02/11/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/11/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics. Ken Clarke says his plans


for private court hearings in sensitive intelligence cases are


vital for national security. The former Justice Secretary will be


here in around five minutes time. The schools exams body for England


says teachers are under too much pressure to give generous marks for


coursework. But says the decision to raise the pass threshold for


this summer's English GCSEs was right. With just under two weeks to


go before voters in England and Wales elect 43 new police and crime


commissioners, we'll ask five hopeful candidates how policing


will change. And we are in the final straight of the US


presidential race. Will the winner All that in the next hour. With me


for the whole programme today are the editor of Prospect magazine


Bronwen Maddox. And Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror. Welcome to you


both. Thanks run much indeed for joining us. Let's start with a


report, we blame the examiners, exam board, and now they are


blaming the teachers. Yes, the OFQUAL report, some children are


marked down and others are marked up up because teachers are over-


generous and it's a complete mess because you have got to defend the


integrity of the exam system. If teachers are under such pressure to


get a good result and are marking up their own pupils, we have to


bring in outside examiners. I personally think, continuous


assessment and working through your course than a memory test at the


end, but it's got to be done fairly. What do you make of this? They


shouldn't have changed the standards between January and June.


It's absolutely right they are outraged but what did anybody


expect? I agree with you. Coursework is a better way of


testing knowledge. Schools are under enormous pressure to deliver


results and teachers will mark up to the limit. You need a much


clearer sense of what is being assessed. It does need sorting out


a but this is not the world's biggest problem. Let's have a


listen to the OFQUAL chief- executive. She has been talking a


bit more about this and the findings of this latest report.


They are not cheating. Let me be clear, they are not cheating and


they are not making up marks, not at all. They are putting in an


invidious position, where they have to put a mark on a piece of


creative writing. You and I would look at that and there is no doubt


we would choose a different Mark because there's not, in a sense, a


writer mark. The problem is, because of the pressure they are


under, there is a natural tendency to be as optimistic as possible


looking at that and give it the best possible mark, because you


want that for your student, of course you do. And you wanted for


your school, as well. If there enough teachers are moving in that


direction, marking up to the limit, and there is a 6% tolerance, that


ruins the national picture if we are not careful and we have


evidence of that this year, so it's a very caution retail. For us, for


teachers and for those who design qualifications and set the


accountability measures, as well. You can understand a problem that


teachers want to do the best by their pupils, want to try and hit


the right sort of scores for their own schools. She has put it


perfectly if rather politely. Teachers are going to give the best


marks they can. It helps their children and school. The problem is,


we need an external assessment. Kevin is quite right. The doesn't


this make the case for what Michael Gove is talking about, let's have a


less coursework and more in the final exam which is marked by


independent examiners? Yes, in that sense, it does, and I think that


looks like cheating if you're going to give your own pupils the most


generous marks you can have. It is optimism. The but, I sat through


the generation where you had those end-of-year exams force of that's


what you did and how you got your GCSEs and A-levels. I watched my


own children going through, doing coursework all the way through, and


they have much better understanding of the subject they are doing. Yes,


you can have a memory test, but it does not really test your grasp of


the subject. It test your ability to learn a few facts and put them


down in a couple of hours. This is a debate which will run and run but


we will leave it there. Now it is time for our daily quiz and a


question for today is, William Hague is confirmed the Foreign


Office has spent �10,000 renovating a stuffed animal kept on display in


the Government department. But which animal is it? A badger.


stag. An anaconda snake. Or a meerkat? At the end of the show


Kevin and Bronwen will give us the correct answer. You could not make


it up. I like the idea of the Anaconda. Almost exactly two years


ago, the Government paid out millions of pounds in compensation


to several former Guantanamo detainees who accused British


intelligence of colluding in their capture and rendition. Ministers


said they had no option but to settle because fighting the cases


would have risked exposing state secrets in open court. In response,


the then Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, came up with controversial


plans to allow such cases to be heard in secret. The proposals are


included in the Justice and Security Bill, and are designed to


allow the intelligence agencies to defend themselves in court without


sensitive information being made public. Ken Clarke says it's a


golden opportunity for sensible reform and hit out at critics who


want to derail his plans. If the plans become law, so-called closed


material procedures would mean judges could consider sensitive


evidence in private in front of security-vetted lawyers. But


critics say the Bill goes against the principle of open justice. In


September, the Liberal Democrat conference voted against the Bill,


arguing that ministers would be able to cover up any potentially


embarrassing information. But Ken Clarke says a judge, not a


politician, would decide whether the information should be kept


secret. Mr Clarke has been speaking this morning. Let's have a quick


listen. In my career, I was in a lot of debate about national


security issues. I have always been on the liberal side of the argument.


