:00:42. > :00:47.Good afternoon. Welcome to The Daily Politics. David Cameron said
:00:47. > :00:54.he would stick by the pledge to raise spending on defence in real
:00:54. > :00:59.terms after 2016, but can we afford it? And will it be enough, amid the
:00:59. > :01:04.challenges of the mad, bad, dangerous world? Are education
:01:04. > :01:07.policies in danger of failing less able students? It has just been
:01:07. > :01:15.announced that the accident and emergency department at Lewisham
:01:15. > :01:19.Hospital in London will be downgraded, after a fierce battle.
:01:19. > :01:27.Can campaigns to save local hospitals destroy efforts to
:01:27. > :01:31.improve the nation's health? And meet Bob Servant. BBC Four's new
:01:31. > :01:36.comedy follows a man with no political experience pitched into
:01:36. > :01:46.the maelstrom of a parliamentary by-election. All that coming up in
:01:46. > :01:47.
:01:47. > :01:52.the next hour. With us for the programme today is Roland Rudd, PR
:01:52. > :01:57.man extraordinaire. He heads up the NSPCC's campaign against child
:01:57. > :02:00.abuse, amongst many other roles. Starting with defence - according
:02:00. > :02:04.to some papers this morning, David Cameron has promised there will be
:02:04. > :02:09.no more defence cuts, and he has guaranteed to increase spending by
:02:09. > :02:13.more than inflation from 2015. But it turns out to be not quite as
:02:13. > :02:17.simple as that. We have been trying to work out exactly what the Prime
:02:17. > :02:20.Minister has promised. There is a lot of confusion this morning,
:02:20. > :02:23.partly because we have got briefings eminating from the
:02:23. > :02:29.Government here, and also from the back of the Prime Minister's
:02:29. > :02:34.aeroplane in Algeria. Two things are now bill grinned.. Said he
:02:34. > :02:38.would not go back on commitments made back in 2010, when he said he
:02:38. > :02:44.wanted to see real-terms increases in the defence spend. He was
:02:44. > :02:47.referring to the period of 2015 onwards. Some said, that includes
:02:47. > :02:52.the last year of the Comprehensive spending Review, which is subject
:02:52. > :02:54.to intense negotiations which are going on at the moment. But Downing
:02:55. > :03:00.Street is saying that defence spending for that period, three
:03:00. > :03:03.years from now, up until the first year of the next period, -- of the
:03:03. > :03:08.next Parliament, that defence spending is not ring-fenced for
:03:08. > :03:12.that period. The key thing that we know now, good news if you are
:03:12. > :03:16.George Osborne, I think, and the other departments which are not
:03:16. > :03:19.ring-fenced, is that the MoD spend for the following three years is
:03:19. > :03:25.not ring-fenced. The Prime Minister sending out a clear message on his
:03:25. > :03:31.North African trip, and remember, a man who is about to deploy possibly
:03:31. > :03:35.dozens of troops in West Africa, that the aspiration is, possibly,
:03:35. > :03:43.to see an end to cuts in defence spending, and possibly even more in
:03:43. > :03:48.terms of real terms growth. Clearers mug to meet! Let's see if
:03:48. > :03:55.the former defence minister can help us. Gerald Howarth, you were
:03:55. > :04:01.at the MoD until last year - what is your understanding? -- clear as
:04:01. > :04:05.mud. I don't think there is much changed here. The Prime Minister
:04:05. > :04:09.said in 2010 that his aspiration was that for 2015 onwards, there
:04:09. > :04:15.would be a 1% up lift in the procurement budget. Actually, what
:04:15. > :04:20.he said was, my own strong view is that this will require a year on
:04:20. > :04:28.year real-terms growth in the defence budget, in the years beyond
:04:28. > :04:33.2015. So, not beyond 2016. And not defence equipment, but the defence
:04:33. > :04:37.budget itself. He then told the Commons in 2011 - the Government
:04:37. > :04:44.plans to increase in real terms the investment in defence equipment by
:04:44. > :04:51.1% per year between 2015 and 2020. So, where are we now? The answer is
:04:51. > :04:54.that there is not much change... what is the position now? Dzeko has
:04:55. > :05:02.made it clear that there will be an increase, there is an aspiration
:05:02. > :05:09.for an increase... We cannot bind the next Parliament.. But you can
:05:09. > :05:14.have an aspiration. So, when? 2015. I thought we were just told
:05:15. > :05:22.it was 2016. Andrew, this is a very serious issue for the Armed Forces.
:05:22. > :05:27.That's why I am asking you questions about it. So, you cannot
:05:27. > :05:32.tell us the year, can you tell us if it is defence equipment or the
:05:32. > :05:36.defence budget? The Prime Minister has said that he wanted to see a
:05:36. > :05:40.real terms up left of 1% in the defence procurement budget. But
:05:40. > :05:48.what has happened since 2010 is that the world has become much more
:05:48. > :05:50.dangerous place, we have seen a completely unexpected and
:05:50. > :05:56.unanticipated eruption of turbulence in will have a go. We
:05:56. > :06:03.have seen Syria, we know Iran is dangerous, and the idea which is
:06:03. > :06:07.being floated in the past currently that defence spending should not be
:06:07. > :06:10.ring-fence between now and 2015, and that there should not be
:06:10. > :06:14.further cuts because the task of restoring the public finances is
:06:14. > :06:19.proving more difficult that we had imagined - my view is that we need
:06:19. > :06:24.to invest in defence now. We have given up some capabilities which do
:06:24. > :06:28.need to be restored, like the maritime patrol aircraft. That's
:06:28. > :06:35.not going to happen, is it? solution is that you freeze the aid
:06:35. > :06:40.budget. My argument, and the public will support me, is that we should
:06:40. > :06:46.freeze the aid budget, not cut it, but freeze it at its current level,
:06:47. > :06:51.which is about 8.6 �5 billion, and should not increase it by another
:06:51. > :06:54.more than �2 billion this year. Give that money to defence. Are you
:06:54. > :06:58.able to clarify for us whether the Government is talking about the
:06:58. > :07:04.defence budget or the defence procurement budget, which is
:07:04. > :07:08.equipment? I am not in the Ministry of Defence today, and I cannot tell
:07:08. > :07:12.you whether that is the case or not. I just wondered, since it is a
:07:12. > :07:17.mystery, with the two statements being contradictory. Downing Street
:07:17. > :07:22.has said it is defence spending... But Philip Hammond was talking
:07:22. > :07:30.about defence equipment this morning. Yes, but Downing Street
:07:30. > :07:38.has subsequently clarified it. Where is Labour on this? We are
:07:38. > :07:43.talking about aspirations, but my understanding, and that of my
:07:43. > :07:47.colleagues on the defence committee, is that it was defence equipment
:07:47. > :07:51.spending, so that is a 1% increase in less than half of the defence
:07:51. > :07:55.budget. And what we are seeing is that the Prime Minister does not to
:07:55. > :07:59.detail. I suspect he was quite tired coming back from Algeria. He
:07:59. > :08:04.said something without working it out. George Osborne, understandably,
:08:04. > :08:07.from his perspective, has had to slap down the Prime Minister.
