19/10/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Alex Salmond's not

for turning... Or is he? He never used to like NATO but this

afternoon he will urge his party to embrace the alliance. What's

prompted the SNP leader to change his mind? Surely he's not

schmoozing up to the electorate ahead of the 2014 referendum? We'll

be asking the man himself in just a few minutes time. EU leaders move

closer to a deal on banking union, though many major issues are

unresolved. We'll be asking what it means for our very own square mile.

The race to the White House takes on a strange and bizarre musical

twist. We'll be looking back at the campaign. And stay tuned for

Quentin Letts and a whip. W is for With us for the duration is Julia

Langdon and James Whale. Welcome back to you both. Let's talk about

MPs, their flats and a possible loophole in the expenses system.

Who would have thought that, a loophole? Do you ever get that

feeling of deja-vu all over again? Let's go to our political

correspondent. Give us an update. You are going to be shocked by this,

but some MPs have used words I couldn't repeat, about this

particular newspaper - the Daily Telegraph. It revealed this

particular story this morning. They blame the Telegraph. They say what

happened is we had all these revelations, day-in day-out by the

Telegraph about their expenses, and the system changed. One in which he

could claim as an MP for your mortgage interest payments to one

in which you can only claim for rent. The effect of that was if you

have bought a flat here in Westminster, somewhere out there in

the expense of lands behind it, you would no longer be able to afford

to live in it because you couldn't afford the mortgage interest

payments so you'd have to rent another one. I got told there is

one MP who when he gets up in the morning, opens his flat front door,

walks out of the flat he rented while looking at the one he owns,

or because of the IPSA rules, they say. Many in the public might feel

slightly less sympathetic about a system that allows eight MPs to

either rent from or rent to each other. Did they not think at some

stage they'd be rumbled? What is bizarre about this visit was always

inevitable they would be. All this information is in the public domain.

What the Telegraph reveals could have been found by anyone, but only

the Telegraph got there in time. You can look at the MPs' register

of interest. You can look at the IPSA files. The question is whether

we think that there is anything wrong in this situation and what

those MPs who owned flats under the old regime should not do. Frankly,

even if they sold them and got a little bit of equity and money

would arguably they got on the backs of the taxpayer, it still

wouldn't pay their Dalian day-out, week in week in expenses of living

in Westminster. The public have decided they don't like the idea of

MPs being able to run and owned the two houses on the public purse. MPs

are arguing the sort of story we are seeing today is just a

consequence of the way the rules have changed. Want people just be

amazed by this? Yes. Thinking about that, I start working at

Westminster 40 years ago when MPs used to rent flats and share with

each other in squalid places south of the river. You don't have to

live in Westminster. What of the public going to think of that?

There are some rather nice places south of the river. The there are

now. You brought up the tone of the area! They did. It's a scam that.

It just adds to the public repudiate, the culture that makes

people operate like that. We want a political system that we've got a

thin and we think they've got a moral sense of the proper thing to

do. Just when you thought they may be getting over the MPs' expenses,

and remember how would dominate the news but all things fade into the

background - bang, they're back on the front page of the same paper

that did all the revealing the first prize, the Telegraph. I don't

understand how they can afford on their salary, that they complain is

not enough, how they can afford to have a second home as well. You are

quite right, there are lots of lovely, Little, cheap hotels dotted

around. They don't have to have second homes, most of them, because

every weekend they have to go back to their constituency. It is an

necessary. They used to be an MP's widow who had a flat somewhere.

There were four or five Labour MPs who have a room in her flat. They

all slept together like in a dormitory. Do the News of the World

know about that? A everybody knew about it. It was very cheap. It was

cheap but there was a price to pay - you have to sleep with one eye

open! What about a dormitory? Westminster has loads of room.

don't want the dormitory. I don't, but they can stay there. Be is open

season on them again. Expect a few fireworks of the SNP conference in

Perth this afternoon when the party faithful debate a thorny issue.

