18/10/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Energy price hikes

unleash a torrent of abuse on Twitter. But which political party

is best taking advantage of the public's anger? Sometimes they are

encouraging more of them to come here. Sometimes they are telling

them to go home. What do politicians really want to do about

immigration? Are you sitting comfortably? Plenty of MPs were at

Prime Minister's Questions. But was it right that one pregnant minister

was left standing? I think he is one of the few people old enough to be

Prime Minister who can still talk to youth. Talk to you? Lavish praise

from the Queen of romance for the last truly a wrist acrostic Prime

Minister. We mark 50 years since Alec Douglas-Home emerged that I

minister. -- as Prime Minister. All of that is coming up in the next

hour. Public service broadcasting at its finest. Who better to engage the

youthful viewers of this programme than Iain Martin of the Sunday

Telegraph and Elizabeth Rigby of The Financial Times? They are with us

for the duration. Welcome. Let's start with British Gas, everybody

else is this week. The company PR team will be hoping for a quieter

day after dealing with the fallout from yesterday's announcement of a

10% increase in energy bills. Some bright spark at British Gas, SPARC,

British Gas, get it? They thought it would be a good idea for the

customer services director to take to Twitter to answer any concerns

that customers might have. What could possibly go wrong? It is not

like it is a disaster waiting to happen. Alan Gibbs took to Twitter

to ask: Labour's press team are keen not to

miss an opportunity on this team. What is also interesting, this is an

issue that Labour, the price freezes, whatever the economic of

it, it is clearly popular and they are way ahead on it. But all of the

other polls do not show it is translating into a Labour lead over

the Conservatives, in the general voting intention? No, the Tories

would say the reason it does not translate is because, actually,

voters are not silly and they realise this probably is an

unworkable policy. You cannot just tell companies to freeze prices and

think that there will not be a fallout in terms of maybe not

investing in energy more, putting bills before the price freeze comes

in. So, it is a kind of short-term political gamble, if you like. It is

not yet playing into the polls. That said, clearly, the Tories are very

worried about that. They are worried about it. At some stage, the

coalition will need to come up with a more adequate response, because

when you ask them now, Labour is going to freeze my bill, what are

you going to do, you basically get a load of waffle. In narrow political

terms, this has been very good for Ed Miliband. A month ago he was

going into the conference season in some difficulty, the energy freeze,

unworkable as it is as a policy, there are many questions marks about

it, it has got him back in the game. The entire argument is phoney,

really, from all three of the parties. In that globalisation was

always going to push up demand and prices for gas and electricity.

Laying green costs on top of that, and then they want to blame each

other, they want to try to compete and persuade the public that energy

prices... And they have postponed investment, successive governments.

I'm not blaming one party or another. It is a slightly phoney

argument, I think. When you look at the energy record of the last Labour

government and this government, nobody comes out very well from it.

But they cover that by turning the energy bosses into the new bankers?

Absolutely. I think this is going to be the interesting story going

forwards. Just as we have seen bankers levies, are we going to get

into a situation where the energy bosses become demonised and the

government talk about putting levies on energy companies? The problem the

government have is that actually they need to have about ?110 billion

investment into new power plants over the next generation to keep the

lights on in the UK and to make us less dependent on international

gas, to make us more energy-efficient and energy secure.

So, they do not want to slam the energy companies too hard. Because

that is where the energy is about to come from? But nothing they do at

the moment makes a blind bit of difference. This deal they have done

with the Chinese and the French, the Chinese are just ponying up some

money. The French are involved in building plants in Finland and

France, eight years late and twice over budget. Nothing that was

decided in China will produce a single light bulb of electricity

until 2030. You are absolutely right. Yet again, the argument is

being conducted on a phoney basis. Also, the Tories have been rumbled,

in that for the last few months they have been trying to run this line

that they are going to be tough on green taxes. Actually, when you look

into the detail, there is very little scope for movement. Well, the

Lib Dems won't let them? Precisely. The Tories are trying to give the

impression they are tough on green taxes, which they implemented. They

voted for Ed Miliband's climate change policies? The irony of the

new nuclear power station that is finally going to be built between

the French EDF and the Chinese investor, the price that the

government are guaranteeing on the energy coming out of that is twice

the amount of current wholesale energy prices. It will be between

?90 and ?93. They are locking consumers into paying for that.

Whatever happens. They could be guaranteeing, we don't know the

details, it is coming out on Monday, but that could be a three decade

deal. That is really going to whack up prices. There could be a

documentary in this. Thank you. It is time for the daily quiz. Which of

these photographs is really of the Communities Secretary Eric Pickles?

