09/07/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/07/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Daily Politics where we can bring you news of a huge political gamble.


The Labour leader Ed Miliband is the one who has rolled the dice and


crossed his fingers. He wants fundamental reforms to his party's


relations with the trade unions, which could cost them a fortune.


We'll bring you all the details. Could we see slums like these back


in Britain? We'll meet the MP who says we need new laws to stop


landlords exploiting their tenants. When does information become


propaganda? We'll take a look at how governments try and influence how we


think. And we'll take a look at Margaret


Thatcher's influence on the modern Tory party, as seen by a man who


occasionally got a bit closer than he realised!


It's here. This is the microphone. All that in the next hour.


And with us for the whole programme today is the man you saw in that


famous clip in Paris there, the BBC's former chief political


correspondent John Sergeant. Welcome to the programme. You were


absorbed in the Westminster village for 20 years, how has it changed?


think many of the old troops have gone, many people thought they knew


what they were doing. In recent times, people have realised how


little the parties can do about foreign affairs and so on. When I


was here, particularly the Thatcher period, politicians knew I could


argue maybe politicians never did have the power they said they had,


but now it is more transparent. It is more transparent.


Because of the expenses scandal, people do not think, you are an MP


and important. People think you are on the fiddle. That is an


extraordinary weight to carry around if you are like most politicians


decent, concerned, trying to make a difference. That is a reputation


which is difficult to shake, from people who are confused about


politics because so many issues are highly technical.


Also, less ideological. Is that a good thing? There is quite a lot of


consensus around some of the key issues in a way there wasn't in the


1970s. You could certainly argue it is good


for the country. The idea that politics is exciting, that is good


for political correspondents, but it is good where people think it is not


their concern and they have to get on with their business. When


politics is really exciting, what is usually happening, it is in the


middle of a war. Do you miss it? Only when I hear brilliant


colleagues being too clever. would they be? There are times when


I think some of my lovely, talented successors could say, we are not


sure. Add in it they don't know. Or to point out what the problems are


of knowing. Not so much knowing the problems, but how you cannot do


this, you don't know that. I often felt that was the key to the


audience. So, if at various points my brave, wonderful, marvellous


successors could admit they don't know, I think that would help the


audience. A bit more human, maybe. Right now, the Labour leader Ed


Miliband is delivering a speech which sets out his vision for a


reformed relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions.


The move follows the allegations that the Unite union had improperly


attempted to fix the outcome of the selection of the Labour candidate in


Falkirk, and suggestions that their broader influence had become too


great. There are 15 trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party.


Between them, they have three million members, more than half of


the total number of trade unionists in the country. Under the current


rules, members of affiliated unions pay a political levy as part of


their union subs, some of which is passed on to the Labour Party. If


individuals don't want to pay the levy, they can choose to opt out,


but few people do. Under the new rules being proposed by Ed Miliband,


union members would opt in to supporting Labour. Or, as he puts it


in his speech, "They would actively choose to be individually affiliated


members of the Labour Party". That could mean a change in the way that


union votes are treated in leadership elections, and at party


conferences. One union leader, Billy Hayes, has described the proposed


reforms as an "attack on the trade union movement". Former Labour MP


George Galloway tweeted that Ed Miliband had cut the unions adrift,


100 years ago, the trade unions found the Labour Party and, decade


by decade, from Neil Kinnock to John Smith to Tony Blair, we have been


changing that relationship. We must do so again in this generation. To


build a new politics, to do more, not less, to make individual trade


union members are part of our party. 3 million shop workers,


nurses, engineers, construction workers, people in the public and


private sector, they should be the biggest asset that any political


party in Britain has. But, today, they are not. The problem is that


they are not properly part of all that we do. Let us be frank about


this. The vast majority are not members of local parties, not active


in our campaigns, and we have to turn that around. Working people


should be at the heart of our party. That is why our relationship


with individual trade union members has got to change.