So I am surprised to find myself sponsoring a Bill which critics of


named, my secret court Bill. I have never been naive about the role of


the security and intelligence agencies go through, but I want


them to be able to be able to defend themselves and be more


accountable to the courts and to Parliament. And Ken Clarke is here


now. Thank you for joining us having moved on of course to your


new role, but you're still overseeing this. Yes, I'm still a


minister in charge of this bill. The Lib Dem conference as voted


against it, Labour are not satisfied with the assurances that


you have given. Are you going to manage to get this Bill through


Parliament? I think so because I think they on the wrong side of the


argument, saying that. They are conspiracy mongering. They think


there is a snag some were. We are not taking into secret session


anything which is public at the moment. But you cannot have spies


giving evidence about national intelligence in open court.


Sometimes the whole claim, like in Guantanamo Bay, turns on this


intelligence evidence. The judge will hear that but only in a closed


session, special advocates will challenge it on behalf of the


defendant, but, at the moment, you can't try these cases for for what


happens, the Government puts his hands up, says it can't give the


evidence because it's to dangers in open court and we pay millions of


pounds worth of compensation. I would like a judge to hear all the


evidence and I would be interested in the judgement of a British judge


to see whether he or she are poles it falls up it's a dangerous


precedent. How are you going to make sure that wants to establish


these secret courts, they won't be tampered with? The Liberty,


according to them, you wouldn't be able to investigate crowd control


at Hillsborough. Or... It is Humphrey staff. The quality and


Human Rights Commission say they are incompatible with the common


law right to a fair trial. It's not an open justice of the ordinary


kind. It's only in recent years anybody bringing a civil claim it


turns on intelligence evidence. We have to protect the public, sources.


We need spies in these dangerous times but they can be accountable


to the court so long as the judge can hear it without the press, and


the public, anybody who wants to come in, the other parties. At the


moment, there is no justice because we have silence and we have drafted


this bill very carefully, to answer these fanciful conspiracy theories.


You have said it will be a judge who will decide whether or not a


case is heard. Labour and some Lib Dem peers are saying that is simply


not sufficiently strongly put into the legislation. They are not happy


with a safeguards. It is a slightly knee-jerk reaction. They can't


bring themselves to acknowledge that what they are back to rating


is the status quo. Noble is complained about what we do at the


moment, which has held it back from court altogether and just pay up,


but faced with a positive change, I don't know, they can't bring


themselves to accept this is going to be an improvement for reasonable


citizens. You can't hear it in open court. Let's solve that problem,


not just by saying, when it's dangerous. In future this might be


taken into other things. I'm against that. The bill makes clear


national security. The average British judge will want to only


keeps secret things which would endanger the country. Let me talk


more widely about justice. You are still looking after this particular


bill. When Chris Grayling was appointed in your place, he was


widely portrayed as a new and much tougher man taking over this very


difficult Prix. Do you think that there is a change of policy, change


of emphasis, direction? Or is at a new man doing the same job? The you


do get policy changes after a reshuffle. Sometimes quite dramatic.


Actually, Chris has not said anything yet which is not on the


same lines as me,... Apart from his talk about giving greater powers to


people who tackle an intruder in their homes. You clearly we're not


happy about that. You wrote a letter to him. I want to clarify


the law on self-defence. People constantly campaign about it. The


public are not certain and think they are not allowed to defend


themselves and react as a reasonable person would. They are


terrified in their own homes, whatever. We're trying to reassure


the campaigners it's all right. in a letter you wrote to her about


this, he said he is set himself up for an unnecessarily damaging


battle and heavyweight legal experts and the policy could easily


backfire. That's what you made of the ideas he came up with at the


Conservative Party conference. not flatly opposing it but I am


warning him to be careful. I say don't oversell it because if you do,


you will get into that difficulty. He is trying to do what I was


trying to do, explain to people that the law understands that


ordinary honours people, feeling in danger, threatened by an intruder,


whatever, will pick up a kitchen knife. I used to make speeches


myself that you could use whatever, people would understand of


defending themselves. This is not the only change. He's already


ditched one of your main ideas about reducing the prison


population. One of his first statement was to say he's not


interested in a wider effort to reduce the prison population and


nurses getting rid of foreign nationals. I think it's up to the


judges to decide. In order to set up this... You infuriated your


party. He said up a media pastiche of the change which exaggerates the


difference -- he set up. I never had a target of reducing prison


populations. I expressed surprise it had exploded. One of the things


I am concentrating on, reducing the reoffending rate, making prisons


more sensible places to reform prisoners. Trying to get the number


of crimes and victims down by turning few of them out to come


back. We are making progress there. We need a more intelligent use of


the prison system. I want to move on and talk about Europe because


obviously it is being dominating the political agenda. I just want


to... The British one fixation with Europe for the last 20 years.


just the British. When we want to move away from the day-to-day


politics, we always move on to Europe. Somebody who was there


during the John Major years, you will remember, do you feel as


though there's a sense of deja vu? Do you think your party is in


Oh, a sense that everybody gets into a flap, it is hard to


understand what everybody meant in that debate, the Labour Party did


not start from the same position as the people they were voting with.