Pickles on the beach? Pickles giving a speech? Pickles going to a

nursery? Pickles in the jungle? At the end of the show, they will

give us the correct answer. You will, won't you? Iain will. 40,000

texts, tweets and e-mails have been sent to immigrants that the

government believes have overstayed their welcome in Britain, asking

them to leave. It turns out, what a surprise, some of them went to the

wrong people. And, of course, we don't know how many of the intended

recipients were persuaded to return home. Politicians want to look tough

on immigration, an issue behind only the economy in terms of importance

to the public. But what do politicians really want to do about

it? Sometimes, politicians want people

to come. London was founded by pushy Italian immigrants called the

Romans. Where would we be without them? Sometimes they want them to

go. Sometimes they tell them to their face exactly what they think.

I'm afraid he has no right to be in the United Kingdom and he should

leave. But what do politicians really want to do about immigration?

You could be forgiven for being a bit baffled about what governments

of all types really think about what people... People that want to come

and live in Britain. Why the mixed messages? Essentially, it is very

difficult to be clear about immigration because, with the

public, you are looking to talk to their concerns about immigration.

With business, it is much more about the economic benefits. The messaging

is very difficult. Given that businesses do not vote, politicians

can be very keen to be on the right side of public opinion, or at least

what they think is public opinion. I think on immigration, there is a

sense that politicians, wrongly, think that the public are against

immigration. That they have views that may be the views in some of the

red tops, but are not actually shared by the public. There is a

view amongst the public that politicians do not want to discuss

the issue. Take those two things together, and you get a pretty

difficult relationship. And yet, according to pollsters, voters are

actually quite savvy about the kind of immigration politicians like and

the kind that gives them a headache. They do differentiate between

different kinds of migration. The high salaried, global, footloose

business leaders are welcomed and people do see immigration as part of

the progression of the economy, innovation. But, at the same time,

economic migrants are seen to be really problematic. Do politicians

have a bit more freedom to be frank about immigration than they think?

In the run-up to the election, Chris Grayling, we had a fabulous public

meeting. You know, we all said our bit. I think the public was

impressed that there was a large degree of consensus amongst

politicians about this issue and how to tackle it, including the problems

that are caused in some communities who are disproportionately affected.

So, maybe that public can handle the truth about immigration? The

question is whether the politicians can handle telling it.

We are joined by Atul Hatwal from pressure group Migration Matters and

Conservative MP Mark Reckless. Who do you want to come here and who do

you not want to come here? Well, I want to cut immigration, from the

two wooden 50,000 a year to less than 100,000. We are more than

halfway towards that goal. That is why constituents want to see it and

I want to get the numbers down. Some benefit from immigration, they might

get cheaper plumbers or cleaners. But most of my constituents are

competing with this immigrant labour and they wanted reduced. You want to

get the numbers down, even if there was a queue of people wanting to

come to this country that were well-educated educated, wealthy,

clearly going to be net contributors to the country, even if that was

true, and I am not saying it is, but if it was you would still want the

numbers to fall? There are schemes to allow people, and there are often

quite small numbers in that category, to come. I welcome that.

If you are a company and you want to bring somebody from overseas for

your company here, you are allowed to do that pretty flexibly as long

as they earn at least ?40,000 per year. I think that is flexible and a

good imitation brought in. There is a loophole, where you are allowed to

come in, largely with Indian IT companies, as long as you are here

for less than six months. There is a succession of these people. They

compete with domestic IT companies, who cannot compete with those labour

rates, given their skills, they undercut them and there is downwards

pressure on many IT people in my constituency who would like those

jobs. It's making life tougher, it is cutting the wages of those of us

that are already here. What would you say to that? We are getting

muddled between cause and effect. I speak to employers every week. They

are very clear, there would rather employ British citizens, who wore

that are brought up here, because it is easier in terms of bureaucracy.

What they say is that we have a really big skills problem in this

country. Just last week, the OECD had England 24th out of 25 on the

table. The choice is not between a British work and an immigrant, it is

between delivering business or not. To bolster our recovery and move

forwards, we need the employment. What would you say to that? Again,

take an example, look at the horticulture industry. We have been

bringing people from Romania and Bulgaria who are unfortunately able

to come entirely legally from January. I think the government has

made the right decision, rather than looking to the Ukraine and bringing

in more people, to end that seasonal scheme and say to the farmers

involved that they have to pay people more domestically to persuade

people to do that work. Yes, the price of strawberries may be higher.

But it means that people, domestically, get the chance of

deployment. People have not done this domestic for generations. This

is not a new thing. We always had migrant for seasonal farm work. If

people are paid enough or doing something, you tend to find that

people come forward. A Conservative Government wants to mandate the

level of wages paid? They want to stop immigrant labour undercutting

the domestic market. But they won't come for less than the minimum wage,

that is illegal. But that law is not always enforced as much as we like.