:08:07. > :08:11.George Osborne is doing his best to try to defend a ridiculous
:08:11. > :08:15.situation. What I asked you was not about government policy, I was
:08:15. > :08:21.asking you about your party's policy. Are you going to increase
:08:21. > :08:28.defence spending up to 2015? Miliband has been clear, we cannot
:08:28. > :08:32.make pledges more than two years before an election. Gerald Howarth
:08:32. > :08:37.does not know any more than George Osborne does, what the economy is
:08:37. > :08:41.going to be like in 2.5 years. they do not know what the economy
:08:41. > :08:47.is going to be like in 2015, and yet we are planning to increase the
:08:47. > :08:50.aid budget every year between now and then. We planned to increase
:08:50. > :09:00.that aid budget when we thought the economy would have grown by six% by
:09:00. > :09:00.
:09:01. > :09:04.now. As we stand today, our viewers are faced with a Conservative Party
:09:04. > :09:09.in total confusion over defence spending, and you, with no policy
:09:09. > :09:13.at all. We have said very clearly that we will make decisions about
:09:13. > :09:16.departmental spending at the time of the election. We said in the
:09:16. > :09:24.last -- we saw in the last Parliament Liam Fox promising to
:09:24. > :09:27.expand the are many, and then cutting it. The big lesson is that
:09:27. > :09:32.you do not make spending commitments 2.5 years out. You have
:09:32. > :09:39.no policy. We have no spending commitments which we're making this
:09:39. > :09:42.far out, and we have demonstrated why that is not advisable.
:09:42. > :09:47.Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to see an uplift in the
:09:47. > :09:50.defence budget - whether that is confined to procurement, or with
:09:50. > :09:58.the that is the overall budget, I don't think is an issue. In any
:09:58. > :10:04.case, it is in the next Parliament. I think what your viewers will be
:10:04. > :10:11.much more concerned about is where we are today. We still have 9,000
:10:11. > :10:16.personnel in Afghanistan. And the Prime Minister how's, as every good
:10:16. > :10:21.Conservative Prime Minister before him, he has an aspiration to give
:10:21. > :10:27.Britain influence in the world, which I completely support. But we
:10:27. > :10:32.need the means to do that. That's what you both to - Labour fought
:10:32. > :10:36.five wars on peacetime budgets, and your government now wants to get in
:10:36. > :10:40.to West Africa and have a generational struggle, at a time
:10:40. > :10:44.when you are slashing the defence budget. The British people are
:10:44. > :10:47.right to wonder why we have got politicians on the Left and Right
:10:47. > :10:52.who want to increase our foreign policy commitments and cut our
:10:52. > :10:56.defence budget? It is vital that they clarify whether this is
:10:56. > :10:59.equipment or the overall budget. Otherwise, you could take more
:10:59. > :11:04.money away from pay and allowances to subsidise this procurement
:11:04. > :11:08.programme, which is why this is important. I think this is simple -
:11:08. > :11:12.you cannot ask the army to do more for less, which is what they are
:11:12. > :11:15.being asked. I do not believe the world has become more dangerous
:11:15. > :11:20.place. The world has been a dangerous place, and it will
:11:20. > :11:22.continue to do so. If we want to ask the army to do what they are
:11:22. > :11:27.being asked to do, we have to make sure the spending commitment is
:11:27. > :11:31.there. If there is a problem in terms of the spending, then we pull
:11:31. > :11:35.back on our ambitions. We cannot have it both ways. This leak from
:11:35. > :11:40.the Telegraph in terms of actual spending does not appear to be
:11:40. > :11:44.correct. They are also being asked, as you know, to come up with
:11:44. > :11:47.voluntary redundancies, which is another potentially real problem.
:11:47. > :11:55.Because then, you lose some of your best people, rather than allowing
:11:55. > :11:58.you to get rid of the weakest people, which is a terrible shame.
:11:58. > :12:04.Your own position is that the Government should, given the
:12:04. > :12:07.ambitions it has, which is why Mr Cameron is in Algeria and so on, it
:12:07. > :12:12.should be looking not to continue to cut defence spending over the
:12:12. > :12:15.next three years? That is my position to date. That was actually
:12:15. > :12:23.my position in government. Privately that was the view I
:12:23. > :12:28.expressed. I said to the Prime Minister that I could see no case...
:12:28. > :12:31.I said I had not met any Conservative member in the country
:12:31. > :12:36.there was in favour of cutting expenditure on the Armed Forces. He
:12:36. > :12:40.said, I gave a commitment, like I did on the third runway, and one
:12:40. > :12:43.has to respect the Prime Minister's integrity on this. My view is that
:12:43. > :12:49.the world has changed, the circumstances have changed. On a
:12:49. > :12:53.positive note, both Philip Hammond and Liam Fox did a fantastic job in
:12:53. > :12:58.sorting out the horrendous state of the MoD's accounts. They are now
:12:58. > :13:03.balanced, and would you believe it, we have even got a contingency
:13:03. > :13:10.amount of �12 billion in the budget! We had better leave it
:13:10. > :13:14.there. For it is time for our daily quiz. Later in the programme we
:13:14. > :13:21.will be talking about a new comedy a BBC Four, where Bob Servant is
:13:21. > :13:26.pitched into a by-election in Dundee. The question today - who
:13:26. > :13:31.was done the's most famous member of Parliament? Was it Gordon Brown,
:13:31. > :13:38.Winston Churchill, William Gladstone or Alec Douglas-Home? At
:13:38. > :13:43.the end of the show, Roland Rudd will give us the correct answer.
:13:43. > :13:52.have absolutely no idea! I will have it by the end of the show.
:13:52. > :14:02.was famous. What is Dundee famous for? Jam, Jews and journalism.
:14:02. > :14:08.