Our political correspondent Ben Wright can tell us more about what's


in Miliband's speech. He is making this speech because of


the shenanigans in Falkirk. He attacked what happened that as the


very worst sort of machine politics that needs to be put to bed. This is


his response, the charge that Ed Miliband is far too close to the


trades unions, which is why he is suggesting this. The biggest change


to the labour - trade union relationship since the introduction


of one member, one vote, 20 years ago. He says, trade unions should


only be paying affiliation fees to the Labour Party if they choose to


do so and opt in. That is a massive change if he can get it through.


Something we shall see during the day. It will be greeted with fierce


opposition from trade union leaders. It is about Ed Miliband


saying to his party and the country that this is an issue he is prepared


to grasp, and he is not in the pocket of the unions. But he is


making a wider point of the politics he wants to see, a political


challenge to the other parties. He has said he wants to see a cap on


how much MPs can earn through outside jobs. And he has said there


needs to be a start to party political talks on overhauling party


political funding which has run into so much trouble. Agreement has never


been reached between the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour. Ed Miliband says


that needs to be restarted. With me now is Gerry Morrissey,


General Secretary of BECTU, a Labour-affiliated trade union


representing the media and entertainment industries.


We had Ed Miliband saying the relationship between Labour and the


trade unions had to change. Do you agree that this is an attack on the


trade union movement? I wouldn't go that far but I think


it is an attack on stopping unions from being able to represent the


interests of their members on the political level which we have done


for many years, and democratically taken on board our members and their


views. It is difficult to see how we can do that in the future. Do you


see this as a break with the linked with unions?


I do not think it is. The Labour party needs a trade union movement,


the Labour -- the union movement created the Labour Party.


If he is insisting union members will now have two opt in actively,


in order for part of their subs to go via a political fund to the


Labour Party, will it work? I do not think so, he is doing a disservice


to the Labour Party. When unions are taking forward advice to party


conferences, we will not speak for as many people. The trade union


movement consults its members a lot more on those policy matters, issues


affecting them in the workplace, the minimum wage, the future of the BBC


licence fee, anybody inside the Labour Party does. If we don't


consult them and bring forward their views, there is no way the Labour


Party will hear these views from individual members, many are


unfortunately cynical about politicians.


Ed Miliband says there is union members will affiliate directly to


the Labour Party, he will increase the membership of the Labour Party.


There will be no middle man of the unions. History does not support


that. There was an increase up to the 1997 elections. Since then,


there has been a decline in membership. Ed Miliband has made a


knee jerk reaction speech as a result of Falkirk. We don't know the


full details at this stage. Did you see it as a dark period in


politics, what happened in Falkirk? It is not acceptable. Our union


prides itself on consulting members, this should not be allowed to


happen. Ed Miliband started this by asking Peter Hain at re-founding


Labour and one proposal was anybody could come along and nominate people


to join the party for �1. Not just unions but all avenues. That damages


democracy. Why should millions of union members


who don't even vote for neighbour and up supporting the party


financially because that is the default position -- don't even vote


for Labour. Because these are on issues in the workplace which need


to be taken forward at a political level. Why can't they opt in? The


reality of the situation is general elections, the majority of people


choose not to participate. Joining us now from College Green


are Kevin Maguire from The Daily Mirror, and The Independent on


Sunday's John Rentoul. Wellcome. How big is this move by Ed


Miliband? It has created a big fight in this party, he is panicked over


Paul Kirk -- Falkirk. This is a crisis for the Labour Party. He has


sketched out his details on the back of an envelope, he has not thought


through how he will deliver it. The unions may not back him. People are


talking about living standards, job insecurity, he has decided to put


the spotlight on his own party 's links with the unions. David Cameron


must think it will be some everyday. On that basis, it is a huge gamble


and a big calculation by Ed Miliband, does it bring him any


political capital, not just in Westminster but out in the country,


people view this as him standing up to the unions?


Yes, it is the right thing to do. Kevin is right that the timing of


this is terrible. Ed Miliband was elected against the wishes of party


members and MPs by a trade union machine operation, and he had to


demonstrate within months he was independent of the unions. He has


waited until now to do it. It is too late. The problem is it now looks


like a follower and not a leader acting out a weakness because there


has been a problem in a constituency in Scotland. Does it look weaker? He


did move to take action in Falkirk. He has now come up with what can be


seen as a massive move to change the relationship with the unions.


back a year, he was saying, this question of opting in is irrelevant.