At a time of economic stringency, you cannot have the European budget


rising when everybody is having to cut back public spending, and we


have a strong position of going to, you know, get across to the other


member states... The Prime Minister was defeated by Euro-sceptics


teaming up with your political opponents. That is what happened


under John Major. The Euro-sceptics were teaming up with the Labour


Party, both United and advocating a position which is impracticable and


cannot be achieved. That has a certain similarity as well, Arona


the fears raised about the Maastricht treaty, and people


should die of shame after the warnings they gave. -- I remember.


The Prime Minister as a very strong negotiating position, and he is


going to aim for a freeze, and he has a veto he can use if necessary


and if it is justified. When you look at your party, when you look


around the Cabinet table, do you feel rather lonely? Michael Gove is


suggesting that we should have an in-out referendum, Iain Duncan


Smith, Owen Paterson and so on. You feel that you are a lone figure


around the Cabinet table? This coalition is even broader than the


coalition government I have sat in before. The Conservative Party has


always been a bit of a coalition! This government is working


particularly satisfactorily, with I may say so, much better than the


John Major Cabinet worked, precisely because we are men of


affairs to get on with the practical solution. We do not sit


around the Cabinet table having rehearsals of the old, old


arguments about Europe. We all agreed that we have got to hold the


European budget, the freeze is the real objective. I think it is the


right objective, but I'm not sure the tactics have been right. Going


back to the secret courts, rightly nicknamed, I think you are on the


wrong side of the argument. Justice needs to be seen to be done. Times


have always been dangerous, and these are fiercely democratic times,


people are very disinclined to trust institutions, politicians,


police, judges, and people intensely dislike that. You may be


liberal by the standards of your own party, but not by the standards


of Parliament or the country. think it is a slight... I just


cannot get the people I usually agree with over the line to accept


that this actually is going to allow more evidence to be heard by


a church and allowed judgments to be given than at the moment when


all you have his silence and money paid out. -- Hirta by a judge. You


must accept, in all common sense, no country in the world is going to


put its spies in the witness box to give open information about their


intelligence, how they obtained it, what they believe is being done by


people, how they collaborated with other agencies. We have to find


some other way... We are running out of time, I want to give Kevin a


quick... When you look around at Cabinet table, you do see allies


and colleagues, the Liberal Democrats, five of them. You feel


closer to them on the big issues than you do to the right of your


own party? A lot of the divisions in Cabinet, they are not divisions,


but when we debate things, it is not always on party lines. I mean,


I think, my own personal opinion, and I tease them occasionally, one


or two of the lead roles around the table of One nation Conservatives


on the wrong side of the war by accident. -- of the Liberals. You


can imagine how they come back at me! Vince Cable I have known since


we were students. I do not think he ever expected to sit at the same


Cabinet table as me, we are in national crisis, we have come


together in the national interest, and this Cabinet works extremely


well in deciding what we need to do and what is going to happen. The


conservative property has improved since we stopped having wild


theological debates and got on with the details of delivering what we


need to. -- the Conservative Party. Ken Clarke, thank you very much


indeed for joining us. In just under two weeks' time, voters


across England and Wales will be asked to go to the polls to elect


41 new police and crime commission has, but what exactly will they do?


-- commissioners. Our reporter travelled to the United States


before the hurricane to meet the former police commissioner of New


York, Bill Bratton, who believes the commissioners can be as


effective in cutting crime in the Armed and highly visible, following


the September 11th attacks, security was stepped up on the


streets, on the Subway and in the sky above New York. It may be


partly due to the increased police presence that it is now one of the


safest cities in the world, but it is also down to a concerted


crackdown led by Michael Bloomberg in partnership with the city's


appointed Police Commissioner. you look at the two decades of


reduction in crime that we have had in New York City, about 80%, and


hopefully that is what can happen in the UK. Violent crime in New


York has been falling since the early 1990s. Lasers like this,


Union Square, was once considered a no-go zone after dark but it now


has eight police presence and is considered much safer. New York is


now unrecognisable from the gritty city of the 1980s, when it was the


crime capital of the US. Tough action was needed, and Bill Bratton


was brought in as the city's police commissioner. He quickly became


famous for his zero-tolerance policy and says the UK can learn


from the decision to give more local political control to the


police. It is not a panacea, not a perfect system, but it does ensure


that police do focus on local issues, what it is in the community


that is creating fear. Criminologists say much of the


credit for the reduction in crime must go to the commissioner. Until


the early 1990s, the assumption was crime was driven by the economy, by


inequality, by you name it, racism and poverty. Bill Bratton came in


and said no, we are responsible, and we are going to start measuring


results, and police commissioners should be held accountable by the


public. While the commissioner has been credited with cutting crime,


critics question whether there is a danger they may overstep their


powers. There are stubborn pockets within the cities, and the police


have concentrated a disproportionate number of patrol


officers, and there are other residents who feel that the police


have got a checkpoint attitudes towards those neighbourhoods.