NATO membership. The Scottish nationalists leader, Alex Salmond,

is expected to urge his party to reject its long-held antipathy to

the alliance. Of course he wants to do that, but it looks like he wants

to do that without fighting the horses. This is Ali the latest in a

series of policy U-turns. We will be talking to the SNP leader in a

moment. The Battle of Bannockburn was

fought when a Scottish army prevented an English army from

relieving the garrison of sterling. So, 700 years later, when they get

to vote on independence for Scotland, we thought we'd ask the

people of sterling now what they make of the question. Economic Lee

I think we can do it. Other countries the same size have done

it. The gas industry and what have you. I know that will last long,

maybe the next 30 years, but they are looking at nuclear stuff as

well. We've been part of Great Britain for so long, it would be a

massive change. It seems very complicated for something that

doesn't really need to be fixed. Nothing has really broken.

probably would be better for Scotland to be independent. There's

been a lot of ill-feeling as well. People have been saying a lot of

things on both sides of the border. Maybe we should break away. I don't

know, I haven't made my mind up. I will need to really consider it and

go into it in more depth. I've got two used to do it and I will do it

within that time. My heart and head is with the union. However, I get

sick and fed up of listening and reading about how England are

feeding us, how they are keeping us and how we would sink below the

depths of despair if we weren't part of the Union. We are getting

sick of this. And I listen to a lot of young people now and they are

saying the same. It's not going to make any difference. I just don't

see it making a difference. I really don't know. What do you

think? What? Whether you should have an independent Scotland or

stay part of the Union? No. A very good answer, you should become a

politician! The SNP leader Alex Salmond joins us now from his

conference in the beautiful city of Perth. Welcome to The Daily

Politics. I loved your vox pops in sterling. When this country was

under threat of extinction from the Soviet's nuclear arsenal, you

opposed NATO membership. Now there's no Soviet threat, you want

to join it - how does that work? There's a slight correction. I've

been in the SNP when we've been pro-NATO in the 1970s I was in the

SNP when the policy to the anti- Nato in the 1980s, and I was still

in the SNP 10 years ago, although not leader, when we change the

policy to be in favour of Partnership for Peace, which has a

NATO arranged organisation. The policy has gone into transition

over the years, but the one consistent thread in our policy

over all these years is our opposition to nuclear weapons in

Scotland, in particular to the Trident missile systems. That is

the consistent airier and the main string of SNP policy. So you want

to be part of an alliance which is nuclear based but you don't want to

have nuclear weapons - how does that work? I suppose that is the

same as 26 out of the 29 member countries of NATO at the present

moment. I'd rather be one of the 26 without possessing nuclear weapons

than one of the three who have nuclear powers. But you are happy

to live under a nuclear shield of Defence. To be fair to NATO, in its

strategic documents it points away from its wish to see a nuclear free

world. But I can't push away American nuclear weapons, I can't

do that. But I can do two things. I can get Trident out of Scotland

with independence. Secondly, we can agree with our friends and

neighbours, like Denmark and Norway, that Scotland's strategic position

makes it in their interest and our interest to be part of a mutual

defence organisation on a non- nuclear basis. You used to

denigrate NATO. You always be faced it with the adjective nuclear base.

You talk about the nuclear based NATO. You wanted to stand alongside

Austria, Finland, Sweden. You said it was an insult to these countries

the thing that Scotland couldn't stand alongside them. Now you want

to join NATO and it is still nuclear based. It would be an

insult to say you couldn't have the Partnership for Peace programme

supported by Sweden and Austria. Ireland, it is not any longer a

neutral country. But Partnership for Peace is also a NATO arranged

or maligned organisation. So we have to look at the practicality of

where we are now. That practical argument would be that we can see a

rude to the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland without

corrupting the defence Co ordination of our friends and

allies in the Nordic countries. Isn't it refreshing to see such a

debate come to an annual conference of a political party - just like

old times! I couldn't possibly comment. It seems a little bit

strange that you want the protection of NATO's nuclear shield

but you are going to kick a key part of that shield out of Scotland.

I don't think that strange at all. I think the contribution that we in

Scotland can make to nuclear disarmament is the removal of

Trident missile systems from Scotland and the prevention of a

renewal of that Trident system. The UK at the present moment is

spending �2.5 billion a year on maintaining Trident and renewing

the next system. That is roughly �250 million as a Scottish

contribution. I think that is a phenomenal waste of money in the

world that it is, with the economy the way it is. I can think of many

things that can put better used to these funds, and wasting them on

unwanted nuclear weapons. Yes, but you are joining a nuclear based

alliance which you have long opposed. You are either opposed to

it or you are all over the shop on it. But you have had a long record

of being against it. Now you are for it. People will see it as just

the latest in a long line of cynical policy changes to make you

more palatable to mainstream Scottish opinion. I think the

consistent thread of Scottish opinion and SNP opinion and my

opinion has been our opposition to Trident missiles and nuclear

weapons in Scotland. Incidentally, when the Labour Party had a

position, as it did in the 1980s, of being against nuclear weapons,

they were still in favour of NATO. I can't remember that particular

argument, despite many arguments being thrown at them, that

particular argument I don't think was. So we consistent frame of

opposition to nuclear weapons in this country is a consistent policy.

