted them? It's dangerous to say we're out of the recession. That's
:22:53. > :22:59.an aunt Sally. I didn't ask you if we were out of the recession.
:22:59. > :23:02.Nobody is saying that. I simply asked you if you had spotted -
:23:02. > :23:06.There are certainly green shoots, and whether they rise and grow we
:23:06. > :23:10.have to wait and see. Have you spotted them? If you are making
:23:10. > :23:13.things, which Asia wants to buy, you are having not a good time, but
:23:13. > :23:19.a very sustainable time. Good employment and good levels of
:23:19. > :23:23.profit. If you are doing something which is only dependent on the
:23:23. > :23:27.British or Western European market there are no shoots whatsoever.
:23:27. > :23:31.need some green shoots, don't you now, politically, because there's
:23:31. > :23:37.been a long time acoming? Absolutely. I think we are gripping
:23:37. > :23:42.the nettle, if you like. You should never grip a nettle. Well the
:23:42. > :23:46.problem. I think there's the bold policies on welfare in terms of
:23:46. > :23:49.trying to freeze benefits and cut spending and I think on the supply
:23:49. > :23:55.side, business side and growth side, we'll have very bold policies
:23:55. > :23:58.hopefully in the next year or so. Isn't the real problem as to why
:23:58. > :24:07.the economy's been in these quarters of no growth, indeed,
:24:07. > :24:10.decline, is not the supply side at all, but a lack of demand?
:24:10. > :24:14.Households' real incomes are cut and export markets have not been
:24:14. > :24:17.growing that fast until recently, public spending's been cut as well,
:24:17. > :24:21.business hasn't been investing. There's a lack of demand in the
:24:21. > :24:24.economy? You're right to focus on the lack of demand, but there's a
:24:24. > :24:28.thing called business confidence and the whole point about the
:24:28. > :24:32.supply side and low taxes is that it will actually increase business
:24:32. > :24:36.confidence. I was looking at Nigel Lawson's book and his account of
:24:36. > :24:41.when he cut the top rate of tax from 60 to 40%. That was an
:24:41. > :24:44.unfunded tax cut. He didn't know the consequences, but it was a
:24:44. > :24:49.strong signal of intent. I think we have missed a trick slightly.
:24:49. > :24:55.are saying it's a lack of big confidence and the balance sheets
:24:55. > :25:00.of Britain are full and they are not investing, but when you see a
:25:00. > :25:04.Secretary of State for business, who buys his cars from Tokyo and
:25:04. > :25:09.his trains from elsewhere, why should people think the Government
:25:09. > :25:13.is behind the country? I think it's very good for Government to give a
:25:13. > :25:17.clear signal of intent over how and what we value in terms of people
:25:17. > :25:22.going out and making a living. you get demand up, you need more
:25:22. > :25:27.people in work. You could put one million people in work if every
:25:27. > :25:32.small business in Britain employed one more person? That's right.
:25:32. > :25:37.tax jobs? Why do you tax jobs and not profit. You could do that in a
:25:37. > :25:44.stroke? Sure. Why don't you? not here to defend Government
:25:44. > :25:51.policy. As head of the group I'm suggesting that - I'm on your side.
:25:51. > :25:55.I understand that. Why are David Cameron and George Osborne so
:25:55. > :25:59.reluctant to go down the route you are advocating? I think there are
:25:59. > :26:02.issues with the coalition. Digby's mentioned the fact that Vince Cable
:26:02. > :26:07.is the Business Secretary. This was a gentleman who until he was my age
:26:07. > :26:12.was a Labour activist, I think he was a Labour councillor and his
:26:12. > :26:17.instincts are not as free epbt surprise focused as some of ours --
:26:17. > :26:23.free enterprise focused as some of ours. There may be issues in the
:26:23. > :26:28.Treasury in terms of unfunded tax cuts. You will probably know, that
:26:28. > :26:34.in the run-up to the last Budget there was a major move in Downing
:26:34. > :26:37.Street to have a dramatic cut in corporation tax. I favoured that.
:26:37. > :26:40.It never reached the Lib Dems, but it was stopped by the Prime
:26:40. > :26:45.Minister and the Chancellor. not privy to discussions.
:26:45. > :26:48.telling you it was, so why the reluctance? There are issues with
:26:48. > :26:52.the coalition. The Liberal Democrats didn't stop this? You can
:26:52. > :26:55.understand that if they are within a coalition they will know what
:26:55. > :26:59.appetite there is for the coalition partners to adopt or promote
:26:59. > :27:02.policies that we have put forward. They probably felt this was
:27:02. > :27:07.something perhaps that the Liberal Democrats would not have supported.