How many businesses has the government prosecuted for not paying

the minimum wage? Only a small number, I'm afraid. I'm worried

about the exemptions, people coming from EU countries, working for a

period and it is not clear they are receiving that. That is not fair to

my constituents. We should concentrate on skills and upping the

domestic labour force to make sure there is a fair chance to get those

jobs. There was a feeling under the last Labour Government, it might

have been right or wrong, but it was widespread, that immigration was out

of control. That numbers had become too big. It was impossible to absorb

and there was a huge illegal side as well. On top of the genuine asylum

seekers, on which we have a moral obligation to take, a lot of people

were calling themselves asylum seekers and they were not. It was

inevitable there would be a backlash? There is an issue about

the pace and management of change, which is different to the issue of

principle about immigration or not. The distribution of migrants in

small communities, the pressure on local public services, that is a

real is you. I think when it comes to illegal migration, more could be

done earlier, and I think one of the things that is broadly welcomed and

that the public welcome, actually, is to tackle illegal immigration

helps detoxify the debate around legal migration. But it is important

to say that, of the illegal migrants came Labour's term, from the access

and countries, they have contributed more in taxes than they have used in

public services, they have helped us drive forward growth, and our debt

today would be worse if they had not come. Is that true? I do not really

think it is, to the extent that people are coming in who are young

and who did not initially have that age limit. There may be more

pressures on schools from that group of people. As immigrants age, the

costs will get greater, but they have felt down wages in my

constituency, where otherwise there would be an opportunity to take

those jobs. For someone with an economic background, that sounds

logical - if you increase supply, the price will fall. The problem is

when you look for the hard economic analysis of this, to get the

evidence, it is quite hard to find the evidence that it is actually

happened. Do you have studies that can show this? I cannot find them. I

think since 2005, it is clear that we have seen a greater divergences

in incomes. At the lower end, the less skilled end, the end that is

competing with the people who came in under Labour, that is where wages

have been held down, and immigration is certainly a factor in that, and

my constituents would like to see less immigration and less pressure

on public services, but also they have the opportunity to get jobs.