He has changed. He should have done this in 2010, not 2013. He has the


wrong issue at the wrong time. It will also raise questions about the


legitimacy of his own election as leader. If he is saying people opted


out is the wrong way, that part of the electoral college, they voted


for him. He made a complete problem not lie kit. If they say no, it


Len McCluskey came very close this morning. It is the right thing for


him to do. It is progress. This definitely is what Tony Blair


should have done when he was leader. It is a very welcome development.


The problem is, he is trying to presented as a bold and active


leadership. He has been forced into doing it at the last minute. Let's


say this does work. Doesn't he then get the prize of putting the


problem in David Cameron scored, over things like party funding? If


it appeals more broadly to Middle England, it will work for him.


always valued people doing the right thing rather than the bold


thing. I actually think the Labour Party gets a lot from trade union


links. It gets working people represented and keeps it feet on


the ground. The truth is that David Cameron will be laughing all away.


If you are trying to get into some negotiations about finance and


parties and saying that David Cameron gets too much from the city,


the point is you do not play it or you'll cards and this game early.


He will get all of the flak. It may rumble on for months, maybe even


years. He will get a lot of stick and I think he will get very little


credit. He is sane Labour's link to the trade unions is a problem. --


he is saying. People do not see it as a problem. They are talking


about other issues - big issues. He is talking to his own party when he


should be talking to the electorate. With us now is the vice chairman of


the Labour Party, Michael Dugher, and the chairman of the


Conservative Party, Grant Shapps. Kevin says it is a disaster and


you're causing civil war within your own party. I love Kevin


Maguire. He did say we should have done this two-and-a-half years ago.


We played all Arab hearts too early. The truth is, -- hour cards too


early. The truth is, Ed Miliband has made big changes to how the


party does its business. We have associated members - people who


support as a want to play a part in our politics. It is about opening


up politics to the public. These are big changes. Today is a step


change. We cannot change Britain unless we change our cells. That is


uncomfortable and difficult for people. -- change ourselves. This


is the bold thing and the right thing to do. Why didn't you do it


three years ago? Why are you doing it now? I suggest the only reason


is because of allegations over impropriety in the Falkirk


selection. It is knee-jerk reaction from Ed Miliband. In terms of


sections, we have dealt with the Falkirk issue. -- selections. What


happened in Falkirk, I have not seen abuses like that in 22 years


of Labour Party membership. If you look at selections in reality, we


have been selecting people from the armed forces, shop workers. I'm


proud of the candidates we have got. Why are you making these changes?


The changes on selections in terms of having the code of conduct, I


admit that Falkirk has played a part in focusing the mind about


taking tough action on this. As for membership, we have taught before


about this. We have 20,000 registered supporters. It is a


continuation of the big changes in the party. It is a step change but


it is the right one. This is strong leadership, not weak leadership.


You have tried to distract about some of the vested interests in the


Tory Party. There will be a break in terms of the financial link. You


must be delighted. I can see you do not believe a word of it yourself.


This is an unmitigated disaster. Which is the disaster? You have


been asking for years for that link in affiliation for people who want


to be part of the Union, for that link to be broken and fees going to


be Labour Party? It is about a weak leader of reacting to events. The


Unite union published a paper which was withdrawn which named 40 other


constituencies. The question for you and your leader, who is weak


and owned by union barons is, when will he bring the other 40 in? To


answer your point about opting in and opting out - opting out is when


a tick a box to not automatically affiliate to the Labour Party.


Opting in would be more fair. We would have backed him all away in


doing that. We will help to legislate to make that happen. The


union barons who owned Ed Miliband have already made it clear they are


not going to do this. This is not going to happen. He ran through


wish list of things, including a contract of agreement between


candidates. That agreement is already there. They have shot your


Fox in terms of affiliation. That link provides �8 million a year to


the Labour Party. That will now be severed the stock that is the


proposal. You are pleased about that. -- that is severed. Lots of


members of Unite and others who work hard, Conservative members and


supporters, they will have the right to support whichever party


they want to through the union levy. It is welcome but he cannot deliver


it. What happens if Len McCluskey et Alf say, we are not doing it.