:27:07. > :27:13.If I can put some words in your mouth, which I appreciate given who
:27:13. > :27:19.your boss is, you might not say - He's an MP. I meant your leader,
:27:19. > :27:24.I'm not too sure that David Cameron has business through his veins. I'm
:27:24. > :27:29.not - he's accused of being too business friendly, but business
:27:29. > :27:31.doesn't see him like that. I don't mean against, but he's not perhaps
:27:31. > :27:35.absolutely on the wealth creation message as business would like him
:27:35. > :27:40.to be. He's not just there all the time either. Could I put words in
:27:40. > :27:44.your mouth? I wouldn't disagree with that entirely. You would say
:27:44. > :27:48.he's probusiness? I think so and the Government. If you look at
:27:48. > :27:54.Michael Fallon and Matthew Hancock, pro-business people. To keep an eye
:27:54. > :27:57.on Vince Cable? Yes. There's only one department in Government that
:27:57. > :28:00.has capitalism at its core and that's the department of business
:28:00. > :28:05.and the Secretary of State of that department is in the gift of the
:28:05. > :28:10.Prime Minister. That's right. put someone who is a Labour Party
:28:10. > :28:16.activist in charge of it? Let me remind you, we're in a coalition.
:28:16. > :28:20.lot of people on the backbenches and you know this as well as I, so
:28:20. > :28:24.let's be honest here, they don't - people like you say to me privately
:28:24. > :28:30.they don't think, when it comes to all the lists of things that you
:28:30. > :28:33.want, they don't think David Cameron's heart's in it. I think
:28:33. > :28:37.he's a Conservative and a strong probusiness leader who is
:28:37. > :28:43.constrained by a coalition. It's that simple. We are going to move
:28:43. > :28:47.on, but I'm told privately by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office as
:28:47. > :28:50.well and even by Downing Street that they expect - they will never
:28:50. > :28:56.say this publicly, but expect third-quarter growth, the quarter
:28:56. > :28:59.that is just coming to an end, to be at least 0.5%. There won't be
:28:59. > :29:02.another decline and some people think 0.7. They won't say this
:29:02. > :29:05.publicly. That's what they're hoping for and what the early
:29:06. > :29:09.indications they believe say. That will be the real test, won't it?
:29:09. > :29:12.The growth will be a real test of green shoots? Of course. If you are
:29:12. > :29:16.suggesting that we can see the green shoots and we get a positive
:29:16. > :29:20.number, then that would confirm that. Don't go away. We are going
:29:20. > :29:24.to keep you hostage for a few minutes. There will be a lot of
:29:24. > :29:27.sighs of relief in Number Ten. If there isn't there will be some real
:29:27. > :29:31.trouble. Which is why they won't say it. How do you give an
:29:31. > :29:35.advantage to local business in tough economic times? Yes, we'll
:29:35. > :29:38.ask you two how to encourage people spending cash locally and give a
:29:38. > :29:43.strong sense of identity to your town or city. The people of Bristol
:29:43. > :29:50.have come up with a cunning plan. It seems that money talks. So does
:29:50. > :29:54.our west of England reporter David Harvey. What's this all about?
:29:54. > :30:02.extraordinary. Right here we have the first Bristol pound. I'll just
:30:02. > :30:06.show that to you. Steal it. That is a Bristol pound, printed specially
:30:06. > :30:11.for this city. The Mayor has bought this loaf of bread. You better have
:30:11. > :30:17.it back and give the local baker his pound, because that is the
:30:17. > :30:20.first transaction made here. This is the centre of trading and
:30:20. > :30:23.finance and banking and now very much a local market. They are
:30:23. > :30:33.trying to bring the two together, finance and local trading by
:30:33. > :30:36.
:30:36. > :30:41.printing their own currency. Do They do fivers, tenors and twenties.
:30:41. > :30:44.Lots of interest. Quite a celebratory feel. The exchange rate
:30:44. > :30:48.is 1-1 with sterling. Technically, I had better keep quiet, because
:30:48. > :30:53.people don't like this - it is actually a voucher, because you
:30:53. > :31:00.hand over your sterling, and you are given over Bristol pounds in
:31:00. > :31:03.return. You can use them in many places in the city. They include
:31:03. > :31:10.the old marketplace here. You can see the sort of independent local
:31:10. > :31:16.traders you often find in places like this. So here we have lots of
:31:16. > :31:22.local Bristol T-shirts. Are you Bristol born-and-bred? Yes, indeed.