:14:08. > :14:10.Correct. You do not get outside of Now exams. The Education Select
:14:10. > :14:13.Committee says it has serious concerns about the Government's
:14:13. > :14:15.intentions to reform GCSEs in England. They say that introducing
:14:15. > :14:17.the English Baccalaureate Certificate in place of GCSEs so
:14:17. > :14:26.quickly could threaten the stability of the exam system and
:14:27. > :14:30.will do little to help less able pupils. Instead, the Government
:14:30. > :14:39.should be concentrating on the 40% of pupils, who do not achieve five
:14:39. > :14:42.good GCSEs. Yes, well it has been called the biggest shake-up in
:14:42. > :14:45.school exams for 16 year olds in England in a generation. The plan
:14:45. > :14:48.is for GCSEs, seen by some as too discredited due to concerns about
:14:48. > :14:52.grade inflation and dumbing down, to be replaced by the English
:14:52. > :14:54.Baccalaureate Certificate or EBC. Students in England are due to
:14:55. > :14:56.begin studying the EBC in two years' time - initially in
:14:56. > :15:04.mathematics, English and science, though eventually history,
:15:04. > :15:07.geography and languages will also be included. Education Secretary
:15:07. > :15:10.Michael Gove says the aim of the reforms is to restore rigour to the
:15:10. > :15:15.education system. Announcing the reforms last September, he said: It
:15:15. > :15:18.is time for the race to the bottom to end. But critics say the EBC
:15:18. > :15:22.will be too narrow and will sideline subjects like art, music,
:15:22. > :15:25.religious studies, design and technology and drama studies. And,
:15:25. > :15:30.this morning, the Education Select Committee said the Government is
:15:30. > :15:40.doing too much too fast. I am joined now by the BBC's education
:15:40. > :15:45.correspondent, Luke Walton. How serious it is this criticism?
:15:45. > :15:51.a swingeing attack. It says the Government has not proved the case
:15:51. > :15:58.for GCSEs to be scrapped in key subjects. It mentions concern about
:15:58. > :16:06.less able pupils being left behind and subjects not covered by the new
:16:06. > :16:12.EBacc will be downgraded. It also voices particular concern about the
:16:12. > :16:17.plan to ask exam boards to franchise the qualification. It
:16:17. > :16:23.says introducing that change and a very tight timetable is a recipe
:16:23. > :16:28.for turmoil. This is just the latest in a series of criticisms. A
:16:28. > :16:38.few months ago England's main exam regulator wrote to ministers
:16:38. > :16:39.
:16:39. > :16:44.voicing concern about the pace of reform. There -- there has been
:16:44. > :16:51.disapproval from head teachers and exam boards. The proposals are just
:16:51. > :16:56.for England. What sort of headache which cause for the rest of the UK?
:16:56. > :16:59.At the moment it looks like England is going it alone with
:16:59. > :17:07.disqualification. The Dutch government said it is sticking with
:17:07. > :17:16.GCSEs in all subjects. -- the Welsh government. Northern Ireland, we
:17:16. > :17:21.understand, is running its own review into the future of exams for
:17:21. > :17:28.14 to 18-year-olds. Scotland has had its own system of exams for a
:17:28. > :17:33.long time. There is concern about fragmentation of exams. That'll be
:17:33. > :17:36.a headache for universities and employers. With us now is Graham
:17:36. > :17:39.Stuart, who is the chairman of the Education Select Committee This
:17:39. > :17:42.morning, the top experts from the big four accountancy firms appeared
:17:42. > :17:45.before the Public Accounts Committee. What is wrong with the
:17:45. > :17:49.English Baccalaureate Certificate, as being proposed? What we say is
:17:49. > :17:53.the Government is right to say that 16-year-old exams need to be
:17:53. > :17:58.reformed, cut down the number of resits and have more testing at the
:17:58. > :18:03.end of the course and tackle grade inflation. What they are saying is
:18:03. > :18:09.they want to scrap GCSEs in this core group of subjects because the
:18:09. > :18:13.GCSE brand is broken and tainted. You do not agree? We do not think
:18:13. > :18:18.the Government has made a strong enough case to justify it. How is
:18:18. > :18:22.it that most subjects will be left with this discredited brand as
:18:22. > :18:32.GCSEs for years to come? Is it because those five are the ones
:18:32. > :18:32.
:18:32. > :18:37.that he really cared about -- cares about? Computer science has just
:18:37. > :18:43.been added to the science collection today. We're not short
:18:43. > :18:49.of the details. You think that improvements could be made by
:18:49. > :18:52.reforming, stiffening, toughening up the GCSE system? It is a cross-
:18:52. > :18:58.party group which accepts the Government make mistakes on things
:18:58. > :19:05.like the diploma where they did not listen to things about curriculum
:19:05. > :19:15.design. Thousands of children took the Diplo, -- the Diplo match and
:19:15. > :19:19.
:19:20. > :19:24.it has a -- it has up with it on the fine. It has massive political
:19:24. > :19:29.implications if it is not right. Cross-party we support a lot of the
:19:29. > :19:35.things you want. Let's look again at the methodology and make sure
:19:35. > :19:37.you get the implementation right. There is no point of bringing in a
:19:37. > :19:43.reform witches and kicked by another government and does not
:19:43. > :19:49.have the support of universities, employers and the profession itself.
:19:49. > :19:54.It is a good idea to ensure we have more we get in education. When the
:19:54. > :19:59.last government got rid of languages being compulsory, I think
:19:59. > :20:05.up was a huge mistake. We need to speak languages. We have been
:20:05. > :20:10.running a campaign to make at least one language compulsory. There is a
:20:10. > :20:14.need to make it better. I would be concerned that if you had two
:20:14. > :20:21.systems, you are left with some good subjects which are still going
:20:21. > :20:28.to be GCSE and tainted as grated two and great one for the key ones.
:20:28. > :20:35.You need to do one or the other. You cannot have two systems running
:20:35. > :20:39.together. That will be bad for the subjects that matter. Do you accept
:20:39. > :20:45.that GCSE qualifications have become devalued? It may not be
:20:45. > :20:51.possible to have one exam system covering those who are not at all
:20:51. > :20:56.academically gifted but also covers those who are going to head for the
:20:56. > :21:02.Russell group of universities. irony is that the Government is not
:21:02. > :21:07.a aware of how many people took the foundation Tear of GCSE. This exam
:21:07. > :21:17.will be sacked by a wider range of children and is the current main
:21:17. > :21:19.
:21:19. > :21:23.GCSE. -- will be sacked. It will be broader. The Government asserts
:21:23. > :21:33.Bury's -- the Government says it is a harder exam and it will be taken
:21:33. > :21:36.