was the unrest which began in London and spread across England


during the 2011 riots which all David Cameron turn to Bill Bratton


for advice. He warns that those are elected as commissioners face tough


challenges. There is so much happening in your country at this


time, on the national level, the mandated cuts in levels of service.


At the local level now, there is significant, significant change in


how policing is delivered. And it is all happening so fast. So my


suggestion would be, basically, do not expect too much early on.


month's elections will see the biggest change since modern


policing began. Despite differences in the systems, Bill Bratton


believes the crime-fighting solutions that have worked in New


York, particularly the role of a strong commissioner, can be just as


effective across England and Wales. Louise Stewart reporting, and we


have been joined by five candidates standing in different regions,


Simon Spencer, standing for the Conservatives in Derbyshire,


currently deputy leader of Derbyshire County Council. Former


Labour minister Jane Kennedy is standing in Merseyside and joined


us from Liverpool. From Bristol, Lib Dem councillor and former


police constable Pete Levy is standing in Avon and Somerset. UK


and Pete MEP Godfrey Bloom is standing in Humberside. And Mick


Thwaites is standing as an independent in Essex. Welcome to


all of you. Let me start with you, as you are here with me in the


studio, Simon, this idea has been one that the Conservative Party has


pushed through. What real difference do you think it will


make, having these police commissioners of whatever colour


there and overseeing the local police priorities? Well, I have


always been a great fan of this policy and it brings a new level of


accountability and transparency to policing that we have never seen in


the past. I would say that to understand what we're doing, we


need to understand what we have in place at the moment, and from that


point of view police authorities have been in place for 17 years.


They are expensive, in my opinion. They have worked, but this change


will bring a new level of accountability and transparency,


and how that will work is that it will be the role of the


Commissioner to articulate the views of the public to the chief


constable without politicising the role of the frontline police


officer. Jane Kennedy, if I can bring you in as someone who has


been a government minister, how do you think these police


commissioners are actually going to be better at reflecting public


priorities? Surely we have a Home Secretary and other ministers who


already do that. I mean, clearly there will be the election itself,


will forge a very close relationship between the


Commissioner and the electorate. Now, we are all worried about a low


turnout, but whatever the turnout, I imagine most commissioners will


feel themselves to be very close the accountable to the communities


and will want to speak for them, as I will, if I'm elected for


Merseyside. Now, I like the idea of the bill Bratton approach to


policing, where you... It is a kind of problem-solving approach, and if


I were elected, it is the kind of approach I would bring to crime-


fighting, particularly in a time when we are seeing savage cuts to


police budgets. We are going to have to examine every aspect of


crime and crime trends and engage with everybody who has got anything


to do with fighting crime. Mick Thwaites, if I can bring you in,


the thing that is right? Is that the way that this is going to work?


-- do you think. It has never been any different. We have got to work


with all the communities and agencies, local authorities,


voluntary sector, charities. We need to engage everybody in the


process of delivering better life for people across our towns and


villages. That is about reducing crime, reducing antisocial


behaviour, and the police themselves cannot do this alone. So


that is going to be the key task for the commissioner, to bring very


diverse communities together, many organisations together, and have


one Focus, which is delivering crime reduction and delivering the


reduction in antisocial behaviour across a very large geographical


areas. Godfrey Bloom, if I can bring you in here, isn't there a


danger, though, that instead of a senior police officer looking at


the same, this should be the priority for the whole area, that


these police commissioners are going to find themselves swayed by


perhaps particularly vocal groups of residents in one part of their


patch who have got a particular concern? Yes, it is a danger, and I


think this is why the electorate needs to look very closely at who


is standing, and I would suggest not to worry whether they are


Labour, Conservative or UKIP, look at the individuals and see if they


can handle those problems, see if they can handle those pressures


that they will be, prioritise very big budgets, 3,000 people, 4,000


people working for an authority. This is a very, very big job, a


very new job, and I'm not altogether sure yet that folly --


that people fully appreciate that. Mick Thwaites, if I can come back


you, as somebody who has worked in the police force, do you think


there is a danger about decisions on policing being politicised?