Every indication shows they will not do it. Every poll says they


will not do it for us stop their members will get a much stronger


boys. At the moment we have a relationship with people who fund


the Labour Party - people who drive the buses and work the factory full.


-- ate much stronger voice. They should have the strongest voice of


all. At the moment, we have a relationship with them. They do not


nearly played enough of a contribution as individuals. It is


about strengthening the voice of people in politics. I would rather


be funded by them. We will come to them in a minute. How many will


octane? We have announced today there are 2.7 million of them at


the moment. -- opt in. We're the only party that has grown in


membership. There is huge potential to recruit people through


affiliation. Let's talk to those people and say, do you want a


director and individual voice? this make Ed Miliband look like a


strong or weak leader? In my view he could not run away from this. He


could see this issue was going to grind on. It is not the perfect


place to stand. Not, can we have a nice option and a horrible option?


There are two horrible options. He knows it will be difficult. He


realises he cannot go into the next election as the person who ran away


from this issue. The issue is too big. The Conservatives have their


tails up. It is an open goal. Ed Miliband muss stop that. He was


trapped in this brave position. -- must stop. If he wins, it will help


him enormously. If he loses, it will be very difficult. He does not


often that I agree with Kevin Maguire but he was spot on. If Ed


Miliband wants a serious conversation about party funding,


we are up for that. And to agree to a cap on individual donations. --


and you agree. The problem he needs to ghetto there is he is owned by


the unions because he was put in by them. -- he needs to get over. No


other party in this country is funded in a way where everything


about that party is bought. A union leader is worried about what Ed


Miliband is proposing because of the reasons you have put forward.


That will all melt away and you will be left with the spotlight


being turned on donations on your party. I prepared to catch them at


�10,000? We have been talking about it for years. Will you say here and


now, we will be agreed and signed up to individual donations being


capped at �10,000? We have always been serious about having party


funding negotiations. We're very happy to see that resolved. It


needs to include everyone and has to include the unions. We can have


a situation where they find their way around it by turning individual


donations or some other approach which allows them to circumvent the


rules. What happens with the Labour Party is they own the leader, run


the policies and a place candidates as well. None of our donors have


any of those powers. We must move on to the other issue which was


brought up by Ed Miliband. millionaire owners of the


Conservative Party to bankroll the Conservative Party. They get wined


and dined at Chequers and in Downing Street. The Prime Minister


has never dealt with those allegations. York chief fund raiser


and treasurer resigned in disgrace, I seem to recall, over those


allegations of wining and dining high-value donors at Downing Street


and Chequers. You have never dealt with that. You walked away from the


all party talks. You do not want her to be a cap or take money out


of politics. Ed Miliband was not in agreement with the doctor in


principle. This issue is important. -- with the bopped in principle.


has said we will look at this in the policy review. The public is


sick to death with politics in the moment. They think we are all the


same and politicians liars are hundreds of miles away from their


own. All of us need to address that. -- and politicians lives. We are


not saying anything against people at the moment. Is it right that you


have people who have a job which is not being an MP but they do lots of


other things? In America, they had a percentage cap on the mat of


additional income you can earn. I think we need new rules and the new


limits. There are dozens and dozens of Conservative MPs, absolutely


coining it in from large companies. The public has had enough and did


all will have to go in the next Parliament. -- and it all. I do not


think to million dollar campaigns is the right way. Ed Miliband is in


enormous trouble. He is a weak leader under the grip of unions. He


is standing up and making a speech when he tries to deflect attention


in all sorts of other areas. He is trying to turn this into original


party funding discussion. That is not the issue. The issue is rigging


elections for candidates. We have talked about that. Should MPs have


second jobs? Should they be paid lots of money? Would you legislate


stop that happening? Hold on a second. Today, the row is about


elections being raped. He has raters the issue. -- being raped.


