08/11/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/11/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks - welcome to The Daily Politics. MPs debate a


Conservative plan for a referendum on Europe in 2017, but Tory


backbencher Adam Afriyie demands a vote next year. We'll have the


latest. MPs criticise the Home Office over


illegal immigration, accusing the department of a "poor record". The


Government says it is getting tough on the issue.


Should pubs in England be allowed to open late during next year's World


Cup? We'll hear why one MP wants a free-for-all during the footie.


And in the latest of our series on political thinkers, the comedian


Alistair McGowan explains why EF Schumacher is his favourite


philosopher. People who writes for the Glasgow Herald.


Welcome to The Daily Politics. First, I want to bring you some sad


news, the BBC's former BBC political editor, John Cook has died at the


age of 85, after an illness. Let's start with the news that only


1.5% of reports alleging illegal immigration result in a person being


removed from the UK. That's the headline finding of a report from


Parliament's Home Affairs Committee. Its chairman, the Labour MP Keith


Vaz, is not a happy chap. This is a very poor record. One -- what


Vaz, is not a happy chap. This is a Odone, there is a backlog of more


than 400,000 immigration asylum cases and that is never going to be


cleared, is it? I cannot imagine it will. But I will tell you what is


very sad for the Government, when I found out that it was going to be


part of the agenda today, 34 hours ago, I tried to put in, I want to


report an illegal immigrant on Google, and management system gave


me error error after error. And then I thought, maybe it is my computer.


So when I came in today, instead of doing my make up properly, I got our


research are here to look up from this computer the same thing. I


fear, it could even be just IT. When you see this particularly, the


asylum cases are one thing, if they are real asylum cases, but it would


seem to me are real asylum cases, but it would


says, the idea of grassing, or shopping, call it what you like, but


it strikes me that that was never going to yield tangible results, and


I suspect what it is all about is the appearance of doing something,


giving people the feeling they are involved. But there is an aspect of


absurdity, with those government vans. Absurdity is a euphemism, I


think it was really, really awful to see Britain, and whatever one says


about its policies towards immigrants, it has always been


generous and fair, and to have those vans focusing on six London boroughs


where ethnic minorities are really big, I thought that was... I thought


it was really awful almost unBritish, I thought. I think that


is why they unBritish, I thought. I think that


all. But the aim of successive Scottish Government has been to


increase that, and Alex Salmond is one of the leading cheerleaders for


it. Now it's time for our Daily Quiz.


The question for today... Vince Cable has unveiled a ?1.5 million


project for Milton Keynes - but what is it? Is it... A) No university


tuition fees for the town's students? B) Driverless cars? C) A


20-metre statue of himself? D) Reversible roundabouts? At the end


of the show, our guests will give us the correct answer. Do you have a


clue? No. Now, I know you've all been missing


it but don't worry - it's back! I'm talking of course about James


Wharton's EU Referendum Bill, which returns to the Commons today for its


report stage. It is a private member's bill sponsored


report stage. It is a private abstaining. The bill aims to set in


stone - or at least in legislation - David Cameron's pledge at the


beginning of the year to hold a referendum on Britain's membership


of the EU by the end of 2017. But more than 50 amendments have been


tabled. One of those is from Conservative backbencher and


occasional troublemaker Adam Afriyie, who wants a referendum much


sooner, in October next year. Very few private member's bills ever


become law because they can easily be talked out by MPs who don't like


the legislation. With his 36 amendments, Labour's Mike Gapes


might be hoping to ruin Mr Wharton's day. But one person who has come to


James Wharton's aid is the Foreign Secretary. William Hague has written


to all Tory MPs asking for them to "refrain from speaking"


designed to cause a headache for the rest of his party. The truth is, I


get on very well with my Parliamentary colleagues. This is


nothing to do with me, it should not really be much to do with MPs, other


than passing legislation. What I am trying to do is to try to give a


voice to the British people. This has been kicked down the road time


and time again, so what I have got is an amendment, which I hope will


because, so that actually, Parliament can say, once and for


all, right, within this Parliament, let's settle this question. Let's


get the latest on this from our political correspondent Carole


Walker. -- Iain Watson. What has been happening in the chamber this


morning? So far, they have been confining their comments to a very


small part of Europe, the Rock of Gibraltar.


small part of Europe, the Rock of Parliamentary elections. However, as


you pointed out, this is a private members' bill, not a government ill,


and it is struggling for Parliamentary time, with Labour MPs


against it. Then, they opened up the debate and spoke about Argentina,


decolonisation and a whole range of other issues. What they are trying


to make sure is that there is not enough time for this bill to become


law before the next election, so that Ed Miliband is not asked the


question, are you in favour of a referendum or aren't you go off and


this amendment, my understanding is that not even many Tory Eurosceptics


are going to act it, is that right? It is, for the very simple reason,


going back to the issue of time again, that basically, if more


people chat away about issues to do with Europe,


did get that, it would be very difficult to get a parliamentary


majority for it, because the Liberal Democrats are opposed to holding a


referendum before 2015. So, that is why they do not want people to speak


for a very great deal of time. We do not yet know if it is going to be


called. We will know at about two o'clock this afternoon. But


bizarrely enough, that may well endanger the chances of getting the


referendum on to the statute books. We are joined now from the central


lobby in Parliament by the Conservative MP James Wharton. It is


his bill, the one they are all trying to amend, and also by the


Liberal Democrat MP Martin Horwood. James Wharton, is your bill now in


some danger? I hope not. It is being debated at some length as we speak.