There is always the danger when this concept was first discussed


several years ago. Chief constables will be worried that their


operational independence, the control of policing and a daily


basis, where to put the cops, on which street corners, which crimes


to investigate, he will investigate what and with what resources, it


has always been a huge risk around one individual having immense power


over the police. I am not... I do not find that so difficult, because


very quickly the relationship between the chief and the police


commissioner will clearly, each one will know where their art in the


very early stages. There may well be a clear protocol that sets up


the ground the commissioner takes and the ground the chief constable


takes, but in some instances that boundary may be crossed, and that


Isn't there a danger that the public simply don't understand how


this is going to work and, in a sense, it won't work unless the


public get engaged and the signs are at the moment, they aren't.


They had everything stacked against them. There would have thought you


would have an election as important at this in November. Things are


stacked up against the public and giving to the point about people


looking beyond the party label but at the individual, I agree with


that, however, it is impossible in this particular election for most


of us to communicate with the electorate. In Merseyside, there


are 8 million voters. People are definitely going to be relying on


the party label and if we have a very low turnout, which we fear,


then it is going to be quite a risk the outcome. A number of us are


anxious that people shouldn't take this election for granted. We urge


the public to get involved. It is a very important and powerful role


and, yes, the individual that does that job is very important, so we


urge the public to use whatever means they can and we are doing our


best to communicate with them. Peter Levey, do you have concerns


about how this is going to work? You were with the Wiltshire


Constabulary. You have been in the Royal Military Police. Having seen


it on that side of the fence, are you concerned about how this is


going to work? There still seems to be huge amounts of scope for


different interpretations of rules and places for these Police


Commissioner's, pursuing a specific project once they are in and


elected, they can do pretty much what they want. Yes, I think in an


area as diverse as Avon and Somerset, we have huge rural areas,


urban areas as well, and there is a genuine fear amongst residents that


resources will be sucked into areas like Bristol and rural crime will


be forgotten. Crime has dropped in the UK, detection rates are


improving but that is effective policing and partnership localised


operating. I think whoever becomes the police and crime commissioner,


they need to engage with those people, create the most effective


lines of communication with the residence so we know what they want,


and where to effectively put resources. Simon, this has been an


important policy for your party. But they don't seem to have done


enough to infuse the public. Surely it is only through public


engagement that this idea will work? The other candidates are


doing their best across the country. Could more a been done nationally?


What I would say is the role is all about engagement with the public


and articulating their views. We have 4,000 voluntary organisations,


some very good statutory bodies delivering superb services and


working in partnership will be an integral part of the job. From my


point of view, it's extremely important whoever gets this job,


and I have a background as a firefighter, I have run my own


business, and my department in the council is similar to the police


authority budget, so what I would say is we have got to work with


everybody and the rule everybody's views together and understand them.


The key thing is going to be the personalities of those people who


are elected. The public will have a chance eventually to vote them out,


but, in the meantime, it's an awful lot of power to put in the hands of


one person in an area where we have not had those sorts of figures in


the past. I entirely agree. I wouldn't necessarily start from


here, so the electorate must be sure they elect somebody who


understands budgets, with the reformed background, military,


police, somebody who understands what is involved and can bring an


interpretation of statistics to it. The HMRC has sent us a huge amount


of statistics, difficult to read, and is the individual capable of


reading it? It takes lot of experience to do this sort of thing.


The thank you very much. Kevin, do you think this will work? I think


it has failed before at the start because one in five have to vote


for it and we have not brought for the candidates the Government


thought. The real test will be the next wave of elections, when you


get a mushroom of extra candidate and people think it's worthwhile to


come out and vote. If you're a tough on the cause of crime, you


could be a huge Waterfront, and be able to going the social issues,


mental health issues, and it's a big platform for whoever wins in


each area. I'm all for it for the obvious complaints people have up


with it, worries about populism, I think it's a good idea. Eventually,


it will be very popular. OK, thank you very much and thanks to all the


candidates in various different parts for joining us. This week


we've seen the issue of Europe causing splits and arguments in the


Conservative party, with 53 eurosceptic MPs defying a three


line government whip and joining Labour to vote for a cut in the EU


budget. But it's also posing tricky questions for pro-Europeans like


what should Britain's relationship with the EU look like? Last night


on Question Time, David Miliband was asked to explain why Labour


supported an increase in the EU budget in 2005. But are now calling


for a cut? He backed his brother, saying that asking Brussels to cut


spending doesn't mean Labour is backing away from Europe.