He has raised the issue. MPs should concentrate on constituents and


constituencies. It is not the issue for today at will. What do you


think about the idea of second jobs? -- at all. The public has a


right to know what is going on. What are they doing in the morning


when they should be doing something house? The way the club has


operated at Westminster for so long is not acceptable. An American


presidential candidate has to immediately publish his income tax


returns. You think, how extraordinary? I'm sure people will


look back on this period and say, they could earn any money and do


other things and set up a little office inside their offers to do


this and do that. The whole thing is... Back game is over in the


public mind. That is because of MP's reputation being tarnished by


expenses. Do not be surprised. The stoppage and say, across the board,


we're going to be clean. -- you house builders hailed a recovery in


the housing market. Good news, you might think. But, as the Labour MP


for Tottenham David Lammy explains, the long-term increase in property


prices, particularly in London, hasn't benefited everyone. He is


worried that a shortage of affordable and social housing is


pushing families into the private rental sector, with some worrying


I am worried that parts of the private rental sector of forcing


people back into poverty and squalor.


Each week when my constituents come to see me at my advice surgery, the


majority come about housing. House prices in London are so high, and


waiting lists, council waiting lists, so long. Most people are in


the private rented sector not out of They come and see me because they


are powerless. They can be evicted after six months. Their rent can go


up after just two months. The average rent is eight times the pace


of earnings. Because of this, they are too scared to ask their landlord


for improvements which are often damp and decrepit housing. These


factors make it particularly tough for families. Not only is the


frequent upheaval difficult with evictions but it is very hard to


plan for the future. I have got one constituent who has a son who has


been moved three times from local schools in just the last few years.


Imagine the impact on that young So, we need more homes like these.


That will take years to have an effect. In the meantime, tenants


need security and stability. They need a minimum five-year term for a


contract, with rents increasing no more than the price of inflation.


Landlords who offer these fair rent contract should be rewarded through


the tax system. This would offer stability to the private rented


sector, and offer rewards to landlords who do the right thing.


David Lammy is here now, alongside Carolyn Uphill, chair of the


National Landlords Association. Will you concede some tenants,


particularly families on low incomes, are getting a raw deal?


I wouldn't say there are some subtle stance is where tenants haven't got


the best accommodation. But the vast majority are happy in their private


rented accommodation. It is simply not the case that the bad landlord


who are in -- are in the majority. Are you saying that the markets


particularly in London has pushed rents up? Why is it affecting


particularly low income families? Is it just because they are not able to


afford that increasing rent and there isn't enough social housing,


rather than bad landlords? We have assured short-term tenancies of just


six months. They can put your rent up after two


months. The people gaining are letting agents. There is a fee


charge, they gain. At the same time, we are spending as taxpayers �23.8


billion on housing benefit to these landlords, when a third of


properties in London do not meet the decent standard we set for local


authorities. That is a lot of properties. Even if


the rents are being paid, the standard is not reflected in the


properties. Let us be clear, I represent the


National landlords Association and we help our members improve


standards of their properties so they can run their businesses more


successfully, have happy tenants who want to stay. On that point,


although it is possible at the end of six months, for landlords to ask


tenants to move on, in general, they do not. We survey tenants as well


and they say half of tenants have been in their property for four


years or more. Every time a landlord changes a tenant it costs money in


agency fees, marketing costs. If there is a good, reliable tenant


looking after the property, it does not suit their business to move that


Tennant on. What would be the motivation?


What I am proposing is to end this and move to a situation where you


have tenancies for five years, index link rises to inflation. This is the


system in Germany. I do not think you should be punitive and demand


landlords have a five-year tenancy but you want stability of the


landlords so they know how much they will get over five years, and


stability for tenants. Some of what people are living in is not


acceptable in a developed country. Would that work having a five-year


contract, some sort of security and a fair rent contract, whereby rent


will not increase much more than the rate of inflation?