:21:36. > :21:44.by more people. you move your measurement. We do not have the
:21:44. > :21:50.curriculum review yet. How you can come out with an assessment - you
:21:50. > :21:55.have a top Tia - without having the foundations in place. We do not
:21:55. > :22:01.know what you are supposed to teach and how schools can be held to
:22:01. > :22:05.account. We do not know how it will be assessed. It does not seem very
:22:05. > :22:11.coherent. If there were red lights flashing, the Secretary of State
:22:11. > :22:19.said he would listen. We think they are flashing pretty brightly. I am
:22:19. > :22:24.sure he will listen. You do not stand at all sure! I hope he will
:22:24. > :22:29.listen. He has a real sense of urgency to. There has been grade
:22:29. > :22:35.inflation which needs to be tackled. He wants to take us to a more
:22:35. > :22:40.rigorous set of exams. More stretch of the more able. Those sorts of
:22:40. > :22:44.things are right. You need to make sure you're clear about he wins and
:22:44. > :22:48.who loses, in particular about the Government that commits to closing
:22:48. > :22:55.the gap between rich and poor, there must be a positive outcome
:22:55. > :23:05.for children with lesser abilities, as well as the Mini Michael Goves,
:23:05. > :23:06.
:23:06. > :23:11.who are sitting in schools today. Isn't it a very confusing today for
:23:11. > :23:19.teachers, pupils and parents? When I was at primary school and then
:23:19. > :23:24.grammar school, in Scotland, take the English exams, it was large-
:23:24. > :23:30.scale largely O-levels and A-levels so throughout the whole period.
:23:30. > :23:37.There was an exam below the O-level as well. Since then there has been
:23:37. > :23:42.a proliferation of exams. I have no idea where to start. It is true.
:23:42. > :23:48.Nothing irritates children more than when you tell them it is
:23:48. > :23:54.easier today than it was in our day it! It was, wasn't it? I do not
:23:54. > :23:58.know. If you have a permanent revolution in education you have
:23:58. > :24:05.problems. There has been deflation in these grades. They raise their
:24:05. > :24:15.questionnaire has been a problem in terms of standards. -- there is no
:24:15. > :24:16.
:24:16. > :24:22.question there has been a problem. What I am concerned about is it has
:24:22. > :24:32.escalated. It will takeover GCSEs with a new system. We are looking
:24:32. > :24:32.
:24:32. > :24:38.at ditching exams at AS-level. at the same time. There will be new
:24:38. > :24:48.A-levels, a new AS-levels and new GCSEs. He needs to get staff and
:24:48. > :24:52.
:24:52. > :24:59.pupils ready to do it. Can you do a special level A-level? No, they are
:24:59. > :25:07.long gone. Thank you very much. Good luck with Michael Gove. Come
:25:07. > :25:16.back and tell us how you got on. The top expects from the big four
:25:16. > :25:19.accountancy firms stood accused of aiding and abetting corporate tax
:25:19. > :25:23.avoidance. But, as the hearing progressed, it seemed that they
:25:23. > :25:28.might also be engaging in question avoidance. I have won the scheme
:25:28. > :25:37.you offered to a company called Carlisle. Basically you devised the
:25:37. > :25:46.most complex company structure - absolutely extraordinary company
:25:46. > :25:52.structure. This is a company called Carlisle. They were European real-
:25:52. > :26:00.estate partners. Then you devised a hugely complex structure. That is
:26:00. > :26:07.the company structure. People listening will not be able to see.
:26:07. > :26:14.Two subsidiaries in Jersey. One subsidiary in Luxembourg. A whole
:26:14. > :26:24.purpose of the complexity of this structure is too, in your words,
:26:24. > :26:30.minimise tax - in my words, avoid tax. I know you cannot answer. This
:26:30. > :26:39.is your personalised offer to large corporations - to create a very
:26:39. > :26:46.complex set of company structures - the purpose of which, for you, is
:26:46. > :26:50.minimising tax and for us, avoiding tax. I cannot comment. The tax law
:26:50. > :26:56.is very complex in the UK and internationally. The Finance Bill
:26:56. > :27:00.just passed his 50 pages longer than any other finance bill. Do you
:27:00. > :27:07.offer a complex structures, involving setting up structures in
:27:07. > :27:15.low-tax jurisdictions bike in this case Luxembourg and Josie and
:27:15. > :27:21.Delaware and the Cayman Islands? Do you do that for the purpose of
:27:21. > :27:24.minimising tax? It will be one of the things that is taken into
:27:24. > :27:28.account. And we're joined by the Lib Dem peer and former Treasury
:27:28. > :27:33.spokesman Matthew Oakeshott. Is the coalition winning the war against
:27:33. > :27:38.tax avoidance? It is an uphill struggle. They are trying. I have
:27:38. > :27:43.been campaigning on this for many years in opposition and now. We are
:27:43. > :27:52.getting the message across that it is unacceptable. It has been a
:27:52. > :27:56.struggle. We were not helped by Sir Philip Green. Obviously we have the
:27:56. > :28:02.chairman of Google, one of the world class tax avoiders. At the
:28:02. > :28:09.moment he is on the business advisory group of David Cameron.
:28:09. > :28:15.Maybe we could get some more tax money out of him? I do not think
:28:15. > :28:20.talking to him would help. He has been very honest about it. There
:28:20. > :28:26.are ways of being very aggressive and not. I think George Osborne got
:28:26. > :28:31.it right in the Budget. He said aggressive tax avoidance is morally
:28:31. > :28:38.repugnant. We're trying to shame big companies into not doing
:28:38. > :28:45.morally repugnant things. You love to tinker and get your weight and
:28:45. > :28:53.have a tax cut here or a tax incentive there and so on. How big
:28:53. > :29:01.is a handbook? It is enormous. is not like that. It is like this!
:29:01. > :29:09.How many pages? 11,000 pages. not in government. I have never
:29:09. > :29:17.been in government. A lot of what I do is try to make it simple. Tried
:29:17. > :29:23.to stop all the dodges actually. First of all, Gordon Brown doubled
:29:23. > :29:29.the size and created hundreds of ways in which expensive accountants
:29:29. > :29:34.can find ways around it. This coalition government has added
:29:34. > :29:39.thousands more pages. I am not the coalition government and I am not
:29:39. > :29:44.Gordon Brown. As pension spokesman, I spent a lot of my life trying to
:29:45. > :29:50.stop Gordon Brown and Labour having such a lot of ridiculous tax
:29:50. > :29:57.arrangements. I have spent a lot of my life campaigning for
:29:57. > :30:00.transparency and simplicity. We are making progress. We got
:30:00. > :30:05.PricewaterhouseCoopers in the frame having to defend the outrageous
:30:05. > :30:14.things they do. There are two reasons why companies and people
:30:14. > :30:18.used the Cayman Islands. Basically you are doing it because it is
:30:18. > :30:23.corrupt and dirty money bought it is money that is avoiding tax. No
:30:23. > :30:32.other reason for it. reputational risks for companies
:30:32. > :30:38.now... Have I knew advising Starbucks? Yes. It is quite large
:30:39. > :30:43.reputation any. They are probably exploiting the huge tax code which
:30:43. > :30:49.has been created. There is a reputational risk if they are not
:30:49. > :30:55.seem to be paying their fair whack. That is right. I agree with what
:30:55. > :30:59.has been said. Going abroad to avoid paying tax is not acceptable.