We have to deal with the reality that we have friends and neighbours

who would like to see as co- ordinate our defence as part of the

NATO framework, and the reality that 26 out of the 29 member

countries do not possess nuclear weapons. Why should and Scotland be

one of these 26? When Labour had a policy it lost by a landslide,

which brings me back to the point... Which brings me back to the point

of how you have changed your policies. I know you are trying to

prevent me saying this. Say what ever you want. In both elections,

thank you, Andrew, in both elections when Labour had that

policy Bay won convincing victories in Scotland. Those were the days

when Labour was still a party in Scotland. If they ran a donkey in

the constituency base days, what would happen? Let's not go there.

Let's look at your party's policies. Not just in NATO. I remember the

days when the SNP was an overwhelmingly Republican Party.

Now you are cosying up to the Queen. You used to want a Scottish

currency then you wanted a euro currency. Now you want the pound.

You want independence for your country but your interest rates

would be set by the Bank of England. You even admitted to me when we met

in Aberdeen on camera that you'd even the date fiscal pact with

Was perversely, your memory is playing tricks on you! If --

firstly! Your having a referendum on a republic, Mr Salmond. Having a

referendum is different but the policy has always been to retain

first David King and now the Queen as head of state for an independent

Scotland. -- first to the king of. We argued we had a different policy

and I am saying after a long history of having a pro-monarchy

history, which I have embraced with great enthusiasm certainly, and

that is as it should be, because you will remember, as I do, that it

was... I know! I was there at the time! I am asking difficult

questions of the politicians of the day. Because Scotland and England

have 100 years of having the same monarch ambient different countries.

-- and being. As things change we think it sterling is the best

option and as far as the physical arrangement is concerned, as you

know, we contribute now 9.6% of the taxation and we get back 9.3% of

the expenditure of which means we have made 2.7 gap in terms of the

relative surplus that Scotland has, but there for we can invest more

and save and spend more and we could borrow less with a

combination of any of these three. There is good room for manoeuvre in

the condom per -- in the context for an independent Scotland.

certainly have plenty of room for manoeuvre! You seem to have plenty

of manoeuvres on policy. I run when you used to complain... -- I

remember. You used to wax lyrical about being shackled to sterling

with Scotland in Europe and having the euro currency. Now your policy

is to tie your Monetary Policy Committee or interest rates and

your fiscal policy to the most Euro-sceptic country in the

European Union. It sounds bizarre. Well, I think in terms of the

support for the euro that is a charter that have been levelled at

the Conservative Party... I am talking to you, Mr Salmond! There

is nothing unusual about that. The facts have changed substantially

and when the facts change, you change your mind and you do what is

right for the day, and what is right for the day now is to support

the optimal currency area. The point of fiscal freedom is we have

�500 per head for every man, a woman and child in Scotland and it

seems a substantial amount of freedom. When I have got you face-

to-face I will have a go at you on the 2.7 billion! We can have a

replay on! At the yes! I hope we will! Now you are cosying up to the

Queen and you have ditched your support for the euro and your

siding with NATO. You'll have a monetary policy controlled by

London. What other policies and principles will you ditch before

the referendum in 2014? That sounds like a question you put earlier and

I have just pointed out the support... I have been up since

6am! To look, you should do me the honour of listening to the answers.

I have taken away that aspect for you. Our policy in defence has been

out opposition to nuclear weapons. It seems very consistent. And the

other thing on economic policy is we will do what is in the best

interests of the Scottish people socially and economically, and

right now that is overwhelmingly for the people of Scotland to

become an independent country. wider most of the opinion polls

show that support for independence has fallen sharply this year? Is

that your fault? Let's see what the next two years brings us. Last time

I was told we were heading for... Last year was told we were heading

for electoral defeat and as you will remember, the result was a

convincing Dick -- victory for the SNP government. Something vital has

happened over the two years of this argument. For the first time this

week in Scottish history, we have agreed on a process and also

decision by both governments to abide by the result and respect the

result in the interest of the people of Scotland and the rest of

the United Kingdom. That is a fundamental step forward and sets

the framework for a great debate in Scotland over the next two years

and I think it would be a very unwise journalist to write of the

chances of Scotland deciding on independence. As your box pops in

Stirling indicated, there is everything to play for. I am still

if -- simply asking you wide support for the union has risen

since the start of your campaign. - - asking you why. If people vote

for union, will that be the end of your career? Will you head off for

simpler Klein's? I think we can rule out the House of Lords! I will

listen but I no John Prescott! I will listen to all sorts of Haider

the Tagore questions. -- I am no John Prescott. He -- hypothetical

questions. You cannot blame me for trying. If you're wanted me to ask

you this, which is, what first attracted you to the multi-

billionaire is Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump?! It does you that