But here is the rub. There are over 1 million people excluded from this

country, but they are in this country, and they are what some

people refer to as an underclass. They lack the skills and education

to participate, and employers and government have found it easier to

bring in young, motivated, educated people from abroad to take up the

jobs, rather than do all the heavy lifting required to get these people

out of an underclass situation into the labour force, productive members

of the community. Maybe what the position be on migrating that 1

million people to where they should be. Bare not mutually exclusive. In

the short to medium term, we need to keep businesses operating, so people

are needed. Is that the case when we have 2.5 million unemployed? That

does not preclude action on skills. Employers say to me that when they

advertise, big, small, medium, they go to colleges and schools, but when

they need a lot of labour, it is difficult to get them in, and what

action needs to be taken, that is... That is because it is easier to go

to the Walsall labour market, people who are well educated, ready to come

here, will quickly learn English, than to go into the worst part of

our cities and rescue these people and give them the training and

education necessary. That is much tougher, that is why you have even

had one supermarket in Liverpool, surrounded by unemployment, going to

Warsaw to get people, rather than trying to upgrade the people that

live within a mile of the store. I think the flurry over summer with

Next was quite instructive, because those companies are working with

local schools and colleges, and they are trying to fill the jobs that we,

but if the choice is between delivering the business or not, they

have got to get people who are going to work. That does not preclude

government taking much stronger action and making a public policy

choice that more must be spent, more focus and priority given to

training. Let me bring in our journalists. I would say that there

is a sort of falls to bait on this, because actually, you know, the EEC

put out figures this week saying that in terms of benefits and

unemployment benefits, actually, migrants from the EU, it was less

than 3%, it was 38,000, less than 38,000. I think what has happened in

the public space is that we are having this debate that demonises

migrants, instead of having a debate about what the benefits and cons,

and I think we need to strip away the politics of it, and actually

talk about the economics of it, because you know, you are talking

about this idea that you stop migration and stop seasonal labour,

but then if everyone puts up the price of carrots, strawberries,

potatoes, then you are going to have a government in a cost of living

crisis, pushing consumers Bill bills when they go to the supermarket. My

constituents want to see immigration reduced, and if that means you pay a

few more pence for your strawberries, my constituents get a

better chance to access jobs, I think that is positive. It is not

the unemployment benefit, it is often in work benefits, and as far

as people from Romania or Bulgaria are concerned, we give generous in

work benefits to families with children, and tens of thousands of

people are sending back their child benefit to children resident in

Poland. I want to put a stop to that. It is very difficult for the

parties to deal with this subject, because there is a strand of opinion

which believes that the matter what the mainstream parties say, they

believe they have been lied to over the last 20 or 30 years about

immigration. It is difficult for the mainstream parties to reach those

people. UKIP are reaching them. I will be fascinated to see which of

the mainstream parties is first to reach out to immigrants. I mean, we

are talking about future immigration here, but we have gone through an

enormous process of demographic and social change, and senior

politicians in either of the main parties, how much time they spend

studying who immigrants are, who have been here, staying here, making

a contribution, what do they want, what other instincts? A large number

of them might actually have Conservative instincts, they are

people who work out. We need to move on. Very briefly, are you confident

you will hit this target of getting that immigration under 100000 by

2015? We are on track, it is difficult... I am worried about

Bulgaria and Romania, I went out there, I think we want to discourage

it as much as we can. By telling them how horrible it is here. We

just have to hit that target, we said we would could immigration to

tens of thousands to restore trust in politics, and we need to do

everything we can to hit that. Now, the Government's controversial

plans to replace 20,000 regular soldiers with 30,000 reservists has

suffered a setback in the Commons. MPs voted in favour of a backbench

motion urging ministers to delay the army shake-up until it has been

shown that the plan is financially viable. A leaked MOD report has said

that the army faces increased risk to its structure and operational

capability and is recruiting just have the number of reservists it

needs. This is a flavour of the debate.

We have great difficulty, those of us that served and have seen our

comrades in action, we have great difficulty in accepting change. I

don't like it. I will fight tooth and nail to keep the Royal Regiment

of Fusiliers and the other battalions. But sometimes we are

going to have to accept that we can't. That is why people like me,

and other honourable members, honourable and gallant members on

all sides of the house, are fighting so hard for their local battalions

and regiments. I actually think that the whole plan about the Army

Reserve is a good plan. I know a great many serving reservists in my

constituency who are both excited and infused about their role in a

fully manned, 30,000 strong force which will ensure that they and

other people in the future can really make their contribution to

the British Army. The 2nd Battalion and the 1st Battalion, Royal

Regiment of Fusiliers are very close to my heart, my dad having been a

member of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers during and before the

Second World War. And I am just wondering what the ministry and what

the ministers want out of our defence forces, because one of the

battalions to be axed, the 2nd Battalion, Royal Regiment of

Fusiliers, are known as daring in all, and wherever the Fusiliers have

deployed, they have proved capable of meeting the challenge with

courage, determination and the will to win. That is on the army website.

It is true, there have been some issues in the process. It is too

bureaucratic, as some of my honourable friend have pointed out.

However, we are working with our recruiting partner and senior army

leadership to actively address these issues, and I believe we can work

through them, simplify the system and meet the objective. One is not

saying, scrap the reservists plans. In many respects, one wants them to

work. What one is saying is that there comes a point in any project

where, if you have to keep throwing extra cost into a plan, because it

is failing, because recruitment targets cannot be met, because costs

are rising, because TA numbers are at a low ebb and there is

disorganisation, when you throw more and more money into such a project,

there comes a point when you have got to say, is this project is

creating false economies? And therefore costing the taxpayer dear?

Well, one asked the Ministry of Defence for an interview but one was

told no-one was available! We can talk to Bob Stewart, a former army

colonel, commander of the UN forces in Bosnia, he has changed his tie

since yesterday, you have got more than one! For a surprise, the plan

to hire a lot more surprises is not -- more reservists is not working.

They are getting less than half the reservists they thought. We were

guaranteed, Andrew, in 2011 by the then Defence Secretary in the House

of Commons that regular battalions, regular units would not go until the

viability and the cost effectiveness of the reserve plan was shown to be

working. Neither of those things seem to be on target at the moment.

But in the public domain, there is endless talk about military cuts,

cuts to the army, the army being cut to its lowest numbers since the

volume, sending out an image that this is a declining part of our

society, so why would you be surprised that people do not want to

join what is seen to be in decline to me I am not surprised, I am not

surprised at all. I did not mean you personally, I meant the government.