:31:22. > :31:26.Why are you taking this currency? think the Bristol bound is
:31:26. > :31:30.celebrating everything that is great about Bristol, and we support
:31:30. > :31:35.everything that is local. So it is a lovely local feel-good factor.
:31:35. > :31:39.This morning, lots have joined in that spirit. Do you think your
:31:39. > :31:45.actual customers, after the launch has died away, will come back and
:31:45. > :31:49.use this can see? At our customers already shop local. So when they
:31:50. > :31:53.see their friends using it, they will join in. If it is certainly
:31:53. > :31:57.something that the politicians want to have a slice of. There is a
:31:57. > :32:01.mayoral election under way here in Bristol, and all the would-be
:32:01. > :32:05.mayors have been here this morning. I have seen several MPs. Let's keep
:32:05. > :32:08.the politicians out of it for a moment and have a word with Chris
:32:08. > :32:12.Sunderland, one of the directors of the Bristol pound. You want to
:32:12. > :32:16.change the way we think about money? Yes, I suppose we are trying
:32:16. > :32:21.to say you can use your money to back your city and your local
:32:21. > :32:26.independent traders, who need a leg-up in these times. Also, with a
:32:26. > :32:31.local currency liked this, which, say it changes hands eight times,
:32:31. > :32:35.each Bristol pound, then it is like there are �8 for every �1. It is
:32:35. > :32:41.called the local multiplier effect. The have done some serious research
:32:41. > :32:46.on this, and they discovered that if you spend with a multi-national
:32:46. > :32:50.retailer, it disappears? Absolutely. Money spent with a chain store goes
:32:50. > :32:55.straight to London. We have all got suspicious about that process. Our
:32:55. > :33:01.local currency is for the city region. And it will ricochet around
:33:01. > :33:04.the city region and add to its wealth. Lovely idea, lovely
:33:04. > :33:08.aspiration, interesting theory. Will people really signed up? They
:33:08. > :33:12.have to hand over sterling for this stuff, it is not just toy money.
:33:12. > :33:16.They have already sold out on that store, and they are telling me I
:33:16. > :33:20.have to rush up and get some more. So there is enormous interest in
:33:20. > :33:27.this, and we know there are 300 businesses either signed up or
:33:27. > :33:31.signing up right now. In a year's time, we expect there will be at
:33:31. > :33:36.least 1004 stores who are part of this and 2000 in two years. They
:33:36. > :33:41.say it is the biggest scheme in the world already. There are big
:33:41. > :33:49.schemes in Germany and America as well. To give you an idea of how
:33:49. > :33:52.the world is watching this city, somebody from Russian television
:33:52. > :33:57.told me the people of St Petersburg would like to have their own
:33:57. > :34:02.currency, but he doesn't think they will get one any time soon.
:34:02. > :34:06.Well, it looks great. It is a good idea, but will it actually work? My
:34:06. > :34:14.immediate thought was, would I go down and take my pounds and
:34:14. > :34:24.exchange them for those vouchers? Give me your �20... That can go
:34:24. > :34:27.
:34:27. > :34:31.from Sydney to Sweden. Give him a Daily Politics voucher. This is a
:34:31. > :34:34.really interesting initiative. Why wouldn't it work? We it make people
:34:34. > :34:38.spend more? We were talking about lack of demand and trying to
:34:38. > :34:42.encourage people to spend more in Bristol. It might have a short-term
:34:42. > :34:49.effect. Clearly in the long term, it will not solve the economic
:34:49. > :34:52.problems. It is good for two things, one being City morale. It is good
:34:52. > :34:56.to get a connection between what you spend in your city and your
:34:56. > :34:59.small trader employing someone because of it and feeling you have
:34:59. > :35:07.contributed something. It is a gimmick, but what is wrong with
:35:07. > :35:11.that? If you do it well and you are a trader, suddenly you have 1000 of
:35:11. > :35:15.these and you go to somebody and say, I would like some more of
:35:15. > :35:20.these. But the problem is that this will give you what you want all of
:35:20. > :35:25.the world. If somebody says I will give you 99p for yours, you have a
:35:25. > :35:29.problem. But if businesses locally do better as a result even in the
:35:29. > :35:32.short-term, they will then put at that extra money back into the
:35:32. > :35:39.economy, whether with their Bristol pounds ore than normal British
:35:39. > :35:42.pounds. Does it matter? In terms of business confidence, we mentioned
:35:42. > :35:48.the idea of getting people out there and spending money. An
:35:48. > :35:51.initiative like this can work. always frustrated at the fact that
:35:51. > :35:58.politicians and journalists think business at is somewhere over there
:35:58. > :36:02.and everything else happens around here. Business is part of society.