Be careful interfering with a successful market. If the private


rental sector was not providing nearly 8% -- 18% of the homes in


this country, many would not have a roof over their heads. We are


possibly touching on rent controls which did not work. Landlords do not


have the income to invest in their property. David wants better


standards, he will not get that if you restrict income the landlord


needs. They are running a business in the


end. Of course, but we do not need to spend �23 billion in housing


benefit to landlords, picking up the cost for free school meals. We need


stability in the market. There are landlords at the bottom end for not


serving the public or their tenants. The problem is there is not enough


social housing. Labour did not build many social housing properties. This


isn't the fault of private landlords, there will always be


rogue landlords and substandard properties. That is clearly wrong.


It's really the fault of not having affordable social housing.


We had a balance after the war where a third were living in private


rented, third in social housing, a third could buy. Now the prospect of


buying in London is remote. Social housing has not been built and


labour must take its fair blame. It has decreased under the coalition.


In the meantime we have to deal with the private rented sector.


Yes, otherwise people will be living in squalid conditions. Isn't there a


case of regulation to prevent that happening. If there is such evidence


to say people are paying extortionate rents for substandard


accommodation, surely there is a case for regulation? There are


already regulations to deal with substandard accommodation.


Councils have duties and obligations and the ability to act. We would


fully support that. Rogue landlords do not do favours to the


professional landlords providing good quality accommodation. This


conversation is about London. We have housing throughout the


country, and in areas around the country there is no pressure on


rents, rents have gone down in some areas. We must not legislate for a


particular problem in a particular area, a capital city, which will


always be under housing pressure. Does London distort the market?


This is an issue in London and the South East and major conurbations.


London is a massive market, jobs are in London. The population of London


is set to grow to 10 million by 2031. We have to deal with this


problem otherwise we will see more Our guest of the day is the former


BBC chief political correspondent John Sergeant, who spent more than


20 years on the political beat, before stepping back to spend more


time on the dance floor. He started here at Westminster in 1981, with


Mrs Thatcher the figure who dominated British politics. He


watched her take on the unions, go to war in the Falklands, and


negotiate the end of the Cold War with the Russians. Most famously of


all, he was handbagged on the steps of a European summit meeting in


Paris, on the night she found out the result of Michael Heseltine's


attempt to depose her as leader of the party.


It is known as a doorstep in the trade, and they don't get better or


more memorable than this. The Prime Minister is behind you,


John. Mrs Thatcher, could I ask you to comment. Good evening. This is


the microphone. One of their most memorable moments. Yet this is --


this was the highlight of 20 years covering Westminster. A period


defined by a woman who defined post war politics. And John was there.


There are few commentators better placed to analyse the Thatcher


legacy. John Sergeant had a ringside seat here. In his book, he argues


the woman remains a Tory icon actually inflicted serious damage on


the party she did so much to shape. Some will disagree. Others will


conquer. There are few journalists Joining me now is Norman Fowler who


served in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet for her whole time in


office, from 1979 to 1990. Welcome to the programme. Your


thesis, John Sergeant, in what way did she damage the party? I wrote


that ten years ago. Can you remember! The problem was that,


obviously, she was very hurt by the way she felt she had been stabbed in


the back. So, the sense in which it was her party, not the Socialists


who had removed her, but throwing party. That was a major factor in


deciding how she would respond when she into opposition. In fact, poor


old John Major had to put up with the fact there were two leaders of


the Conservative party, the people who thought she was wonderful and


shouldn't have been removed. John Major was trying to be the Prime


Minister. That caused a terrific tension, particularly over Europe.


There were plenty of Conservatives who wanted to support Margaret


Thatcher. And others who said, you should be supporting our new leader


John Major. That pretty well finished John Major particularly


because one of the first things that happened was Britain was ejected


from the exchange rate mechanism. The whole idea of Britain being at


the heart of Europe under a Conservative leader was not


possible. While this was going on, Margaret Thatcher, she didn't mean


to really most of the time. Didn't she? She did and she didn't, it was


a difficult problem. She did not want to undermine the person she had


brought in as leader. She was behind John Major. And she wanted to behave


while. But the other part of her was, these dreadful people, can't


they see over Europe that I'm right? John Major tried to work out the


perfect position so that the Conservatives would be united on


this if only he could find what our position was. It was impossible for


him. David Cameron is amazingly in the same position. Can't we agree


this or that? Large numbers of people in the Conservative party


wanted Britain strong and independent and to help with the EU.