Well, the government may be a little surprised. We are going to get rid

of four infantry battalions by the end of 2015. On the wildest, most

generous estimate, these 30,000 reservists will not be available

until 2018. That is a three-year gap, and all were asking us to say,

look, the problem is this, we will keep these battalions until the plan

proves to be worthwhile and cost-effective, and cost-effective

as well, because it will work if you just keep checking money at it. If

you keep throwing money at it, it will eventually work, but what about

the cost effectiveness of its? Why do we have these people when it is

cheaper to have regulars? But this is a government which is going to

reside over a ten-year gap in the navy having no aircraft carriers,

and it will have one with no planes. Why would you expect the army to

have a gap between losing its regiments and getting the reservists

in? This is par for the course, this is how defence policy is run these

days. I am not quite as cynical as you, I think we will have aeroplanes

on those aircraft carriers, they are working on it now. I agree, we will

have a problem paying for them. We will have a problem manning it, we

will have a problem, but we need those aircraft carriers. But we also

need our infantry battalions to stay at least until the viability of the

reserve plan is proven. What would you like the government to do? Stop

those four battalions being scrapped by the end of next year, the cars

that is one way of doing it. Just put them on hold, we are not saying

it will not work, maybe it will, I hope it does in a way, but I do not

want to see regular troops go, leaving us with a big capability gap

between 2015 and 2018, when we have got enough problems in defence. We

have not even got maritime air cover out to the area we are meant to

cover in the North Atlantic, which is 1400 nautical miles. We can go

out to 240 miles, we have to ask the French, the Portuguese and Spanish

for aircraft. We scrapped the nimrods. I understand the logic for

that, there is a big problem in defence, and on the other hand you

would ask me, I will not put words in your mouth, which Buddhist killer

hospitals would you like to start building? Which schools would you

stop? It is an opportunity cost, but I am saying that it is not that

much, too expensive to keep these battalions on until the plan is

proven, which we were promised in the House of Commons by the then

Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. If they hadn't spent ?4 million on nimrods

that went straight to the knackers yards, they wouldn't have that

problem. I agree. My brother is on my back practically every week about

this fact. Accountant Hammond, also the Secretary of State for defence,

is he listening to you? Of course. I am not trying to criticise Philip

Hammond. He's not doing what you want him to do. I'm criticising the

policy. He's got a problem. He inherited that plan. I don't agree

with elements of it, but I understand the logic of why it has

to happen. I would like us to buy something to replace the maritime

patrol aircraft. I would actually like some more guarantees that we

are going to be able to man and fly things off the aircraft carriers.

Iain? I think he would be unwise to be blase about it. He's been blase

since 2010 about scaling back Britain's defence capability. I

think there is a large number of Tories that are very resentful about

this and deeply worried. Actually, if you look at the numbers, take a

huge group of Tory rebels to vote with Labour, if this would in some

way, at some point in the next few months, be brought to the house then

I think David Cameron, who has a history of miscalculating and not

spotting potential rebellions, I think it is potentially significant.

I agree with that. But I think part of the problem with this programme

has been trying to get business to release people. You say this

programme, you don't mean the Daily Politics? You mean the programme to

allow employers to release people for enough time to get their

reserves? Exactly. I think they could maybe get a spike in people if

they could go back to the business groups and see if they can off in

fairness to the Minister of defence, they are putting huge effort into

that particular one. The vote yesterday, you were not

forced to be there. 92, including labour and a lot of Tories, voted

for the motion. Non-went against it. 92-0. It is a big feeling that

we should do something about this. I think there is also a bigger issue

in the defence budget. The kind of target is moving. Philip Hammond

talked a lot about cyber security and making defence for cyber

attacks. I think a lot more will have to be deployed to these kind of

invisible programmes that we don't see in terms of Italians and

soldiers. But Abe acre chunk of the budget in the next 20 years is going

to move. -- battalions. A pleasure as always. You could

always put someone from the Daily Politics into the reserve is is.

Somebody from this programme could become a reservist. That could be

positive. Have you seen our team? I've seen a couple. We are talking

about the defence of the nation, I don't think you should be so

cavalier. Well, maybe you could give some money to defence. Equalities

Minister Jo Swinson is seven months pregnant, but at to stand through

proceedings. Many people were outraged and the incident is

becoming known as seatgate. She arrives slightly late and had to

stand at the back of the chamber. If you look closely, the bottom

left-hand corner of the screen, in these pictures. She is in the pink

dress. You might think, why do we not zoom in and show you? Well, we

are not allowed to zoom in, because we cannot tamper in any way with

parliamentary footage. I promise you, she is there, standing. Later,

she moves to stand on the steps. It is a moving story. That is where she

remained for the rest of the session. Why it has become such a

big story, why is that? I have been seven months pregnant twice, let me

tell you, you want to sit down. I looked down and thought, is anybody

going to give Jo a seat? I had the same thought. She tweeted me this

morning and said she was happy to stand. I saw that. But I think the

reason that it has kind of... Sort of blown up like this, it is another

example of this slight element within politics, where women get a

slight short shrift in the chamber. To me, it strikes of... I don't

think everybody was collectively trying to be rude to her, but it is

a lack of consideration or lack of awareness. I have a point on the

tube, I always make a point to look around for a pregnant woman. But it

is not a male-female thing, whether you are a man or woman, healthy and

Rosalie Young, if you see a pregnant woman, a woman should give up her

seat as much as a man? -- relatively young. Absolutely. I think women,

once they have been pregnant, they are slightly more aware of it. But

for Jo, it is bad enough being seven months pregnant and being on show

all of the time, and then to have to be constantly in the news about

being pregnant, it must be awful for her. I'm not surprised she wanted to

kill the story. Many Tories were standing. Is the Tory party so

bereft of gentlemen that not one could say hey, Jo, have a seat? I'm

not sure that the Tory leadership is particularly down on women or does

not notice them in the chamber. I think a lot of Tory MPs would tell

you, when it comes to rudeness and ignoring people, the Tory leadership

is an equal opportunities organisation. Rude to everyone? I

remember when Cheryl Devon stood up to talk. She had a leopard-print

shirt on. The backbenchers made growling noises. And then another

MP, where they were having a conversation about whether her top

was too low. Calm down, dear. There is implicit sexism in the chamber

all the time. I'm not saying this is a sexist moment, but there is an

issue. This was a basic failure of manners. She had to let it known

that, just because she is seven months pregnant, she has not lost

the ability to stand on her feet and that is quite sexist.