:30:59. > :31:04.One of the things we are trying to encourage people to do is that you
:31:04. > :31:09.should not be honoured if you are avoiding tax. That has happened in
:31:09. > :31:19.the past and should not happen again. The mood has changed.
:31:19. > :31:21.
:31:21. > :31:30.I have campaigned against Lord Ashcroft and other people, non-doms,
:31:30. > :31:34.getting status in the House of Lords, and I have done that. Amazon
:31:34. > :31:39.is a new one, but we have certainly got Lord Ashcroft to come onshore.
:31:39. > :31:42.It may be of symbolic importance, and I think most people will think
:31:42. > :31:46.it is only right that if you're not in this country paying your tax,
:31:47. > :31:50.then you should not be part of the tax and spend debate. You should
:31:50. > :31:54.not be in our legislative chamber. And you should not be honoured,
:31:54. > :31:58.that's fine, it is your choice, you can live anywhere in the world, and
:31:58. > :32:01.you should not get certain things if you do not live here. I
:32:01. > :32:05.understand that. But that is not going to make a blind bit of
:32:05. > :32:11.difference to the Treasury, trying to get these billions of pounds. It
:32:11. > :32:16.is not going to change overnight. EU regulations encourage companies
:32:16. > :32:20.to place their intellectual property rights in Luxembourg. So,
:32:20. > :32:28.what is the problem they fact I think it is true that you are going
:32:28. > :32:33.to have to have a more clear tax system. You have got mixed messages.
:32:33. > :32:38.We have had a message which said, if you come to Britain, you must
:32:38. > :32:42.pay a higher tax than the law necessarily says you have to pay.
:32:42. > :32:47.That is a confusing message to companies. It has to be one clear
:32:47. > :32:50.message. I agree with that, and this is work in progress for George
:32:50. > :32:55.Osborne. He stuttered of sending out a message of, come to Britain,
:32:56. > :33:00.it is the lowest tax place in the world. It is hard for him to move
:33:00. > :33:04.on from that and say, no, we do not want to say that. We need to look
:33:04. > :33:07.at the practical things that need to be done now. The key things
:33:07. > :33:11.include much more transparency in company accounts, so that we can
:33:11. > :33:15.actually see, and have proper reporting, country by country, for
:33:15. > :33:21.these big internationals. If you are Google, turning over billions
:33:21. > :33:26.here and only paying �6 million in tax, that means - and I believe
:33:26. > :33:31.there should be reform of company law, so that all big companies have
:33:31. > :33:36.to show exactly what they are paying, and the directors and the
:33:36. > :33:41.non-executives have to explain how much below the corporation tax what
:33:41. > :33:47.they are paying actually is. A lot of these companies depend on public
:33:47. > :33:51.approval. Starbucks is a case in point. They are minor tax dodgers,
:33:51. > :33:58.compared to Google and Amazon. Can I have my feet afterwards for that
:33:58. > :34:06.one, please? Your client is almost whiter-than-white! You can go to
:34:06. > :34:15.Costa Coffee, or wherever else, rather than... Did that come out of
:34:15. > :34:18.the PR budget? It is a pre-payment. It is just up front? No, they have
:34:18. > :34:25.restructured their business, so they are going to be paying tax.
:34:25. > :34:30.They wanted to pay tax immediately, now. On a turnover of? They do not
:34:30. > :34:35.split it up, it is a difficult question, because they have
:34:35. > :34:41.transfer pricing, of course. An awful lot of activity seems to
:34:41. > :34:47.happen in Holland. Holland as well as Luxembourg have got a reputation,
:34:47. > :34:51.in EU terms. But this is all part of getting this. In the Times today,
:34:51. > :34:57.PricewaterhouseCoopers are saying, we do not do this kind of thing any
:34:57. > :35:00.more. I am naming and shaming them, but I am also... We do not do mass
:35:00. > :35:09.market tax-planning schemes any more, they say. In other words,
:35:09. > :35:14.they only do a bespoke tailoring. bet you Starbucks' marginal rate of
:35:14. > :35:18.tax is a lot lower than mine. would never bet with you, Andrew.
:35:18. > :35:22.If they did not have a reputation or problem, they would not be
:35:22. > :35:26.paying Roland Rudd good money! After months of campaigning,
:35:26. > :35:29.residents of south London found out the fate of services at Lewisham
:35:29. > :35:31.hospital this morning. The Health Secretary told the House of Commons
:35:31. > :35:36.that whilst he understood the concerns of local people, he had
:35:36. > :35:39.taken advice that the future of health services in the area would
:35:39. > :35:46.be better if the accident and emergency department at Lewisham
:35:46. > :35:50.was downgraded. He explained why he felt he had no choice. The NHS
:35:50. > :35:53.Trust and is the most financially challenged in the country, with a
:35:53. > :36:00.deficit of �65 million per annum. It currently spends �60 million a
:36:00. > :36:04.year, 16% of its annual income, to service two PFI contracts, signed
:36:04. > :36:08.in 1998. For this and other reasons, repeated local attempts to resolve
:36:08. > :36:12.the financial crisis at the trust have failed. As a result, the trust
:36:12. > :36:17.is losing more than �1 million every week. In the three years
:36:17. > :36:21.since it was formed in 2009, it has generated a deficit of �153 million,
:36:21. > :36:26.a figure which will rise to more than �200 million by the end of
:36:26. > :36:29.this financial year, a huge amount of money, which has to be diverted
:36:29. > :36:34.away from frontline patient care. That was the Health Secretary,
:36:34. > :36:39.Jeremy hunt. We can now welcome our viewers in Scotland, who have just
:36:39. > :36:44.finished watching First Minister's Questions. Now, with us from
:36:44. > :36:49.outside Lewisham Hospital is Alex Bushill from BBC London. What has
:36:49. > :36:54.the reaction been? As you would expect, dismay, disappointment and
:36:54. > :37:00.anger. They say that this decision to close the accident and emergency
:37:00. > :37:04.unit here, downsizing it to a minor, urgent care centre, as well as
:37:04. > :37:10.downgrading the maternity unit, is grossly unfair. They say the south
:37:10. > :37:13.London Health Care Trust, this hospital, has debts, but they are
:37:13. > :37:19.manageable. They do not see why they should be forced to pay for
:37:19. > :37:22.the mismanagement of the neighbouring trust. The accident
:37:22. > :37:27.and emergency unit will go, and in its place there will be an urgent
:37:27. > :37:31.care centre, which means that those 120,000 people who come through the
:37:31. > :37:36.doors currently, that will drop to 60,000 people. The maternity unit
:37:36. > :37:41.will this capacity as well. 4,500 births every year here at Lewisham
:37:41. > :37:45.Hospital. That will shrink now to 1,000 births. So, there is a great
:37:45. > :37:49.deal of anger here. And as we saw last weekend, the campaigners have
:37:49. > :37:54.been out in some force. They say the argument may be lost, but the
:37:54. > :37:57.battle is not over. They will continue to fight this, they say.