same question. -- I could ask you. Mr Murdoch has since spoken to me

for 20 years! He speaks to you all the time. -- has not spoken to me.

We looked at these things in the Leveson Inquiry and I think we came

out very well. I supported the idea of a golf course in the north-east

of Scotland because I thought it was a grand idea and has still do,

but I happen to it not think Mr Trump should try it -- be tried to

run Scottish energy policy. -- be trying to. Since you give him tea

and biscuits at Downing Street, and that Holyrood, you have never given

me tea and biscuits! I'm unwilling to making a pledge - come to my

house at my invitation of and I will give you tea and I will

present you with the arguments. invited me to the premiere of A

brave and I am still waiting for the ride. Another broken promise! -

- waiting for the invite. Thank you for joining us in the fair city of

Perth. Come back and see us soon. What do you make of that? Will, I

think you got him really riled, actually, because he is a slippery

character and he looked quite bothered. It is not the issue,

though, about NATO that if, in what I think is the unlikely

circumstance of an independent Scotland, they want to be in Europe

and a need membership of NATO. don't need to be a member of NATO.

A Ireland wasn't... I think the big difficulty would be this. If it is

a yes vote in 2014, the terms of the divorce will have to be

negotiated. The one Mr Salmond was saying that was the consistency was

that they want rid of the British nuclear deterrent at fast lane. --

at Faslane. Nobody knows where it will go. And the issue, then, will

be the divorce could then become a very acrimonious. But it will not

happen, will it? It is a complete and utter waste of money. It is a

deviation from what the politicians should be concentrating on, which

is getting the economy back on track. Yes, but hang on, the

Scottish Parliament has won a majority. The system was denied to

-- was designed to deny any body a majority. They are only living up

to their manifesto. Maybe we should have a referendum on whether we

want to keep an alliance on them in the United Kingdom. It is all so

wrong because it will lose so much money in the interim and then when

we realise we are all stronger together and apart, if that went

ahead, then Wales wants independence and what happens when

Northern Ireland wants independence, too? Wales does not want

independence, and actually, nor does Scotland. Well, we will find

out! It is the case for a referendum, isn't it! If it is

certainly true and it may be wrong, but the view in Westminster is to

get it down to one question of yes or no for independence was giving a

way everything else, including votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, and

we have another two years to talk about this. I can hardly wait! You

can watch the debate on NATO live on BBC Parliament at 3pm this

afternoon. It's diplomats in Brussels have

moved one step closer to the banking union. They have decided to

put the banks under the central bank's supervision. Where this

leaves Britain's financial sector is still very unclear and what that

ECB relationship will be with the existing European banking

authority... Are you following? Are you still with me? This covers all

27 members and that is up in the air as well. To accusations have

been defended that Britain is on its own. So what matters is, are we

getting a good deal for Britain, not what everybody is saying about

you. We were in there are mechanisms for the euro and we got

out of those. I think that was a very good outcome for Britain. It

was tough and difficult but we did it. Last year, always that we don't

want to see an increase in the European Budget and we got a real-

terms freeze. It was tough, difficult but good for Britain.

Here we want that safeguards and protections for the single market

to the banking union and you can see the language in there. Again,

tough, difficult, it means you are here until 3am but we got the

language in. And we are now joined by Iain Watson, who has just come

from the press conference where we saw the Prime Minister speaking. It

is very complicated so if we can just take it in a couple of stages.

They have agreed to go ahead with some kind of banking union but it

is not yet clear what the relationship with the banking union

for the eurozone will be to all the countries not in the eurozone. Is

that right? Yeah. I will take you through it and I will be as quick

as I can. As you know, the EU gutta Nobel Peace Prize recently but it

don't think it would be awarded individually to France and Germany.