That is not the case, but whether you are a man or a woman, it is

polite to offer her a seat. We had a debate about this at work today. I

found when I was pregnant that I did not want to ask people to get up for

me. It's embarrassing. Of course, she is not going to, even though she

could. Very well. It will be the debate all weekend. It is day two of

the Scottish National party conference in Perth. They will hear

from Alex Salmond. It is his last address to this particular national

conference before next year's referendum on independence in

September. This morning, Scotland Finance Minister John Swinney has

been outlining his vision for the Scottish economy in an independent

country. When people come to consider the independence question,

they will understandably want to know about the prospects for the

economy. We need to spell out the facts for the people. For the last

five years, Scotland has had to face the challenges brought about by

economic mismanagement of successive Westminster governments. Even before

the financial crash, the UK has the third-largest structural budget

deficit in the developed world. After five years of austerity, with

another five years to come, the UK has not paid down the deficit and

household incomes have fallen. The UK deficit is now ?121 billion. As

part of the UK, every person in Scotland is paying the bill, paying

the price for Westminster's mismanagement. When our opposition

say that Scotland cannot afford to be independent because we might have

to pay off some debts, let's remember who built up the debt.

Let's remember how much of our oil wealth they squandered, running up

that debt. Let's remember how much they are borrowing to pay off their

debt. Let's remember that, if Scotland votes no, we will be

saddled with UK debt, UK debt they have run out for many, many years to

come. So, the Scots may know how to

celebrate their Scottish identity, but what about the English? New

polling out today from a think tank called British Future shows that

only 40% of the snow that St George's Day is the 23rd of April.

71% can name the date of the US Independence Day. That is despite

the fact that 40% of people living in England feel more English and

British. 61% want to see the flag of St George flown more widely across

England. We asked some English people and one South African.

Do you consider yourself to be British? Yes. What about English?

Both. I think we should celebrate St George's Day as a public holiday. Do

you think we celebrate being English? No, and when we do, we do

the wrong thing, by going to the pub. Do you celebrate St George's

Day? I go to the pub. Do you celebrate being English? St George's

Day? Yes. Do you know when it is? I don't. We come together for sporting

events, when needed. When do you consider yourself to be British? Not

at all. I am proudly South African. But I do love London. It's a nice

place. I used to work in the building industry, everybody

celebrated St Patrick's Day. Irish people have a good knees up. People

probably see the British, St George, the Cross flag, as something

which is a bit scary. A bit English. Do you know when St George's Day is?

No. Do you know when US Independence Day is? 4th of July. Obviously

well-educated. We are joined now by Matthew Rhodes from British Future.

Isn't part of the issue, the United Kingdom, in terms of size, is

unbalanced. England is so much bigger than the other constituent

parts, even bigger than all of them put together. So, when the English

say they are English, they really mean they are British?

Historically, I think Englishness and Britishness have been confused.

When the Scots say they are Scottish, they say they are Scottish

and British? I think they have been fused together for a long time. We

are quite good in England as seeing England as being connected with

sport. I was at the match the other week and you felt Englishness there,

you felt proud to be endless. But I think we have been a 90 minute

nation when it has come to Englishness. There has been a

change, there is more Englishness in the stadium. If you look at England

winning the World Cup in 1966, if you look around there and it is a

sea of union flags. A sea of the British flag. You go now, and it is

the St George 's Cross? That is right, the big change was Euro 96.

The St George's Park was reclaimed as a benign and patriotic, open and

inclusive symbol. I think it is interesting, what we found was that

English should be celebrated more through St George's Day, being

emphasised more, and the fact that if it was a bank holiday and would

help. They just want another bank holiday! I think the politicians

often found it difficult to talk about this. Ed Miliband had a crack

last year and then went strangely quiet. That is why we want a

festival of Englishness, not a conference or seminar. Lots of

culture, lots of politics, musicians, authors, playwrights, a

sports panel. It is really something to celebrate, to talk about

celebrating being English rather than analysing it. Isn't it

inevitable that the Scots, the Welsh, the Northern Irish, they will

fight to preserve their identity. The English do not have to do that,

they are 85% of Britain? Yes, and also, I quite liked the fact that we

English people do not actually feel the need to celebrate being English.