:37:57. > :38:00.They say there are three years for the implementation to be carried
:38:00. > :38:02.out, and they say they build continue to try to frustrate the
:38:02. > :38:05.Secretary of State. They say they will also be seeking judicial
:38:05. > :38:08.review. They say the public consultation period has not been
:38:08. > :38:12.long enough. They are looking for three months of public consultation,
:38:12. > :38:18.which is why they will be going to the court to try to overturn that
:38:18. > :38:23.decision. With us now is Mike Farrar from the NHS Confederation,
:38:23. > :38:28.and the Conservative MP Nick de Bois. What do you say to that
:38:28. > :38:31.reaction, that it is grossly unfair, particularly because Lewisham has
:38:31. > :38:36.not mismanaged its finances in the way that neighbouring hospitals
:38:36. > :38:39.have? The point is a more general one. About the country, people are
:38:39. > :38:43.thinking about the changes to the Health Service which we need to
:38:43. > :38:46.make. At the moment, the way in which hospital care and primary
:38:46. > :38:50.care is organised means we are not getting the best results for
:38:50. > :38:56.patients. We are not spending the money has wisely as we can. We need
:38:56. > :39:00.to make a strong case for a case -- for change, of course, with public
:39:00. > :39:05.opinion as well. If we do that, we would like to think that we could
:39:05. > :39:10.count on political support from our elected colleagues at. Can you not
:39:10. > :39:13.count on that support? In many cases, we can. But we have seen
:39:13. > :39:17.cases where politicians have agreed with me in private, for example,
:39:17. > :39:22.when I was running health services, but have then said, they feel they
:39:22. > :39:25.have to be at the front of the march. That is not helpful. Do you
:39:25. > :39:29.think actually you're not being straight with your constituents
:39:29. > :39:33.when, in fact, as an MP in an area where a local hospital is proposed
:39:33. > :39:38.for closure, because perhaps it is failing or it is not as good as it
:39:38. > :39:44.would be if there was a merger, by saying, I am going to campaign to
:39:44. > :39:48.keep it open at any cost? Let's deal with that directly. I was
:39:48. > :39:56.elected to fight to save chase Farm accident and emergency from being
:39:56. > :40:00.downgraded. Fundamentally because the neighbouring area, Barnet, was
:40:00. > :40:05.saddled with ghastly Beefy debts. This was a consultation which many
:40:05. > :40:10.people had lost trust in. -- PFI gets. I was elected to do that job.
:40:10. > :40:14.There was no question. You were elected to do that job - is it the
:40:14. > :40:18.right decision to back keeping a hospital open if there is a
:40:18. > :40:22.clinical case which clearly says, we would be better off closing this
:40:22. > :40:27.unit and having a larger, more specialist unit up the road? It is
:40:27. > :40:31.not for a politician to start arguing about the clinical case. My
:40:31. > :40:37.criticism of the debate which has gone on around chase Farm is that
:40:37. > :40:41.the medical profession did not step up to the mark, did not make the
:40:41. > :40:46.case. If they had done that, they could win the hearts and minds of
:40:46. > :40:50.people, if it was the right thing to do. Why are they not doing that?
:40:50. > :40:53.He is white, we have to win the hearts and minds of people, and
:40:53. > :41:00.clinicians need to be involved in making that case. My argument is
:41:00. > :41:04.that where those cases for change have been made, like saving lives
:41:04. > :41:08.or improving survival rates from stroke, where commissions are
:41:08. > :41:13.saying that, I would expect my MP to be supportive of that. Would you
:41:13. > :41:16.like local politicians to keep out of the debate altogether? I am a
:41:16. > :41:20.democrat, I believe in democracy. It is really important that people
:41:20. > :41:24.understand why these changes are in their interests. They look for
:41:24. > :41:30.political leadership from their MPs.. But I have got the letter
:41:30. > :41:34.here, which you actually wrote to the medical director of the NHS,
:41:34. > :41:38.saying that actually, the front line professionals just were not
:41:38. > :41:41.there on during the case, they were not taking the lead. If they are
:41:41. > :41:44.not there arguing for a hospital to be closed because there was a
:41:44. > :41:48.better alternative, then you cannot expect politicians to do it for
:41:48. > :41:52.you? I would accept that. I think we have got to step up to the plate,
:41:52. > :41:59.we have to make the clinical case for change, we have to explain what
:41:59. > :42:05.it means. But also, we then depend on our politicians. Do you think
:42:05. > :42:08.there will ever be a case of MPs standing there saying, I think our
:42:08. > :42:14.local hospitals should close? Could that ever be the case, even when
:42:14. > :42:20.the clinical case is clear? would be an extremely foolish MP
:42:20. > :42:26.who stood outside an accident and emergency, which are massively
:42:26. > :42:28.reduced number of people were going to, and not saying, safe this
:42:28. > :42:32.accident and emergency. Particularly when the Government
:42:32. > :42:36.themselves have said that actually, if we do not win the support of GPs
:42:36. > :42:40.and patients, this is one of the four tests. So, in a way, you have
:42:40. > :42:44.got this conflict going on between winning the medical argument, which
:42:44. > :42:49.they think is a reasoned argument, and one that needs to be fronted by
:42:49. > :42:53.the medical profession, and only then, I think, should the
:42:53. > :42:57.politicians be making the point about reflecting their constituents,
:42:57. > :43:02.as to what they wish to do. These things do not happen overnight.