To some extent, the tensions between them have dominated the

conference rather than Britain banging the table about any

particular issues. France wanted to establish quickly because what it

means that in effect is that the European Central Bank can directly

bailed out struggling banks anywhere across the eurozone. The

Germans were far more cautious and they wonder how much they election

next year will cost. On that we have a fudge. It will be introduced

in 2013 Potts agreed but not a strict timetable. It is likely to

be phased in. -- in 2013. It has been agreed. Outside of the

eurozone, but now is regulated in a different way. David Cameron said

he believed Britain's concerns were big -- were being taken on board

and he has had a final communique that he is happy with. In terms of

the detail, effectively what he wants his countries outside the

eurozone to big to get together and block anything that happens inside

it if it has unpredictable consequences or collateral damage

suffered by British banks and other financial institutions. And then a

really detailed discussion about whether you can have a blocking

minority or majority vote Maghreb. But he is confident that by

December Britain will get the safeguards it needs. And a

principle he is happy for the eurozone to go on and sort out what

he sees as their own mess. I'll be amazed if Britain got a clocking

metaphor of things only affecting the eurozone. But in the broader

picture, the political static coming out of Berlin, Paris and now

even Helsinki, you get the feeling that the members of the eurozone,

the core members are now reconciled to letting Britain drift away.

Maybe not completely but certainly not getting in the wake of what

they want to do. Is that the mood I think it is. The Finnish minister

yesterday was saying Britain was left on the shore as these ships

sailed away. They are very close to the Germans. They haven't said that

quite so bluntly but I think that is their position as well. They are

getting a bit fed up. Some diplomats who are dining in London

this week were talking about where Britain stands in terms of

negotiating with the European Union, was counter-productive and didn't

have enough influence here. David Cameron tried to counter that. But

he was saying on the really important issues for Britain,

including completing the single market and boosting jobs across the

Continent, Britain was at the centre at the argument rather the

in -- rather than the periphery. He's quite happy for the eurozone

to integrate more closely together because he thinks it will help them

sort out their mess, but he also thinks it will open negotiations

for a settlement with the other countries. His long coveted

approach to bring powers back from Brussels rather than send them to

Brussels will effectively have the door open to that by the

negotiations. That is his intention. He is pleased, he did not want to

leave the European Union, that was not on the agenda. Europe is a

problem for Mr Cameron. I don't see what his strategy is. I don't see

what he's doing all trying to do. don't think anyone in Britain,

British politics, except a very few people, recognise the extent to

which Britain is regarded as being a non player in Europe. That was my

reference to what was coming out of France. And Finland. They've all

been complaining for about... Since the euro has been in existence,

they have been complaining about the difficulties, the charv thrown

out by Britain when they are not playing the Eurogamer. To a certain

extent we have the advantage of not being in the euro and don't have

the financial responsibility, or as much of the financial

responsibility, with sorting out the problems of Greece, Portugal

and Spain. The bigger issue isn't that. The bigger issue is its

people in Europe, the leaders, are beginning to feel that we are

getting in the way, there's also a mood in Britain, right, we don't

want to be in the way, we'll just get out, there could be a head of

steam on both sides of the Channel to do something different, to

change the status quo. The that's why he said if he gets elected at

the next election he will give us a referendum. He's not said that. He

simply talked about fresh consent, which is a dog whistle word for

referendum but he's not said it. we were actually forced to think

about this, I think we would come down on the side of Europe. We

should be more of a play in Europe if we are going to be in it, or we

get out altogether. It's like we are sitting on the sidelines just

throwing things at them when they annoy us. To answer Andrew's

initial question, what his strategy is to counter UKIP. It poses this

enormous threat to the Conservative vote. Our the eve of the general

election... But we have to decide in or out, don't we? We shall see.

The 64 million dollar question in 18 games - at 18 days' time is it

Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? There's been another frenetic week

on the campaign trail. Time to take time out and have a bowl of chilli.

Here is Brian RIM from the Huffington post.

We are here at a Washington institution in the home. Two weeks

ago political observers said President Obama broughtup to his

debate against Romney. Checkout would even liberal NBC had to say

afterwards. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed.

An hour and a half, I think I can get through this thing and I don't

even look at this guy. Romney was staring at Obama, addressing him

like the prey. He did it just right. I'm coming out an incumbent, I've

got to beat him. I'm going to beat him tonight and they don't care

what is DI, the Moderator, thinks he is. I'm going to ignore him.