:36:02. > :36:06.Therefore, by the use of a transferable currency, if you can
:36:06. > :36:11.get a job related to buying things, then suddenly business takes its
:36:11. > :36:17.place in the core of our society instead of being seen as out there.
:36:17. > :36:21.Do you think it would take off in other cities? It might. But then
:36:22. > :36:26.would you have a Birmingham pound O brave Bristol Crown? We will have
:36:26. > :36:32.that talk another day. Now, is another general strike on
:36:32. > :36:39.the cards? We have not really had one since 1926. I was driving the
:36:40. > :36:43.buses. Or not. It is highly unlikely, although not impossible
:36:43. > :36:47.after the TUC voted to explore the practical it is a staging one at
:36:47. > :36:52.their conference last week. Some Conservatives believe this is why
:36:52. > :36:55.new laws need to make it harder for unions to call their members are
:36:55. > :36:58.out. Boris Johnson, forever differentiating himself from Mr
:36:58. > :37:05.Cameron, has been demanding that kind of action. But have we
:37:05. > :37:08.actually become more militant in this country, or is the trade union
:37:08. > :37:17.much less representative of the country as a whole. Do we really
:37:17. > :37:22.need tough new legislation? The General Strike of 1926, an
:37:22. > :37:27.iconic moment in trade union folklore. 86 years on, the TUC
:37:27. > :37:31.votes to explore the practicalities of reviving these scenes live, and
:37:31. > :37:35.in colour. This will be the finishing point of a major demo
:37:35. > :37:39.next month, which the organisers hope will see thousands of people
:37:40. > :37:44.marching in protest against the coalition's spending cuts. But some
:37:44. > :37:47.union leaders want it to be at the start of a bigger campaign up to
:37:47. > :37:51.and including a modern-day version of the General Strike, which is why
:37:51. > :37:56.some Conservatives think it is time to nip what they see as a
:37:56. > :38:00.groundswell of militancy in the bud. We need a threshold so that unless
:38:00. > :38:05.you have 50% support from your own rank-and-file membership, you can't
:38:05. > :38:08.inflict chaos on the rest of the public with strike action. We could
:38:08. > :38:11.keep appeasing this militant minority, which don't represent
:38:11. > :38:19.their run wider membership, or we could protect the hard-working
:38:20. > :38:24.majority. Union membership peaked in the 1980s, at more than 30
:38:24. > :38:28.million. It is half that now. But almost 1.4 million working days
:38:28. > :38:32.were lost to strike action last year, a 20 year high. However, most
:38:32. > :38:36.of those were down to last November's day of action, and we
:38:36. > :38:39.still lose about five times fewer days than the French. It is a lot
:38:39. > :38:43.lower than the 1980s, when an average of 7.2 million days were
:38:43. > :38:46.lost every year. Some experts believe tough and distract laws
:38:46. > :38:50.would actually be counter- productive. If you make it harder
:38:50. > :38:54.for people to strike lawfully and put up more obstacles in the path
:38:54. > :38:58.of legitimate strikes, there is always the danger of more wildcat
:38:58. > :39:03.spontaneous action out of the control of union leaders. A general
:39:03. > :39:07.strike would be upping the ante a lot, if the unions decide to do it.
:39:07. > :39:14.I think we will see a lot of co- ordination between unions, in the
:39:15. > :39:19.same way we saw last November with the big protest over pensions, when
:39:19. > :39:21.almost 30 unions took part. No one would call that a general strike,
:39:21. > :39:24.but there were several million workers out on strike, and I
:39:24. > :39:28.suspect we will see something similar in the future. The problem
:39:28. > :39:32.with having a general strike and calling it a general strike is that
:39:32. > :39:37.under current employment law, that is unlawful. But if something looks
:39:37. > :39:41.and works like a political strike, isn't it a political strike? These
:39:41. > :39:45.strikes are less about call workplace issues or issues
:39:45. > :39:48.affecting rank-and-file members and more a concerted attack on the
:39:48. > :39:52.coalition and the government's attempt to try and rain in debt and
:39:52. > :39:56.rising public spending and a period of huge financial constraints. That
:39:56. > :40:01.is why we need a voting threshold to safeguard the hard-working
:40:01. > :40:05.majority. The general strike was a key moment in the history of
:40:05. > :40:12.Britain had the 20th century. If push comes to shove now, it could
:40:12. > :40:16.become one in the 21st. We are joined now by Sarah Veale, head of
:40:16. > :40:21.employment rights at the TUC. I find it hard to take this talk of
:40:21. > :40:25.a general strike seriously. Am I right or wrong? You should take it
:40:25. > :40:29.seriously, because the congress expressed its anger about the
:40:29. > :40:32.difficulties now faced by working people in the UK. But we were not
:40:32. > :40:36.asked to call a general strike, we were asked to look into the
:40:37. > :40:40.possibility. How likely is it? There is likely to be industrial
:40:40. > :40:45.action. A general strike would be almost impossible, partly because
:40:45. > :40:48.the laws in this country are very restrictive in terms of what trade-
:40:49. > :40:52.union leaders can do. It would be illegal unless they could find a
:40:52. > :40:57.legitimate dispute in every industry. From our point of view,
:40:57. > :41:05.some people do not make the choice to be in a trade union. Most people
:41:05. > :41:11.do not. Not in the public sector. And in the private sector, you are
:41:11. > :41:15.down to 15%. So I am right not to take a general strike seriously?