:43:02. > :43:06.Chase Farm has been going on since 2005. Constituents are never going
:43:06. > :43:10.to campaign to close the hospital, even if the numbers are low, unless
:43:10. > :43:13.they are persuaded of a clinical argument, with the backing of the
:43:13. > :43:17.local MP. If they are told that distances to the nearest hospital
:43:17. > :43:21.may be further, but you will see a specialist, and your rate of
:43:21. > :43:24.survival will increase, that is the argument you need to make as well?
:43:24. > :43:28.If that was a valid argument, I could see a case for someone doing
:43:29. > :43:33.that. But when you have eight years of consultation being held behind
:43:33. > :43:40.closed doors in central London, remote from the constituency, take
:43:40. > :43:43.a look at my example, chase Farm. If you say, we are going to consult
:43:43. > :43:49.the majority of people from Barnet, Haringey and Enfield, which is the
:43:49. > :43:53.area we are talking about, is it any wonder that there is a majority,
:43:53. > :43:57.based on Barnet and Haringey, which said, we would rather downgrade
:43:57. > :44:02.chase Farm and give everything to our neighbouring hospitals, which
:44:02. > :44:05.is now happening? I think the medical profession have to take the
:44:05. > :44:15.lead, but I am not signing up to anything which has been going on
:44:15. > :44:18.
:44:19. > :44:22.where it has not been transparent It is an issue that is not just
:44:22. > :44:23.dividing the political class. The business world has been to-ing and
:44:23. > :44:27.fro-ing over whether David Cameron's promise to renegotiate
:44:27. > :44:30.our relationship with Europe and set a date for a referendum - five
:44:30. > :44:40.years from now - is a good move for Britain. So what impact is it
:44:40. > :44:45.
:44:45. > :44:50.likely to have on firms? Susana Who likes a bit of European tipple?
:44:50. > :44:54.Tom, the resident wine expert here it is partial to a Bordeaux. A
:44:54. > :45:00.couple of miles away, but Prime Minister is after something with
:45:00. > :45:06.less of a European flavour. The wind is an analogy for David
:45:06. > :45:16.Cameron a pester Ps promised to Alter our relationship with the EU.
:45:16. > :45:18.
:45:18. > :45:23.-- David Cameron's promise. All those promises have got people in
:45:23. > :45:28.the business world wondering whether the plan has legs. There is
:45:28. > :45:32.no doubt that our continental competitors are all going to be
:45:32. > :45:37.going out there saying, do not invest in Britain, you do not know
:45:37. > :45:43.whether they will have access in the single market or not. Come to
:45:43. > :45:48.us. We need to say, you will have confidence in Britain's future.
:45:48. > :45:52.PM was making clear that the single market remains the sparkling wine
:45:52. > :45:59.in the relationship and there is no question of David Cameron wanting
:45:59. > :46:06.the fizz to go out on that. Around half the UK trade's foreign
:46:06. > :46:13.investment is in UK markets. It says 3.5 million jobs in the UK are
:46:13. > :46:16.linked to export of goods and services to the EU. They say a fine
:46:17. > :46:22.wine gets better with age. Some business leaders think our
:46:22. > :46:28.relationship with Europe has become a bit sour. Business needs to be
:46:28. > :46:32.negotiated settlement within the EU. Currently, it is not helping our
:46:32. > :46:39.economy. If anything, the EU is a job destruction machine, rather
:46:39. > :46:44.than an entity that helps to create jobs and wealth. EU regulation does
:46:44. > :46:50.have the cost for British firms. It says companies spend up to �9.4
:46:50. > :46:54.billion on it in 2010. Uncertainty about what flavour we would end up
:46:54. > :46:57.with after a renegotiation on referendum has got some worried
:46:57. > :47:02.their firms in emerging markets may go elsewhere. The British Chambers
:47:02. > :47:08.of Commerce, which supports renegotiation but does not want to
:47:08. > :47:13.leave the EU, says those fears may be exaggerated. There may be those
:47:13. > :47:19.who decline to make decisions because of delay and uncertainty.
:47:19. > :47:23.Many said they will plough ahead anyway because it's his the
:47:23. > :47:31.location, legal system and friendliness which causes them to
:47:31. > :47:35.invest in the first place. -- it is the location. Will that be enough?
:47:35. > :47:45.The business world may find out in five years' time, which is how all
:47:45. > :47:54.this English wine happens to be. -- old. Joining us now is the City
:47:54. > :47:59.Spokesman for UKIP, Steven Woolfe. Business is divided. It is subtle.
:47:59. > :48:03.Do you accept that if Britain could negotiate a less odorous
:48:03. > :48:08.arrangement with the EU, most people would prefer to stay in?
:48:08. > :48:14.Good morning. Thank you for inviting me. Your point is on the
:48:14. > :48:19.premise that you can renegotiate. We do not believe that is possible.