Romney was winning. With Mitt Romney on the comeback trail, the

press -- pressure was on Obama this week. The first debates, Sleepy

Time or pretty talk Jones. What Governor Rumney said just isn't

true. It's alive! There are two people who eat a free here. Bill

Cosby and barrack -- Barack Obama. Regardless, for the next two years

the lines were around the block. That Obama, the one that buyers

people up, was back on Tuesday night. Have you look at your

pension? I don't look at my pension, it's not as big as your so it

doesn't take as long. Let me give you some advice. It was a combative

debate. Mitt Romney delivered a powerful argument that will

resonate with millions of people. can get this country on track again.

We don't have to settle for gasoline at four box. We don't have

to settle for an employment at a chronically high level. We don't

have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don't

have to settle for 50 % of kids coming out of college not able to

get work. We don't have to settle for 23 million people struggling to

find a good job. If I become President I will get America

working again. This is where Barack Obama first -- enjoyed his first

half smoke about four years ago. Whether he gets his second one as

president depends on the election, three weeks from now. Both

candidates have given themselves decent shots to win, but it depends

on odours from states like Ohio. Here his Mitt Romney style and

Obviously the very high quality of debate in the presidential election

of 2012. When Mitt Romney said, we don't have to settle for $3 a

gallon for petrol. I would settle for that! We are joined by a state

the Hilliard from Republicans Abroad and Karin Robinson from

Democrats Abroad. Is this not still Mr Obama's election to lose? It is,

but he has to run on his record. He hasn't been able to put forward a

plan on how the next four years will be different from the last

four years. I think Mitt Romney, in the last debate and first aid,

showed he has command of the economy, that he can drive us

forward. The opinion polls show that. People had him winning on the

economy, health care, taxes. He's not ahead overall, is he? Its neck

and neck. It's within that margin of error. Isn't part of the problem

for people who was so enthusiastic about Mr Obama last time round,

that they don't really know what he would do with another oar macro

years? I think we've made a lot of progress over the past Ball years.

There's no doubt when the President came into office, the global

economy was in calamity. We had 31 straight months of job growth under

the Obama administration. The policies he has put in place a

working, they are moving us forward, we've a lot more to do.

Unfortunately, rather than moving forward, Mitt Romney's policies

would take us backwards. The things he wants to do would restore the

Bush era economic policies that got us into this economic situation in

the first place. We are bringing unemployment down, it's below 8%

for the first time in four years, we've seen consumer confidence

increase. But that's what you've done. Your attack on Romney is

interesting and I've heard that before, but what I asked you was -

what is he going to do in the next four years? There's a plan called

the American jobs at that the President put out a year ago that

has been blocked. It has a whole set of policies in place including

student loan reforms, particular economic incentives, tax cuts for

small businesses. He has been trying to get back through for over

a year. It's been blocked by Republicans in Congress. So we've

been trying to do things administratively where we can. We

very much hope that after the election when the President is an

overrated again on 20th January, that we will be able to move things

forward with a more corporate of Republican Party. Good luck with

that! His and Mr Romney's problem is that he is hugely dependent on

one part of the electorate - the white vote. He will get almost no

black coats and very few Hispanic votes. The last time Mr Bush in

2008, John McCain got less than 20 % of the Hispanic Ode and less than

10 % of the black wrote macro. He is the white man's candidate.

Romney is the candidate for the people. For the people who are

suffering due to economic policy. She says the policy or -- the

policies are working, they are not working. Our unemployment for 43

straight month was over 8%. The President said he was going to

bring it down to 6%, its at 7.8 %. He's increased the deficit, he's

increased the debt to record levels. Some Mitt Romney, while

traditionally the minorities Mike vote for the Democrats, I think you

will see a lot of them voting with their pop-up book when they go and

fill up their cars and its $5 a gallon. Do you want to bet on the

Hispanic vault? I think the majority will vote for the

Democrats, but look at the people in the party. You may not be able

to admit this but I know and most people know that when I speak to my

Democrat friends and activists in the United States, in their hearts

they are deeply disappointed by the first for Mark Rutte years of Mr

Obama. They had hoped for so much more. That's why there's a lack of

enthusiasm. I still think it's his to lose but there's a lack of

enthusiasm for him winning. In 2008, and I was one of those early

supporters. I was out there in 2007 really early on. In 2000 debate,

what we were trying to do was something historic. We were trying

to re-elect the first African American President, we were trying

to restore economic opportunity after eight years of what had been

a devastating Bush administration. It was a unique time in a -- in

American history. Obama has become the President, he has disappointed

some liberals. He has run to the centre on a lot of issues where

people like me, who might have been the early supporters out there,

would have liked him to be more progressive. He said, no, I need to

be right in the middle where the American people are. But if he was

right in the middle, there would be huge enthusiasm for re-electing him.