:41:15. > :41:20.You should take seriously the industrial militancy. That is an
:41:20. > :41:26.expression of real anger. Let's come on to that. There was a lot of
:41:26. > :41:30.talk of industrial militancy at the TUC conference. And the leaders of
:41:30. > :41:34.the big public sector unions are now largely militant and are on the
:41:34. > :41:41.left of the union movement and on the far left of the Labour Party.
:41:41. > :41:46.would not go that far. McCluskey? They are not far left.
:41:47. > :41:51.They are on the far left of the Labour Party. They are on the left
:41:51. > :41:55.of the mainstream Labour Party, but this is a diversionary arguments.
:41:55. > :41:58.Where is the evidence that the top third and -- tub-thumping we had at
:41:58. > :42:03.the TUC is reflected in the public mood? A few look at the numbers
:42:03. > :42:07.that turned out 18 months ago in our big demonstration in March 2010
:42:07. > :42:13.and the numbers that turned out last November when we called a day
:42:13. > :42:16.of action, they are massive. one day. To leave work for a day
:42:16. > :42:21.and sacrifice a day's wages is a big gesture of anger. People are
:42:21. > :42:25.not well paid these days. If you are willing to stop work to express
:42:25. > :42:29.your anger, the Government should take that seriously. A but if you
:42:29. > :42:34.call people out on strike in the public sector, because they hardly
:42:34. > :42:39.ever do in the private sector, and when they do, they usually use,
:42:39. > :42:43.which happened with British Airways, most people do not even vote in the
:42:43. > :42:49.public sector. A lot of people do vote. The turnouts for some of
:42:49. > :42:53.those ballots have been very high. In the teaching and other
:42:53. > :42:59.professions, it varies enormously. People are still angry enough to
:42:59. > :43:03.come out on Saturday and have a demonstration. They have plenty of
:43:03. > :43:09.grievances, that is not my argument. They are obviously concerned about
:43:09. > :43:13.public sector cuts. I understand that, and many jobs are in jeopardy.
:43:13. > :43:18.I just don't see the connection between the kind of rhetoric we
:43:18. > :43:26.heard at the TUC from the hardline union leaders, and the ordinary
:43:26. > :43:30.union members. Unions are very democratic organisations. They do
:43:30. > :43:32.now use modern technology to consult. They get Twitter and
:43:32. > :43:37.Facebook comments from their members, and they can't legally do
:43:37. > :43:42.these things unless the majority want it. There is great support in
:43:42. > :43:46.the unions for these activities. Unions are not suicidal. They would
:43:46. > :43:51.not do these things if they did not have permission to do them. If they
:43:51. > :43:56.were suicidal, we would not have any public services! If you look at
:43:56. > :44:02.some of the great success stories of creating jobs, creating wealth,
:44:02. > :44:06.Nissan, Honda, Toyota, JCB, they are all fully unionised. And the
:44:06. > :44:10.unions are so responsible. They give the management a hard time,
:44:10. > :44:15.and so they should. Welcome to negotiation. But they understand
:44:15. > :44:22.that the nation will only get out of trouble if these companies work
:44:22. > :44:27.together. In the private sector, you just don't get the same rapid,
:44:27. > :44:33.irresponsible rhetoric you get in the public sector. If you do it in
:44:33. > :44:37.the private sector, you can move to China. But you can't move a
:44:37. > :44:43.hospital to China. But in the public sector, there are
:44:43. > :44:47.negotiations going on all the time. They do not get written about. The
:44:47. > :44:55.media abscesses with industrial militancy and strikes. It was the
:44:55. > :45:02.only part of our conference that got any attention. But if there is
:45:02. > :45:08.a call to go on strike, don't blame the media. The members do a lot of
:45:08. > :45:13.work within the Union. These things that get people excited are a tiny
:45:13. > :45:23.little pinprick, compared to the hard work the armies of unpaid
:45:23. > :45:24.