:48:19. > :48:24.There has never been a renegotiation since the history of
:48:24. > :48:29.the European Union. It is quite nines were them to think they can
:48:29. > :48:34.have this but the practicalities are that most businesses recognise
:48:34. > :48:39.it is impossible. Where do we want to be in this global economy? What
:48:39. > :48:44.do we want to do? When they look at the European Union, they are saying,
:48:44. > :48:49.that is one market but it is not the only market. In many ways, it
:48:49. > :48:54.is not the pre-eminent market. Our trade with the rest of the world
:48:54. > :48:58.has increased to 55%. Most businesses with any form of export
:48:58. > :49:03.to the European Union are passionate about wanting to stay in
:49:03. > :49:08.the European Union. They want a reformed European Union. If you
:49:09. > :49:14.keep talking about renegotiation and opt-outs, you are not going to
:49:15. > :49:19.get them. Do not put the bar too high. Look carefully at what you
:49:19. > :49:25.can get in terms of multilateral reforms, which other countries want,
:49:25. > :49:29.like the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and Italy. If you do that a
:49:29. > :49:34.work on good reforms which improve the European Union for everyone,
:49:34. > :49:38.you might well get something. People in television studios like
:49:39. > :49:44.this have been asking for reform since the 1950s. When will it
:49:44. > :49:49.happen? The creation of a single market was a huge change. That is
:49:49. > :49:55.not a reform, it is an addition. was a massive reform. It does not
:49:55. > :49:59.always mean powers coming back from the centre. Some means powers going
:49:59. > :50:04.back to the centre. The commission is on the side of Britain in terms
:50:04. > :50:10.of making a more liberal Europe. Why don't we just have a common
:50:10. > :50:13.market rather than a single market? Canada, Mexico and the United
:50:13. > :50:18.States have a free-trade agreement. They do not have the massive
:50:18. > :50:24.bureaucracy that we have in Brussels. There is too much
:50:24. > :50:33.bureaucracy. It is not just a single market. By coming up have a
:50:33. > :50:39.free trade area? -- why can we not? It is not possible. America, Canada
:50:39. > :50:43.and Mexico have it to some extent. What we managed to do was to change
:50:43. > :50:48.the European Union so we would have a better market - the biggest
:50:48. > :50:55.market in the world. We're trying to have a free trade arrangement
:50:55. > :51:01.with the US. That is the prize that Britain wants. If you are right
:51:01. > :51:07.that it is impossible for a single country to bring back powers in any
:51:07. > :51:12.substantial way, then you should not care about that? There will be
:51:12. > :51:18.a referendum when you will get to say, he has not brought back enough,
:51:18. > :51:23.vote to leave. I care passionately. I care about what happens to the
:51:23. > :51:28.people of Europe. They need the opportunity to be free of the
:51:28. > :51:32.economic difficulties that they are in. You will still get the in/out
:51:32. > :51:37.referendum and you will still be able to campaign to leave. Only Mr
:51:37. > :51:43.Cameron can deliver that. We are short of one thing and that is that
:51:43. > :51:47.you cannot. We can. We do not have a single seat but one of the most
:51:47. > :51:52.exciting things about the positive aspect of David Cameron making his
:51:52. > :51:58.speech was to show that democracy works. Pressure from ordinary
:51:58. > :52:02.citizens and businesses, joining parties like UKIP or supporting the
:52:02. > :52:08.principles, it has caused concern within the political elite in the
:52:08. > :52:13.United Kingdom. You get plenty of time to speak on this. If I can
:52:13. > :52:20.just finish. The point is, ordinary people have actually had the
:52:20. > :52:26.opportunity to press their MPs here and forced pressure on Cameron to
:52:26. > :52:31.consider that it is not an extreme idea. They need to bring it into
:52:31. > :52:36.the centre of the table of discussions. That is a positive
:52:36. > :52:42.aspect. I do not think this would happen in the European Union in its
:52:42. > :52:47.democratic framework. It is interesting to hear UKIP praising
:52:47. > :52:52.the speech by David Cameron. 90% of it was about being in Europe and
:52:52. > :52:57.the vision of being in Europe. did imply he was enthusiastic about
:52:57. > :53:02.that if he could bring home the bacon. The first part of the speech
:53:02. > :53:07.said the vision he had about Europe a wire was important. The second
:53:07. > :53:12.part was about why the future of Britain was in Europe and how he
:53:12. > :53:17.was confident he could get a reform. He needs to manage that process
:53:17. > :53:21.very carefully and be careful about the language used. He is a local
:53:21. > :53:24.man made good. He compares himself to Nelson Mandela. And he wants to
:53:24. > :53:28.beat the Westminster parties to become Broughty Ferry's independent
:53:28. > :53:31.MP. Let's meet Bob Servant, the political ingenue, pitched into
:53:31. > :53:41.sturm and drang of a parliamentary by election in BBC Four's new
:53:41. > :53:47.
:53:47. > :53:52.comedy, set in East Dundee. Inspector! I want you to know, if I
:53:52. > :54:02.am elected commit your job is safe. That would not be your decision.
:54:02. > :54:11.
:54:11. > :54:18.You are the big man from the hospital. I am the medical director.
:54:18. > :54:25.I have seen you in the papers with the big cheques. Always glad to
:54:25. > :54:35.receive a charitable donation. am elected, I will not make a big
:54:35. > :54:38.
:54:38. > :54:47.fuss if one of those big cheques should go... Go missing. I find
:54:47. > :54:53.that extremely offensive. So do I! We are joined now by the creator of
:54:53. > :55:03.Bob Servant - the writer, Neil Forsyth. How did you come up with
:55:03. > :55:04.
:55:04. > :55:11.the character? From books. I wrote his autobiography. I created this
:55:11. > :55:16.hubristic character. When a 1-did television premise, I landed on a
:55:16. > :55:25.by-election and an independent candidate. Some people say he is
:55:25. > :55:34.loosely based on George Galloway. Absolutely not! He is from Dundee.
:55:34. > :55:40.He has no bigger fan than myself. In Dundee, we do not lack those who
:55:40. > :55:46.have moustaches. You are clearly from Dundee. Do you think of
:55:46. > :55:51.character would stand a chance if he stood there? I think Brian would
:55:51. > :56:01.but not bop. What does the electorate like in Dundee? They are
:56:01. > :56:10.
:56:10. > :56:19.Broughty Ferry is the posh part of Dundee. It is to the east of Dundee
:56:19. > :56:25.and it is the posh part. It is the Scottish Riviera? Brian comes from
:56:25. > :56:32.Dundee. I managed to get the books to him and we were going to adapted
:56:32. > :56:38.for radio. He had great fun coming back and playing Bob in Dundee. It
:56:38. > :56:45.was shot in Broughty Ferry largely. It must have been nostalgic. People
:56:45. > :56:55.were approaching him on the streets. I actually think in the next Dundee
:56:55. > :56:57.
:56:57. > :57:02.election he will get a few rogue boats. Both episodes are on iPlayer.
:57:02. > :57:10.Six episodes building up to election night. Will he or won't he
:57:10. > :57:16.be coming to Westminster? I have seen quite a few MPs talking about
:57:16. > :57:21.it. Have you ever fancied being a candidate for election? Absolutely
:57:22. > :57:31.not. The reason this be so successful is it appeals to the
:57:31. > :57:37.idea of having someone who speaks as he feels. Not lobby fodder. That
:57:37. > :57:42.is why people find politics so boring. Not enough people are
:57:42. > :57:49.personalities. He does not have a filter. That carries on in future
:57:49. > :57:53.episodes. It builds very nicely. Recover things like the question of
:57:53. > :58:00.independence in Scotland which is covered in his own style. Is there
:58:00. > :58:05.a message in the series? I think there will be a couple of political
:58:05. > :58:10.messages as the stakes get higher. It is showing a man who is a big
:58:10. > :58:15.fish in a small pond who has got into over his head, I think. I will
:58:15. > :58:25.watch it. There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our
:58:25. > :58:44.
:58:44. > :58:48.Who was the most famous MP for That is fit for today. The One
:58:48. > :58:51.O'clock News is starting over on BBC One now. And I am back tonight
:58:51. > :58:53.on BBC One with Michael Portillo, Lord West, Alastair Campbell, Mary