We negotiated in 2005, for the first time ever, instead of Britain


paying a three times as much contribution as France, we would


pay the same as France. We negotiated the enlargement of the


EU which a Conservative Party and the Lib Dems both supported and the


budget went up to pay for the historic enlargement of the


European Union. Let me finish the point. The world has changed since


2005-6. We've had a global financial crisis and we need to cut


the deficit at home and we also need to make sure that we reduce


spending in Europe as well, and I think there has been a real problem


for pro-Europeans like me. We have seemed like we always wanted more


spending. We were soft-headed about more spending, but what you have


got is a repositioning in the Labour Party not to go from being


pro-Europe to anti-Europe, but to take on, this idea that to be pro-


European you're always for more spending. That was David Miliband


at last night. And we've been joined by Will Straw who works at


the IPPR think tank. And Katinka Barisch, deputy director of the


Centre for European Reform. Thank you both very much indeed for


joining us. You have got a new report out this week saying that we


should have an inner out referendum. That's right, we think a referendum


has become increasingly inevitable. When you look at the things David


Cameron has been saying about wanting to go to Europe, to try to


get his repatriation of powers and then take it to the British people.


We think it is incredibly unrealistic, we don't think he will


get it, and if there was a referendum, anything other than the


fundamental question, we think a lot of people would be very upset


by it. People would say you are not asking the right questions. In


Scotland, David Cameron things we have to take on the fundamental


questions so we have to do the same for Europe and that would make


people pro-European, like myself, make the case to the public why


been in is better than leaving. Until now, people pushing for this


type of referendum tend to be Euro- sceptics, people who ultimately


think it would be good idea if we had at least the weapon of being


able to threaten to leave the European Union, but you would argue


firmly on the pro-European case for staying in Europe? The that's right.


People all around the country are have in this discussion. It's time


to do take it from Westminster to the public. That would then


discovered people in civil society, politicians, and a pot newspapers


to decide which side of the debate they want to be on, because we've


not had a positive case for Europe are made by those groups for 30


years. Do you think he has a case for saying that we need to get


these arguments out there and have a proper debate about it? I agree


with absolutely everything he says under the proviso that if


politicians start to make a positive case for Europe, how much


time have they got, and would be enough? I've been in this country


for 20 years and I have seen the media and politicians drip feeding


people negative news about Europe. Do we really believe that a bunch


of politicians can turn this around in a matter of months, few years


even? In a campaign situation, when people are very cautious about what


they believe and what they don't believe, and I think it's a highly


risky strategy because people would find themselves outside the EU in a


weak position to renegotiate the deal with the rest of the Europeans.


Are you worried about having an in and out referendum because the pro-


Europeans appear to be losing the arguments? Because there hasn't


been a proper debate about what is at stake here, the Euro-sceptics


are not making a very genuine argument because Britain actually


gains quite significantly from being in the single market and


within the European Union, which is a big block of countries in a


globalised world. It needs that membership so I don't think the


debate is properly started. Interesting that Labour joined


forces with the Euro-sceptics. Do you think Ed Miliband is trying to


reposition itself? I think there was a degree of opportunism in what


he did undoubtedly but European this question, 3% of MPs know we're


going down that road a. David Cameron will set out a referendum


soon and Labour will match him in their manifesto and there is a


debate among the Shadow Cabinet about how Labour should approach


this. Jim Murphy, I've heard her argue for going for an in out


referendum like in Scotland, do you want independence or not? Go


straight to the crux. I expect a referendum like that is the only


one which could be run by pro- Europeans. Don't mess around about


renegotiations on this and that. Just say to people, do you want to


be in or out? In 1975, Harold Wilson had a referendum, 2-1 to


stay in the Common Market. In 1983, Labour's manifesto, let's pull out


of the Common Market. The Prime Minister has said he might allow a


referendum after the next general election. Do you think we are


heading to the stage where that is going to happen? He has been pushed


towards that. I think it would be suicidal for the pro-European camp


to push for one right now. Europe is in crisis. The eurozone, part of


it is in flames. No-one knows what's going to happen to that.


After the next election. You can't stop these things once they start


rolling. At you couldn't do it now. You've got to wait for the eurozone


crisis to come to an end. That gets lost in the noise. If you're


calling for an in and out referendum, because you hope it


will bring out a big level of advocacy for Europe. It would be a


disaster. Do you think that there is a danger that this increasing


discussion about an in out referendum is destabilising in


terms of Britain's position within the EU? Yes, the Continent are


getting very concerned about what's going on here. Also what they see


as a debate in Britain is not necessarily realistic, the idea


anybody in Europe is waiting for David Cameron to turn up with a


list of powers he wants to take back to Britain, that's crazy.


Europe is in an existential crisis and are not in the mood to talk


about the Fisheries Policy. Do you think the Labour Party is now


moving towards a position where it will call for an in out referendum


in the run-up to the next election? There is a debate taking place in


the Labour Party at the moment and IPPR feeds into the debate around


Westminster and we think it's the right thing to do because if you


don't do it, these pressures just build up and build up and it could


make the referendum what happens even worse for the pro-Europeans.