:45:25. > :45:30.Eknows that when he says it. You know that and I know that. I'm not
:45:30. > :45:33.going to comment. Thank you very much for joining us. Is racism
:45:33. > :45:36.still a big problem in football? A committee of MPs seem to think so.
:45:36. > :45:38.The Culture, Media and Sport Committee have published a report
:45:38. > :45:41.which says that the Football Association need to take more
:45:41. > :45:44.action following the recent high- profile cases of ex-England captain,
:45:44. > :45:46.John Terry and Liverpool striker, Luis Suarez. Well, joining us from
:45:46. > :45:49.outside Parliament is Therese Coffey, who is a menmber of the
:45:49. > :45:57.Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and Garth Crooks, former footballer,
:45:57. > :46:02.now TV commentator. Thank you both for joining us, Garth Crooks, is
:46:02. > :46:05.racism, as the report suggests, still a big problem in football?
:46:05. > :46:10.you read the report that's just been issued and I've read aspects
:46:10. > :46:17.of it, I would agree with it. I think there's still a lot of work
:46:18. > :46:24.to be done in the areas of racism, or dealing with racism in football.
:46:24. > :46:29.In my experience, when Government inquiries get involved they respond,
:46:29. > :46:36.so I welcome this. When you say you agree with aspects that it's a big
:46:36. > :46:42.problem, how is it manifesting itself these days? A number of ways.
:46:43. > :46:46.One is when Football Association, who are the organisation that
:46:46. > :46:51.organises the coaching qualifications for jobs, who they
:46:51. > :46:55.employ at the clubs, not enough people have been qualified for
:46:55. > :46:58.group and that's been a consistent thing for 20 years. Recruitment
:46:58. > :47:02.policy. Do you think that would make a big difference, but there
:47:02. > :47:04.are recommendations about training for stewards to spot abuse and
:47:05. > :47:10.encouraging more black coaches and referees. Will that be enough to
:47:10. > :47:16.tackle the problem? It would give the clubs the qualification of
:47:16. > :47:18.individuals to employ them. It's critical. I don't see why football
:47:19. > :47:23.should be different than any other employer throughout the country.
:47:23. > :47:28.This is one of the reasons I feel the Government get involved because
:47:28. > :47:38.it's only when the Government get involved that the Government
:47:38. > :47:39.
:47:39. > :47:43.respond. Miss Foffey, what would you like to see? Several recent
:47:43. > :47:49.high-profile incidents showed racism has not gone away. Some of
:47:49. > :47:52.it may be quite casual. There's too much excusing of banter, so there
:47:52. > :47:56.are elements of stamping out the casual side that needs to go.
:47:56. > :48:01.do you do that? It's very difficult? One of it to some extent
:48:01. > :48:05.will be about players holding each other to account and one is about
:48:05. > :48:09.encouraging our referees at the grass roots games to make sure that
:48:09. > :48:13.people are reporting this, to their county FAs and stewards have better
:48:13. > :48:17.training so they tackle it. You are not going to necessarily challenge
:48:17. > :48:21.the guy next door and you become the torrent of abuse, but we should
:48:21. > :48:25.be encouraging people to say it's not acceptable and tackling it and
:48:25. > :48:27.more exclusions from grounds and similar. It's only when you start
:48:27. > :48:31.to exclude them perfect their passion that you make others
:48:32. > :48:36.realise what's going on. You are nodding your head there, you think
:48:36. > :48:41.that's the right approach? We are not where we were in the 70s and
:48:41. > :48:46.80s, but that's largely due to progressive legislation. Not self-
:48:46. > :48:50.regulation. Let's be clear here. In terms of taking people - making
:48:50. > :48:54.people accountable, the rules exist. The referee has the rules. He can
:48:54. > :49:00.employ them on the field of play. The governing body have the rules.
:49:00. > :49:04.Something has to be done. They can take action. For example, the issue
:49:04. > :49:10.surrounding John Terry. He's been charged by the FA and acquitted by
:49:10. > :49:14.the court, but that hearing to support the charge is not been made.