They welcome all of these people from all over the world into their

country and they are relaxed about it. The problem with the whole Saint

Georges flag is, historically, it has been a really negative symbol. I

do agree that it is maybe good to reclaim that. But I'm very happy for

Englishness to stay in the stadium. And just be British? Absolutely, it

doesn't even occur to me, being English. As always, the Scots are to

blame. Over the past 30 years at Billy Bragg or so, the Scots have

thought of themselves as more Scottish. They don't sing the

British national anthem, they sing the Scottish album. You would never

see a union flag at a Scottish international match. You only see

the St Andrews like. As the Scots have made them feel more Scottish

and perhaps less British, we will find out by how much in a years

time, naturally, the initial going to say, all right, I think we should

be a bit more English? The Scots have been banging on about national

identity for 40 years now. I was there any Euro 96, as a Scotland

fan, when Gascoigne scored that regrettably brilliant goal. I was

struck that day by seeing, the first time I have seen at Wembley, that

many crosses of St George. At the time, I thought, this is bound to

end up having a political manifestation of some sort. And it

hasn't. I think the reason for that is, actually, you have to understand

house attic Scottish society has been an Welsh society. England, in

the last 20 or 30 years, has gone through a social demographic

revolution. We were talking about immigration and it is really

transforming England in ways we were only just beginning to understand.

Scotland has stayed homogenous. Very few immigrants. Culturally, it is

inward looking. Many of my countrymen would deny that. But

England, I think the question of what is Englishness is still

evolving at high speed and is very unclear. If the English want to feel

more English, and I think they do for the reasons we have given,

nothing wrong with that, it does make Britishness more of the

umbrella concept, because you do not hear immigrants calling themselves

English - they call themselves British, they are immigrants to

Britain, because they themselves regard Britain as the catchall. That

is right, I think that has historically been the case, and

Britishness has been a very civic identity because it has always been

multinational. But I think there is a rise of English self

identification amongst ethnic minority groups... Really? Yes, I

think in the polling we have done, about seven out of ten would in some

ways described English to themselves, not as a primary

identity, but it is there in the background. Interesting, a

generational change. And there is life left in Team GB, Mo Farah and

Chris Hoy on the same team. We had better leave it there, enjoy your

festival. 50 years ago today the country was taken by surprise when

Harold Macmillan resigned due to ill-health. The bigger shock was

still to come when the Queen invited a Conservative peer, the 14th Earl

of home, a Scottish aristocrats to form a government and become prime

Minster. This is the days when the Prime Minister is a merged from a

magic circle of grandees, there were no elections for leader. Sir Alec

Douglas-Home, as you became once you announced his peerage, and he had

won a by-election to become an MP, went on to serve for just under one

year before Labour's Harold Wilson won the 1964 election, but won by

only four seats, he just squeeze in. Douglas-Home was not cut out for the

television age, indeed he seemed to belong to another age altogether, as

Britain entered the swinging 60s. But he had his as Myra is, here is a

Barbara Cartland, a Conservative activist. -- admirers. I rather

flatter myself that I am rather clever, because when it came up, I

said he was the only possible man. He had worked with my brother on the

Imperial league, and I'd always had tremendous admiration for him.

Secondly, he is one of the few people was old enough to Prime

Minister who can still talk to you, and I do not mean beatniks, but the

ordinary people, understanding, trying to understand politics. What

people will do is talk in very grand words, you know, European unity, it

means absolutely nothing to the ordinary housewife who wants to know

what people are to go party is going to do for her. As you already know,

I have been appointed Prime Minister by the Queen, and there are one or

two things I would like to say to you at once. First, that my task is

to serve the whole nation. Secondly, no-one need expect any stunts from

me, merely playing straight talking. That was Alec

Douglas-Home, his first television address from Downing Street. We are

joined by the deputy editor of the Sunday Telegraph at the time,

Peregrine Worsthorne, back in the BBC studios, exactly 50 years ago to

the day he took part in a live Panorama programme on what was then

the Tory leadership crisis. Welcome back to the studio. You have been

out and -- in and out since, so let me ask you, when the Tory leadership

battle began, it was clear that Harold Macmillan was stepping down,

Alec Douglas-Home was not regarded as being on the list at the

beginning, was he? No, no, he was a surprise. And I suppose we ought to

have guessed, because he had had quite a successful party conference

speech. Yes, the famous Blackpool party conference. The famous

Blackpool conference just two days before he got the job. I remember

Rab Butler looking very disconcerted, he was expecting to

succeed himself, and it did cross my mind then, although it was difficult

to believe that Alec Douglas-Home wanted to be Prime Minister and was

going to try to have a go. But before that, as you rightly say, he

had not been on the list at all. Is it right to say... Rab Butler was

seen as the frontrunner, the apparent for a long time to Mr

Macmillan. Is it right to say that, actually, Mr MacMillan did not want

him and that was the opening for Alec Douglas-Home? I think one of

the mysteries of British politics at that time was the degree to which

Conservative Members of Parliament distrusted Rab Butler. It was partly

because he had not served in the war, which was still a major

Conservative class, there were certainly more Conservative MPs who

supported Macmillan, and most of the front bench have suffered bad wounds

in the First World War. Rab Butler had sat at home, and I think it was

judged then that he was not a man of courage, decisiveness, and you would

probably not make a good Prime Minister. I never thought he was

held with that degree of passion. I think that remains and an unsaid

question, and it cannot simply have been because he was not in the First

World War. In any case, he did arise deep scepticism about his qualities.