Thank you all very much indeed for joining us. And some news just


breaking in the last hour relating to the former Labour minister Denis


MacShane. Chris Mason can tell us more. This is a findings from the


parliamentary authorities on his expenses. They've been written into


his expenses during at 2005-eight. Their report has just been


published in the last half an hour and it's very, very critical of his


conduct. In short, they say he claimed for far more computers, his


own use and for his office, than was legitimate. They say those


claims were excessive. They also say there was a good number of


claims submitted for work he said he was doing for the European


Policy Institute connected to a long-term policy, the issue of


European politics, he's a former Europe minister, but they say that


those receipts and expenses were plainly intended to deceive. They


outlined the European policies did not stack up as an independent


organisation separate from Mr MacShane. They were almost the same


thing. There is also strong criticism for how he handled


himself during this investigation, saying he withdrew co-operation


during part of their inquiry and the whole process in which she put


together is expenses was not anywhere near the standards they


were hoping for from an MP. So, very, very strong criticism. A


recommendation he should be suspended as an MP for 12 months.


Labour have responded immediately and withdrawn of the whip from Mr


McShane. He says he is saddened and shocked by the decision and are


deeply regrets how he behaved. Day-in, day-out, we see


correspondents like Chris and myself standing outside and inside


Parliament, reporting the daily events on the news, but soon we


could start to see the iconic buildings crop up on the big screen.


In an effort to raise more money, Parliamentary All authorities are


considering open up the buildings to let the film crews in, for a


price, of course. Whitehall has been used in many movies, not least


in the new James Bond film, Skyfall, and we will speak to the


supervising location manager on the latest instalment of 007, but first


Well, we have been joined by James Grant, a film locations manager who


worked on Skyfall and managed to get some parts of Westminster


closed to traffic to allow filming to take place. Welcome to the Daily


Politics, thank you for joining us. Thank you. Talas first novel, was


it very difficult? I have to say, I have not seen the film yet, but


there is some filming in locations around Westminster, how difficult


was that? Westminster featured very strongly. We were filming on


Whitehall itself, we were on Vauxhall Bridge and what-have-you,


and we closed Millbank. It is a main character for the film, and I


actually started working on it from July of last year, with a team of


location managers and assistance and what have the working our way


through the script, seeing what was needed, and then approaching


Westminster Special Events Office, TfL, the Houses of Parliament and


so on, to try and achieve what we needed. What about the idea that is


now being considered, that we might actually be allowed to film inside,


outside, on top of the Houses of Parliament? Is that an appealing


prospect question I hit it would be great. It is a lot easier for the


factual programmes to get inside the Houses of Parliament. Because


of our size, crews can be 100 or 200 people, high days and holidays,


but to get inside the houses of parliament in-cell and Big Ben


would be fantastic. -- itself. Presumably these matters are very


complicated, getting the right permission from the right people,


making sure you have not got groups of tourists walking across the set


at the vital moment. Yes, logistically it takes time, and it


is a creative process. You go to them with a plan, and the planned


changes, and so you have to keep going back and saying, what we want


to do now is this... The individuals you are dealing with


are usually very excited but they are not used to those changes


taking place. Do you fall back on lookalikes and mock-ups? We quite


often see the door of Number Ten Downing Street, don't we? Indeed.


Sometimes they build it, which is not very good for me as a location


manager, because it goes back to a studio, I am not very happy about


that! If not, things like Downing Street, you end up going to a local


double, John Adam Street, you can make that look like Number Ten


quite easily. Kevin, do think it would be a good thing, good for the


Westminster World to feature a bit more highly perhaps in some of


these very high profile films? would love to see the Queen, and a


big Opening Ceremony star, parachuting into Prime Minister's


questions. It is a fantastic building and it will cost hundreds


of millions to put it right. If you can make a movie money, fantastic.