:49:14. > :49:18.Why are we waiting? That of course is talking about the footballers
:49:18. > :49:21.themselves, top professional players, you know the pressure that
:49:21. > :49:26.they should set examples, but what about at the grass roots? It's not
:49:26. > :49:30.just about the players. Obviously, there's a very big burden on them
:49:30. > :49:34.to behave, but what about at that level? Absolutely. It's one of the
:49:34. > :49:38.key challenges. That's why we are encouraging monitoring and
:49:38. > :49:41.reporting of particularly incidents, so that the FA can focus. We have
:49:41. > :49:43.also suggested they have an independent assessment and the
:49:43. > :49:48.effectiveness on some of their education programmes. I understand
:49:48. > :49:51.the FA is trying hard, but if it's not tackling the problem then
:49:51. > :49:56.they've got to think again about how they tackle that. Thank you
:49:56. > :50:01.both very much. In one moment we'll talk about all things America, but
:50:01. > :50:05.first a little earlier, we tested Digby's command of the language of
:50:05. > :50:15.love. And diplomacy, that will be French. We asked him to tell us
:50:15. > :50:18.
:50:18. > :50:23.which of the following is correct. Veef la difference. Veef le
:50:23. > :50:31.difference. French is no longer the language of diplomacy. English is.
:50:31. > :50:39.I don't think it's the language of love. It's vive la differs with an
:50:39. > :50:43.acute on the last E. -- difrpbs with an acute on the last E. We do
:50:43. > :50:48.know the right answer, but Michael Gove when he spoke to MPs earlier
:50:48. > :50:53.this week. Let's take a look at what he said. The growth of
:50:53. > :51:00.language teaching is central to what this coalition Government
:51:00. > :51:08.wishes to achieve. We diverge from the last government vive le
:51:08. > :51:11.difference. He said le. I wish he had done something else. I get this
:51:11. > :51:15.all over Britain. If you are watching this programme and you
:51:15. > :51:19.have got children thinking do they do languages, the answer is
:51:19. > :51:24.definitely yes, but there should be two. Chinese and Spanish. If you go
:51:24. > :51:28.into the world anywhere in the world equipped with English,
:51:28. > :51:34.Spanish and Chinese you have equipped yourself for the 21st
:51:34. > :51:39.century. With great respect to our friends over the channel rblgs
:51:40. > :51:44.French and German, their -- the Channel, French and German, they're
:51:45. > :51:48.yesterday's language. It's true. Schools aren't putting them in.
:51:48. > :51:54.French and Germans will hate it. But they're having a common foreign
:51:54. > :52:04.policy soon. It's not easy. Things have been holding up in the race
:52:04. > :52:05.
:52:05. > :52:09.for the White House no more ways than one. Cop a whack at this.
:52:09. > :52:15.# You're insecure # Some say a bore
:52:15. > :52:20.# Not only branch rupt, but your profit is needed more
:52:20. > :52:26.# Outsourcing jobs # Two years of tax returns
:52:26. > :52:31.# Really ain't enough # Everyone else can see it
:52:31. > :52:36.# Everyone else but Fox News # You lied to voters like nobody
:52:36. > :52:39.else # Your super pac gets them
:52:39. > :52:43.overwhelmed # But when you smile at your wealth
:52:44. > :52:52.# It ain't hard to tell # You won't show
:52:52. > :52:57.# What you're hiding downbelow # We understanding the voters
:52:57. > :53:07.matter so desperately # You won't show
:53:07. > :53:12.# What you're hiding down below # You have got to tell us... # Are
:53:12. > :53:16.they coming on the show? That wasn't One Direction I'm reliablely
:53:16. > :53:21.informed but Full Frontal Productions. I wonder why they're
:53:21. > :53:25.called that. I've no idea. Apparently they like making
:53:25. > :53:31.political films. Apparently that was one. It was a take on One
:53:31. > :53:36.Direction's What Makes You Beautiful. That's what it says here.