I personally do not think that is possible. Did she undermine her


successors? Certainly with John Major. He was chairman until 1994.


She made life much more difficult. The trouble was, the basic trouble


was she was displaced not in a general election but in an internal


election. Had she been displaced in a general election, we wouldn't have


had the problems. I remember going up to Margaret Thatcher just before


she, just after she had made the announcement she was leaving the


Commons. She was on autopilot. People were saying to her in the


division lobby. Basically her reply was, the fight must go on. She


Was her argument misrepresented? think she had steadily become more


Euro-sceptic. She was opposed to Maastricht. The significant thing


as for the party - the Parliamentary Party - is that she


was a great leader. She put some real spine into those people who


were opposing John Major on Maastricht. It could not have been


Frankie from that point of view more helpful. The other point was,


like lots of us can she felt she was right. When she felt that, John


Major and Jeffrey Howe had all been wrong over these issues - I think


that really got into her. I have been removed as party leader and I


was right and I have won three- party elections and they are all


dreadful. How did she feel about Iain Duncan-Smith and William


Hague? She felt she would back any one he was not Ken Clarke. They


lost rather fantastically, didn't they? -- who was not. William Hague


is a great politician, as we see now. It was too early for him to


become leader of the Tory Party. The fact was that she was not


prepared to see a euro enthusiasts becoming leader of the party when


it was the obvious thing for the public. If she had not interfered


and overshadowed what came after us would it have changed anything?


They she had been able to indicate she understood the problem, instead


of thinking if she were there or her side could win, that would be


straightforward, that has been a problem about Europe in my view all


along. If there had been a straightforward position. Of course


people drift into fantasy politics full debate thing we do not need


the European Union. These are very complicated arrangements. --


fantasy politics. They think. For someone like me, it is not serious


politics. It is crazy behaviour. If she could indicate there might be a


few problems about leading European Union... Sh she would have done had


she had been in office. -- she would have done. She would have


worked out what the right moves would have been calls that she was


very cautious. She did not leap into the dark. -- would have been.


Ann Widdecombe was sitting here not long ago and she said she wished


the Tories had lost the 92 election. That was quite a fashionable view


at the time. Even now she says that the stuff I had a heard her say it


before. The theory is you lose the election and bounce back in 97. --


even now she says that. I was with John Major to rout the 92 campaign.


It was very much his victory. It was entirely down to John Major.


Only in the sense he was not Margaret Thatcher! That was


extremely important that he was not her. The public actually took to


John Major and they did not take to Neil Kinnock. It was a personal


victory. His tragedy was he got more votes than Margaret Thatcher


but the tragedy was, because of the divisions in constituencies, he did


not have the votes in the House. When you are up to Maastricht, a


small number of people - which it was at that stage - could hold sway.


These things she did leave a fatal legacy? Fatal - I think is probably


overstating it. Her legacy... In that respect, in other ways it was


tremendous. The ticket ready for the Conservative Party. In that


point of view, she should have done what previous leaders have done. --


particularly for the Conservative Party. Eden did not come back and


make it difficult. Until we got Ted Heath. That again is the irony. She


had Ted Heath proving over her shoulder and being as awkward as he


possibly could be. He had not won three elections. The she did the


same. Oh well, it is all history. Now, is all political propaganda a


bad thing? When we think of propaganda many of us may think of


the techniques used by the Nazi Party in Germany, or perhaps the


spin tactics used by our political parties today. But what about


governments who use TV campaigns to encourage us to be careful when


crossing the road or warn us about the dangers of contracting HIV?