He came through with this super majority. He could have passed

anything he wanted to in those first two years and he focused on

health care reform, which was costly, took the time out of

Congress. Most people in Europe think it's about time America had

healthcare reform. Nobody disagrees about that. Mr Rumney says he's

going to repeal it. The cost of healthcare is to hide. It would be

nice if some people have it. 30 million people don't even have it.

Let's do what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts and let the States do

that. Each state is so completely different. He has remained on that

in Massachusetts. He wants to implement that as a state decision,

not a federal decision. How would it be in Alabama if it was down to

the States? People can't afford it. It needs to be something that's

right for Alabama. An important point and health care. You said

you'd like to see the other states do what Massachusetts has done. If

Mitt Romney's policy was enacted, it would not be possible for even

Massachusetts to do what Massachusetts has done. It relies

on pockets of federal money that Mitt Romney is proposing to take

away. How many more days have Riggott, 18? Yes. Who is going to

win? Not to do you want to win, who you think is going to win? I think

it's too hard to call. I think Obama might, but the Midwest is

going to be... Keep your eye on Ohio, where Mitt Romney has only a

third of the people,. Obama was going to win. Come back and see us.

Whipping. I often mention that word. It's something you think they

belong on the racecourses or perhaps in the privacy of your own

home. But in Westminster, it's something MPs do all the time and

sometimes they are even caught doing it on camera. Here is Quentin

W is for working... And W is for whipping. Whips are government

ministers employed by the taxpayer to impose party discipline,

generally to make life miserable for MPs. The justification for

whips is that they help a democratically elected government

push through its policies but the madness is that we, the taxpayers,

or social and opposition whips. Some of them are on ministerial

salaries. It is a good old system! The initial persuasion of MPs is

done generally have a glass of whisky... -- over a glass of whisky.

Come and sit next to Daddy! Hello, again! Of the whisky didn't work,

there of various other sticks and carrots and the whips might employ.

It might involve putting an MP on a really boring committee or getting

on to the local activists and complaining about them. They hate

that! Or possibly a fact-finding trip abroad or the ultimate Lear -

a hint that may be a ministerial office might be in the offing. You

innocent openings may have heard the expression of "a three-line

whip". What does that mean? Every week, the whips issue is secular

and it details forthcoming government business. I have got a

copy here... The piece of paper has on it a list of debates and the

really important ones on which MPs are expected to vote are underlined.

Not once, not twice but three times. A three-line whip. The only times

the public a disease which is in action is that the announcement of

a Commons vote. Those people there, they are the whips, and if you

visit the Commons gallery you will see them sitting on the front bench

taking notes like of his spies. But otherwise there should we, discreet

creatures. Is it really right in this day and age that the public

purse is being used to reward Parliament's floggers and

thrashers? We are now joined by Labour MP,

Nick Brown, under Gordon Brown, so that was an easy gig! And no

problems there. What does it take to be a good which? You have to

have a decent working relationship with your party and with your

colleagues. So no problem, then! Rather a lot happened between Tony

Blair's Labour government and Gordon Brown! The most popular

thing I have ever said was that for those of you who think there is a

black book kept on your Mr Bean has, I promise you, there is no such

thing being kept. And I got a huge round of applause for this. And

then people said, he will be remembering it or it will be on the

computer. There was a black book at one stage? Well, I asked a civil

servant with there had been such a thing under the Tory regime. And

all their papers were kept in a cage at room out of our reach!

caged Room! Did you ever used the Doc Cox? No, no, it was just the

gentle art of persuasion. -- did you use the dark hearts? This isn't

pick-and-mix. They should just do as they're told? No, but remind

them that the manifesto on which they stood, which was Conservative,

and they would say, actually, I have different thoughts now and I

want to exert my independence. But politics is not pick and mix. It is

taking the party line and I think it is important people remember

that because otherwise you get anarchy. And what about rebellion?

The student fees was a big one and I was not a whit at that time. I

was a backbencher. What I thought would happen was that if we won

that vote and we were within five, if you remember, Tony Blair would

re-table it all because under your draws you are obliged to vote

Maghreb. There have been stories in the past that I vaguely remember of

physical violence been threatened by whips, of MPs being pushed up

against walls... That is a pretty silly thing to do if you think

about it! Did that happen? And not under my... Was not accusing you!