:53:36. > :53:46.They don't think much of Mitt Romney's tax return record. We hope
:53:46. > :53:52.to be joined by Charlie Wolf, but he's late and Marcus robe erts is
:53:53. > :53:57.here working for the Fabian Society -- Roberts is here working for the
:53:57. > :54:01.Fabian Society. Does President Obama have it in the bag? Probably
:54:01. > :54:05.yes, because what has happened now to Mitt Romney is just about the
:54:05. > :54:09.worst thing that can happen to a politician. He's lost control of
:54:09. > :54:13.his public imagine and been defined by his opponents and now reading
:54:13. > :54:16.from ray script that seems like it's been written by the Obama
:54:16. > :54:20.campaign. The problem with this gaffe is that and why it's more
:54:20. > :54:23.than just a normal Washington gaffe, is that it confirms the very idea
:54:23. > :54:28.that the Obama campaign has been trying to put into the minds of
:54:28. > :54:32.swing voters - the idea that Mitt Romney is against people. That Mitt
:54:32. > :54:36.Romney is against the middle class. You can't be against 47% of America
:54:36. > :54:39.and say you're going to be a President for all Americans. That's
:54:39. > :54:44.why he's in such trouble now. American election campaigns partly
:54:44. > :54:48.because they are so long, are strewn with gaffes. Ours are too,
:54:49. > :54:54.thanks to Mr Brown in roach Dale, but particularly because of the
:54:54. > :54:58.length of time. Am I right in thinking though that this in the
:54:58. > :55:03.league of gaffes this is premier division tough? Absolutely. There's
:55:03. > :55:09.a difference -- stuff? Absolutely. There's a difference between the
:55:09. > :55:15.little-league gaffes that Mitt Romney made. That was over the
:55:15. > :55:18.Olympics. It turns out that was a dress rehearsal for how things were
:55:18. > :55:25.to get. If this is what he's liked now, I would be concerned about the
:55:25. > :55:32.debates too. Charlie Wolf has finally made it here. He has given
:55:32. > :55:38.a small tip to Digby Jones' taxi driver, the late one. Exactly.
:55:38. > :55:44.me ask you this on what he said, he talked about the 76 million, it's
:55:44. > :55:49.46% of the people who file taxes who don't pay federal tax. I have
:55:49. > :55:56.been looking at this and two thirds of them pay federal pay roll taxes
:55:56. > :56:00.so they are taxpayers, two thirds of them. Most of the 76 million are
:56:01. > :56:05.either elderly, what we call old folks, or they are on less than
:56:05. > :56:09.$20,000 a year, so I think everybody agrees they shouldn't be
:56:09. > :56:13.paying tax. Why is he not interested in their votes? Well,
:56:13. > :56:17.what he was saying was, listen, these are people who will not vote
:56:18. > :56:21.for me. I'll not waste my time just as you wouldn't if you were a
:56:21. > :56:26.Conservative go to the safest Labour seat in the country. Did he
:56:26. > :56:30.conflate some numbers? Was it inarticulate, yes? Why would he not
:56:30. > :56:40.be interested even if they don't pay tax or a striver? 20,000 a year
:56:40. > :56:45.
:56:45. > :56:49.in America is peanuts. Why has he said, "I'll never get their
:56:50. > :56:54.votes."? There are some people who will not vote and it's clear it's
:56:54. > :57:01.split right down the middle, even after gaffes and conventions or
:57:01. > :57:06.whatever, it's still 47 or 47%. It's pretty much a dead heat. One
:57:06. > :57:10.poll had Romney up on a few points. I still don't understand why he's
:57:10. > :57:15.riding -- writing off 76 million people, which is what the clip says,
:57:15. > :57:21.however you try to gloss it. Also those who don't pay federal tax.
:57:21. > :57:26.There are 13,000 people earning over $500,000 a year who don't pay
:57:26. > :57:30.federal income tax. Does he not want their vote either? I'm sure he
:57:30. > :57:36.does. He wants the vote over half a million, but not less than 20,000?
:57:36. > :57:41.Andrew, listen, he was in a campaign fundraising speech. He was
:57:41. > :57:47.not giving a statement to the press. He was not giving a policy speech.
:57:47. > :57:51.He was raising money. Under false pretences? No. What he was stating
:57:51. > :57:58.was obvious. There are a group of the population that is not going to
:57:58. > :58:05.vote for him. Including swing voters? No, he wants those. Aren't
:58:05. > :58:09.they included? No, he was saying he's not going after Obama's voters.
:58:09. > :58:13.The great leaders on both sides of the Atlantic in electoral winning
:58:13. > :58:19.terms, if you look at them, they were the people who actually said -
:58:19. > :58:24.Blair said to the richer, "I want to take my message to you."
:58:24. > :58:30.Thatcher said to Labour people, "I want to bring the message to you."
:58:30. > :58:32.We have only got 50 seconds. Why should Obama get a second term?
:58:32. > :58:36.He's provided healthcare to millions of Americans and bailed
:58:36. > :58:41.out the economy and he has begun cleaning up President Bush's mess.
:58:41. > :58:49.Wait a minute. There are 23 people out of work in the United States.
:58:49. > :58:56.Want to talk about gaffes. The President of the United States who
:58:56. > :59:00.doesn't know if Egypt is an ally or not. That's a gaffe. I lit the blue