Elizabeth Glinka has been down to a special exhibition at the British


Politics is about ideas, about how things should be able to be if you


want people to vote for you, Folly you into battle or eat their Greens,


you must convince them York ideas are best. Propaganda has been a


weapon of choice for thousands of years. -- your ideas. This exhibit


dates back to 290 BC. The king of Thrace was trying to link himself


to Alexander the Great - his predecessor. Power and persuasion


brings together examples of state propaganda from around the world.


lots of people when they come to an exhibition like this, they think


propaganda is about misleading and lies for stoppages what bad people


do. When we were planning the exhibition, we took more ethically


neutral approach. We defined propaganda as any form of


communication which is designed to influence, persuade all reinforce


Some of the most recognisable images on show casts long shadows.


Propaganda gave it a bad name. should be concerned about who is


trying to influence us. Are they appealing to a set of evidence we


can see and check? Is it more about emotion and playing on existing


prejudices? Not everything has such a sinister air. Propaganda has also


been used to try to save us from ourselves and even improve our


health. There is now a danger that has become a threat to us all. The


exhibition includes the 1980s eights television advert, thought


to be the most successful public health television film ever made. -


- AIDS. The 1990s saw the emergence of propaganda as upstart little


brother - spin. Alastair Campbell says the internet has been a game


changer. Public opinion used to be based on media opinion. It is not


the same thing. That is why I have embraced it. It gives the public


more power. His propaganda plane the same old tricks? The challenge


is always have to go unnoticed. -- always to go unnoticed. It goes


through mass print media, into cinema, radio, television and your


homes. It provides a natural home for propaganda to work and get


messages and influence through unnoticed. Her while the message of


the exhibition is she should question what you are told, it is


also perhaps that some propaganda can be good for you. -- you should


question. Norman Fowler was the Secretary of State for Health at


the time of that memorable AIDs campaign of the late 1980s that we


saw featured in that film and he's still with us here in the studio.


How do you feel about that campaign - being put in the same exhibition


of some of the wartime Nazi propaganda that which used in the


1930s? It does not have any relevance whatsoever to that and


Goebbels and that sort of stuff. The other thing which came out in


that film, the I did it should not be noticed. My whole idea was that


it should be noticed. -- the idea. With HIV and AIDS Macro, there were


no drugs and no vaccines. Or you could do was warned the public of


the dangers. Did it work?Yes, it did. HIV went down and general


sexual disease went down. Then, of course, the Government being


wattages, we'll move on a meat go off the air for the next 20 years.


-- being what it is, we all move for off the air. Would you count


that campaign as propaganda? would not. The point about


propaganda, it is all very well to say they are ethically neutral,


propaganda is evil. It is completely cynical. If you were Dr


Goebbels, you are not worried about the truth of the Jews, you're


thinking, how can we hit them? The essence of propaganda, if you


repeat a light enough, people believe it. That is propaganda.


Government information - how bad is HIV going to be - is a different


sort. I should not say this in public that I was asked to be


interviewed for that and I refused. People do not see how people like


me and Norman, who has spent a whole lives in this area of


government information and reporting, we have not set out


cynically to light to the British public. Is there a fine line


between what some people would regard as public information and it


could be quite forceful and Spain - which grew out of the Tony Blair


leadership? We saw Alastair Campbell being interviewed. Is


there a worry it is presented as government information but it is a


viewpoint. You need to be aware of that. Since the years of Margaret


Thatcher, governments have feared the bit that way. If you take


something like AIDS and the difference between matter what went


before, we were about saving lives - attempting to save lives. That


was the whole purpose of what we were trying to do. Some people


might have said it was about scaremongering. It was hard hitting


- doing the opposite of what the chap was saying on the fells.


Trying to get the notice of the public. -- on the film. Isn't


government spin the propaganda of our modern age? Kids Spain, of


course, does not live. -- good spin. It admits, it puts forward


arguments about put encounter our arguments. It does all those things.


Under Adolf Hitler, the Government set up cynically to deceive the


public. You may say, it is the same. It is quite different. The best


spin doctors, they very seldom live. That is incompetent spin-doctoring


of the worst sort. You are found out. You really are in trouble.


What went wrong in Iraq was there were no weapons of mass destruction.


They thought there were. The idea that they knew there were not


weapons but they but said there were. That is not what happened.


Download Subtitles