I think we are making reasonable progress but it is going to be slow


going. happening. Have your backbench


colleagues followed Mr Hague's instruction to be pithy and to the


point? They have. I have been delighted by how much support I have


had from Conservative MPs. Today in the chamber, I thought there might


be a few who would not be able to resist the urge to make a comment,


but it has not happened. There have been barely a handful of very short


interventions. The party is being disciplined and focused in trying to


deliver this bill, because we know it is the best chance of delivering


the referendum that the British people deserve. Martin Horwood, I


think you are the only Lib Dem to table an amendment to the bill


today, you want to change the wording, so are you trying to be


hopeful, or are you being part of the blocking operation? The idea of


that blocking group is a bit fanciful. The amendment


that blocking group is a bit to fight crime across borders, to


protect the environment across borders, many other things to do


with consumer rights, we should debate these bills properly. It is


not unusual to do that. I understand that, and I am grateful you do, it


keeps us in a job, and it gives yourself in a job as well. It is the


reason we get up in the morning. You speak for but if you get the wording


changed, as per your amendment, would you then be happy to see a


referendum in 2017? Well, we are not afraid of a referendum. I voted for


a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, I voted for a referendum... So, we are


not remotely afraid. We have said we are in favour of a referendum if it


is at the right time. We do not want it to be held at a time when we are


potentially in the middle of negotiating


potentially in the middle of the offing if you take British,


European and world affairs, there will always be something! Except we


did actually vote and call for a referendum at the time of the Lisbon


Treaty, not in five years' time but actually at that time. We supported


it. So, we are not afraid of referendums. You say that but you


will not give let me bring Mr Wharton back in - Mr Wharton, is


Martin Horwood and ally or an enemy in this debate? He is of course a


coalition colleague... So he is an enemy? On this particular issue, we


have a slight disagreement. The fact is, he has tabled quite a few


amendments, some of them were not selected, and he had a little row


with the Speaker about that. But a selected, and he had a little row


the north-east, said that if anything has to change in Britain's


relationship with Europe, we would need to reconsider our strategy and


our investments for the future? No, because I have not been arguing that


we should be in all we should be out of the European Union. My argument


is that people should be given a say on it so that we can end the


uncertainty and get a proper settlement which is in the interests


of the United Kingdom. Anybody is entitled to but you would vote to


come out if you were presented with the choice of the status quo? If I


was presented with that exactly as it is today, then yes, I would.


Thereby jeopardising 6500 jobs 30 miles from your constituency in a


car plant with some of the highest productivity in the world? That is


not true. productivity in the world? That is


But it is only the Conservatives and this bill which are giving people a


choice. Mr Horwood, regardless of what you would like to happen, is


your coalition colleague there are going to get his bill through today?


I am sure it will survive, but Nissan and the CBI have focused on


the real issue, which is about British jobs. This is about the


jeopardy into which a campaign to exit from the European union would


put millions of British jobs, not just those at Nissan, at risk. The


Liberal Democrats are united at keeping the party in. The Tory party


is deeply divided. They tried to conjure up the spill to conjure up


some unity to last them until the next


some unity to last them until the Nissan plant is still there. Why


should we take notice of that? Woodworkers in Sunderland be


prepared to take that gamble? Maybe you should not have taken that risk


and we should have listened this time, but the CBI spoke for a much


wider cross-section on Monday when they said there were no realistic


alternative that would serve our economic interests. Are you going to


get this Bill through today? The report will take a few more days.


You will live to fight another day? Absolutely. Anybody listening to


this? It is not just as that matters. If it happens in 2017, will


the voters be better educated in the whole issue


the voters be better educated in the Are we in Europe? You are not having


a referendum on independence. The two are similar. You are always


saying that the electorate are not educated. That this was your poll.