You are not he will be now. Would you rebel? Well, as I said earlier

on, I am not minded to rebel but you have to look at each issue and

the interest of your constituents. But what of your constituents

actually did not like what the party was doing? Are you more for

their constituents I got -- or the party? You have to remember I have

some 90,000 electorates and it is the third largest in the country.

There will be those on this side as well as the other. So I have to

look at all the arguments and consider them. A delegate does as

he or she is told whereas an MP as a representative analyses the views.

We have all bread the book! You have observed the whips. Tell us a

few stories. It is certainly true about people being threatened with

violence! There you go! Thank you! A tell us who! Calling their wives,

mistresses? I believe Spencer held somebody up against the wall in the

lobby! He you have to be careful now. It is the 20th century and

people have human rights! It is also true about the Black Book. I

know one former whip who certainly kept a black book on people. He was

At Number 12 Downing Street, on the skirting board, there is a false

door and it slides to one side, and inside there is a small, concealed

safe. Legend has it the black book was kept in there! And there was

also Maclean's brain, which contains much information! Hold on!

You mentioned you have got a constituency outside of London. You

are part of the modernising tendency of the Conservative Party.

How worried are you about the whole Andrew Mitchell affair and that it

is damaging your party? That if she was being carried on for the

interest of other parties. -- that issue is being carried on. The

officer concerned have accepted his apology and what's more, the top

officer of the Metropolitan Police has also accepted it. It is time to

move on. Have you told that to your colleagues? Because it is not just

Labour. Conservative MPs still speak to me about it and Cabinet

MPs as well. Your own side is deeply unhappy. There is also

something saying the majority of MPs are supportive of this. If he

said what he said to the policeman... What did he say?

did he actually say? Why doesn't he tell us? Are you are a former Chief

Whip and Andrew Mitchell is doing your job now. A different

government, obviously. How difficult would it be for him to

maintain party discipline? I think it would be very difficult indeed.

The problem with what he is supposed to have done, and I have

got no reason to doubt the police record with this, is that he gives

the impression that the Conservative leadership is just a

bunch of toffs. Why you have no reason to doubt a police record

after Hillsborough, the West Midlands crime squad, the Guildford

four? Why on earth should the police make something up? I am not

saying that but the idea that police records are the tablets of

stone... You have read Chris Hutchings Malan, Labour left-wing

MP for... In the Times this week. Why would the police could the

story to the press because they must have given it to the press?

Well, because the numbers are down on police and there are having the

Hillsborough inquiry... But they are passing tittle-tattle on to the

journalists. In fairness, as Andrew says, he is account of events, they

might be willing to weigh up the two. He says the officer has

accepted it and we must now move on but it is a bit rich from him.

think the critical issue is that an apology has been made and we need

to move on. The only thing I can say is that the other side hasn't

got anything else to say. In will rumble into next week as a debate

in Parliament. There is a debate next week. Yes. It needs to be

politics or the people. In the last quarter... I Love and the story,

the! Welfare reform is going through. They want to know what he

said. To put people out there on their jobs. They want jobs security,

food on the table and they want to know what the Government is doing

This country is as obsessed with class as it has ever been but now

we are being told, let's move on, you have had your fun, let's look

at jobs, energy prices. What do you say to that? I think you are right.

So let's get over that. Get him to say what he said and then everybody

can move on! If you think that the Government thinks people like us,

player buts and morons, ought to get on with it, how can you have

any confidence in them? But the problem for why this issue has

resonated so deeply and for so long is that it plays to the narrative

that the Government is run by a bunch of posh boys who are out of

touch and looked down their noses at the rest of us. That is the

problem, isn't it? There is a group of people out there who want to

portray that perception of the party, which is not true. Look at

my own background. I am the son of an immigrant carpenter... I am a

backbencher. So that his opposition in the Cabinet! The point is, you

can have whatever background you have so long as you try to better

at your fellow citizens. As David Cameron said... No, you have had

your say. We covered these soundbites live. We have a

government which is not in control of events. All these issues we

would like to be discussed are not being discussed. You, I don't know

why you are no longer a whip but you were a whip in the most

disruptive, rebellious Parliament we have had for many a long year!

Were have a coalition government. But Nick had a majority of 80.

have spoken to two of Margaret Thatcher's close it -- closest

advisers who said she would have had him out of the door in 24 hours.

That is it for today. The One o'clock News is starting over on

BBC One and I will be back on BBC One on Sunday with the Sunday

Politics. I will be joined by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, and we