As long as it is not a late-night dodgy movie on the Speaker's chair,


it is fine. The downside is for Manchester's Town Hall, because


it's wonderful sweeping staircases often double as the House of


Commons. There are lots of parts of Parliament that would make


fantastic locations. There are some great shots in the film, the


rooftops and the gutters. The MoD, yeah. On the roof of the MoD, that


was a mind? -- that was a good one. We were thinking of the Thirty nine


Steps, the guy hanging off one of the hands of the clock on Big Ben,


that was mocked up. You have a scenario you would like to film in


Westminster? It is just the chambers and corridors and


staircases. I mean, I have never scouted it. I have scuppered some


fantastic locations that the average person would not be able to


get inside. -- scouted. Just to have the permission to go inside


and see what is there, it is an amazing listed building, and you


know, weekends, bank holidays, national holidays and so on, it is


available, and that is when we do a lot of filming. I go in most days,


and it is only when you take an outsider in that you see what a


wonderful building the front Palace is. It is quite a labyrinth. There


are terrific rooms, the Drew Ginn room, the House of Lords, the


Commons. Another big hope is that if they phone the next Bond movie


there, they may need a few cameo roles for political


correspondence... Can we do the deal now? We cannot afford MPs,


their rates would be too high for us, I am sure! It has been another


busy political week with rebellions over Europe, as we have been


discussing, spats over energy policy, and the return of a big


Westminster these. Here is Susanna with a round-up of the last seven


Tarzan swung back into action this week, telling Dave that people do


not think he had a strategy for growth, but never fear, and 89 a


point plan for getting the country up and running. They've had t'other


troubles on his hands and the Westminster jungle as they teamed


up with the enemy. -- Dave had tuk- tuk troubles. He is weak abroad,


week at home, it is John Major all over again. Ever get the feeling


that the coalition is blowing in different directions? First the


Tory energy minister said the UK had had enough of wind farms, but


then Ed Davey blew that a wave. am in charge of renewable policy,


and the policy has not changed. wind power was blowing the


political razed of the White House of course, campaigning star Das


Hurricane Sandy swept in, but with just four days to go, it is back to


business. -- campaigning stopped as. Back to business, that crucial last


phase of the American presidential elections, and we are joined now to


look at all of this with the London bureau chief of the Wall Street


Journal. Thank you very much indeed for coming in. We have had this


extraordinary few days whereby we have had a National Natural


Disaster, somehow wrapped up with the final phase of the presidential


elections. How do you think it has played? Well, it is probably not


good news for Mitt Romney. The storm sweeps in, obviously it is a


terrible tragedy. The President has the opportunity to look very


presidential, as he goes around New Jersey, and he had the added


benefit of getting to go on this tour of New Jersey and hug victims,


along with Governor Chris Christie, a Republican who was at one time


thought to be a potential running mate for Mitt Romney. So this has


not been the greatest sequence of events for the Republican candidate.


And Chris Christie, as you say, a major figure in Europe and said he


thought the President was doing a fantastic job. -- a major figure in


the Republican Party. Mitt Romney had earlier made statements about


his plan to dismantle the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which


is the one which co-ordinates all these big disasters among different


states. So he was asked about that afterwards, his campaign did not


back away from his earlier statement, so again timing is


everything, and his timing was not good. And although there has been a


huge loss of life and there has been a widescale destruction along


that these costs, President Obama seems generally to be getting a lot


of credit from voters for his handling of this. Yes, he does, and


you know, it is always a tough situation to step in. You do not


want to turn this into a politically charged situation, and


they did, I think, a pretty nimble job of not making it look like they


were being opportunistic. He also got the advantage with the clock


ticking down, he had already started to turn the momentum back


in his direction, and then a pause button was hit on the election


because nobody felt like they could campaign, and certainly not


campaign aggressively. Bronwen, where do think we are at now, with


just a few days to go and things looking very close? Well, I think


Barack Obama is probably just ahead. I am one of many watching it, but


if you look at Ohio, which a month and a half ago was six points for


Obama, then it went down to pretty much neck and neck, it has opened


up again. That is one of the key states were this will be determined.


There are signs pointing in his favour, and the storm has been


great for him, but it is close. Kevin Kammer how do you think it is


going to impact on British politics? Politicians here are


watching very closely. David Cameron, you would think, the


Conservatives are allied with the Republicans, but he gets on very


well with Obama, and he would be quite happy with business as usual


in the White House, clearly that is the position of the Liberal


Democrats and Labour. You cannot read much -- the political class --


you cannot read much of the American situation back into the UK,


but the political class would be reasonably happy with Obama still


in the White Horse. -- the White House. Mitt Romney's visited just


before the Olympics was not a great moment of try to set up foreign


policy, because he speculated that the might not have been up to snuff


and then everything went fantastic. -- the Olympic security plan might


not have been up to snuff and then everything went fantastic. The


Obama campaign has effectively drawn a line under that now, from


the second debate forwards, in many of the swing states, we see the


toss-up states trending back to Obama. And the last bits of


frenetic campaigning are going on now. Thank you very much for


joining as. Just time before we go to find out the answer to the quiz,


and the answer was... The question, of course, was which stuffed animal


has William Hague spent �10,000 renovating? Badger, Stagg, anaconda


or meerkat? I'm sure you have done your homework. You have not got


Eric Pickles on that list! answer... It is the snake, isn't


it? It is indeed the snake, in fact we can see it there. Extraordinary,


the amount of money that was spent, this was a gift to one of the


foreign embassies. On that note... Priorities, that is what politics


Download Subtitles