We are talking 1963, heading up to 1964, Britain is becoming a very

different country, the 60s are beginning to come apace, all the

changes that would imply, and here the Conservatives pick the 14th Earl

of Home, who seems out of kilter with the times. The Tories will have

been in power for 13 years by the time 19 624 comes around, Labour has

chosen the grammar school boy, the Economist with a first from Oxford

in Mr Wilson. And yet the Tories lose by only four seats, it is a

remarkable result. That was the wisdom of the British people, to

elect people from the class that were trained to be politicians from

the word go. It was still a possibility, it isn't now, but you

and I crossed swords on whether it should be. We have indeed, I have

still got the scars! So I just think it is surprisingly Labour did not

win by a lot more. Yes. I think Alec Douglas-Home must take a lot of

credit. You knew him. Yes, journalists talk about knowing

politicians, it is a very false claim, really, you know them for a

particular reason, a limited reason, so I did not really know him in a

proper way. Let me bring Iain in, Alec Douglas-Home emerged from this

bizarre, almost like choosing a Pope, it was, because at least there

is a vote among the Cardinals. Iain Macleod, in a famous article in the

Spectator, described it as a magic circle of Tory grandees, nearly all

of whom had gone to Eton and were related. It brought the end of this

way of choosing a Tory leader, the next leader was elected. Guess, he

was elected from a very different background, then Thatcher followed.

I am reminded, though, that there are themes that run through this

that still concern you in Conservative politics. Very often,

when the Conservative Party is choosing a leader, it chooses a

leader to stop somebody else. So they chose Alec Douglas-Home to stop

Rab Butler, Heseltine has to be stopped, Clark, who was the natural

Conservative leader, revive their fortunes never got to do it because

the party wanted to stop him. I am too young to remember! Final word

from you. If Macmillan at... I think Macmillan's government was very much

of the old guard, and people like the newcomers, who were not part of

that world, like Iain Macleod, to put up with Macmillan, if one of

them had got chosen, I think that the system of giving the upper-class

sort of priority as an advantage, because they had it in their bones

to govern, which I think the present political setup greatly lacks.

Politicians are not drawing on that. Cameron was not born to it?

Cameron, I think, is a sort of exception. Cameron has to pretend

not to be part of that world. He used to be, but he has to pretend

not to be from the upper-class, if you like, but in the old days not to

belong to that was a disadvantage. In any case, these are deep waters.

And remember, Mr Wilson won by four seats, but the following day China

detonated the bomb, and many people thought that if it had happened on

election day, Alec Douglas-Home may well have won. Fascinating. If you

want to see more about him becoming Prime Minister, BBC Parliament is

running a special programme from eight o'clock tomorrow evening.

These programmes are always great fun to watch. Back to this week and

the rest of the political news in just 60 seconds.

The Chancellor has been to China, where his big takeaway was

investment in British nuclear power. Look who he bumped into, Boris,

quoting literature. Who was Harry Potter's first girlfriend? What?

That is right! A Chinese overseas student! Also travelling, Hillary

Clinton was in London. She got the welcome given to many

out-of-towners, a parking ticket. Maybe the US will be able to pay it

after Congress finally voted to raise the country's debt ceiling,

ending the government shutdown. Lasting much longer, plebgate, the

police watchdog issued a report that was highly critical of some of the

officers involved. Finally, a boardroom over the badger cull, a

pilot programme in Gloucestershire admits its target for the number of

critters killed by half, at least it is another excuse to play that clip

of the environment Secretary. The badgers have moved the goalposts!

Those cunning badgers, always moving the goalposts. Just time to find out

the answer to the quiz, four pictures of the real Eric Pickles,

what is going on in all the others? Elizabeth, you said you knew. I said

Iain new! It is definitely on the beach. What is the right answer? The

rest of them are cardboard cutouts, he has travelled the world with a

student, a cardboard cutout. Eric Pickles, the real man, not the

cardboard cutout, he will be my guest on Sunday politics this

weekend. I hope you can join me on BBC One, Sunday morning. That is it

for today, thank you to my guests, the one o'clock news is starting on

BBC One. Join us next week, bye-bye!