All that is true, but at the end of the day a referendum is the best way


of resolving that. And in the meantime education. It is the same


in Scotland. The prime minister directly linked both referendums. He


said both had been building up a head of steam for so long it


dominated everything else and you have to draw a line underneath it.


dominated everything else and you Simple answer, simple question. The


spotlight must have been blinding after so many years in the shadows


and into Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee strode


GCHQ's director, MI5, boss and MI6's chief. It was their licence to


spill. Here are some highlights from yesterday's historic session in


Parliament. Why do you think it is necessary to


collect information on the majority of the public in order to protect us


from the minority of potential evildoers? I will work up to that,


if I may. To clarify issues we do not spend our time listening to the


if I may. To clarify issues we do That is not the case. It would be


very nice if we knew who the terrorists were, but the Internet is


a great way to make identification anonymous. So we have to do


detective work. Can you guarantee us that you do not conduct operations


that are out with the British legal framework? Yes, I can do that. We


are subject to the law and I am also sure that is true of my sister


agencies as well. The public are entitled to know more about the


enormous damage that has been caused by the publication of classified


material. Can you give examples? One is the dependence we now have on the


fantastic work that GCHQ do to detect terrorist communications and


that leads detect terrorist communications and


agencies that used to that opportunity can be fragile if we use


it. Then we are making a very difficult task even harder. I am not


sure the journalists who are managing this very sensitive


information are particularly well placed to make those judgements.


What I can tell you is that the leaks from Edward Snowden have been


very damaging. They put our operations at risk. It is clear our


adversaries are rubbing their hands with glee. Al-Qaeda is lapping it


up. You have made that remark. I think we need to hear why you feel


you are entitled to say that. Can you say why you believe that to be


true? I you say why you believe that to be


We are joined by Isabella Sankey from the human rights pressure group


Liberty and the intelligence historical writer Nigel West. Were


they convincing about the threat to security caused by the leaks? To the


extent they were free to disclose supporting evidence I think it was


convincing. They are going to go into private section with the


Intelligence and Security Committee and give them chapter and verse and


identify specific cases. The disappointment is they were not even


stronger pointing out this information even though it may have


been disclosed illegally by the Guardian and by Edward Snowden


remains classified. It is an offence for anybody to download this


material and put it on their laptop. What do you think?


questions about whether Cabinet ministers knew about the extent of


mass surveillance we now understand takes place. They did not. How


parliamentarians were allowed to have extended debate about extending


capabilities which we now know are being made use of and what authority


they had specifically to undertake interception of the British public.


It was interesting we have from GCHQ that they do not look at the vast


majority of communications, leaving them room to look at the minority.


It is preposterous to expect these individuals to work in a handicapped


way, one hand tied behind their back. The technology is there and


there is nothing illegal about what they are doing. They are collecting


the haystack so as to be able to they are doing. They are collecting


being intercepted. It is impractical and it is beyond their capability,


they do not have resources to do that. They made this claim and they


used the committee as a platform to do so, and they all did it to say


that what the Guardian published had been of benefit to our enemies. But


that is a claim. They did not, maybe for obvious reasons, present the


evidence. You say it is going to be done behind closed doors, but that


means we have to take it on trust and we do not think we should always


take spies on trust. Trust is not what they operate on. You have had


long experience of encounters with the intelligence community at the


Sunday Times. And it was not always an issue to trust. But where


Sunday Times. And it was not always current operations. That is the


claim. I am sure you could get an off-camera briefing to explain to


you how one of the disclosures has directly affected a major


counterterrorism operation costing a lot of money being run right now.


Does it not stand to reason that if you expose the manner and methods by


which the intelligence services are trying to access communications of


those who would do us harm, that helps those who would do us harm?


Everyone in the world has been talking about using alternatives to


communicate given the unprecedented come -- abilities they have. But


there is a distinction to be made. We are not talking about the


technical capabilities, We are not talking about the


widely in these disclosures and was confirmed yesterday. It is often


claimed that they are listening to as all the time, or they are


tracking our communication. Do we know that? There is no evidence


that. The meter data, that information went to the Supreme


Court in the United States and the Dutchman was that there was no


expectation of privacy because the information was already known to the


telephone company. A lot of people were upset, but this has been going


on for decades. Who you called and how long you spoke to them. Yes, it


is not the content of the call. The other thing that is really


important. other thing that is really


say none of this has compromised any sources or methods or techniques,


that is a lie. They do not realise it. What is your response? It is


about interception. The disclosures told as millions of communications


are being intercepted every day by GCHQ, including many interceptions


of British citizens will stop do you mean the content? A physical


interception has taken place and they have alternated mechanisms to


try and trawl through the contents, so content is being read in an


automated way. You are shaking your head. You do not think there is


evidence to show that? There is no evidence. What is your evidence?


evidence to show that? There is no is taking place. There is a


difference between interception and collection. I would trust the


director GCHQ to know whether he was collecting or not. Interception and


reading the content is protected under the 1986. I am more concerned


with the spooks intercepting my telephone call ban the Guardian


holding to ransom, and I do not see that a newspaper editor, even the


best ones, has the expertise to know exactly who he is placing in


danger, which plots he is hampered -- he has hampered, and it is


danger, which plots he is hampered that at the end of the day, the


intelligence services, like government business, relies on much


of its day-to-day business being conducted in secret. Sure, there may


be some overreach, but I am not sure any of this is leading anywhere


particularly useful. There, the case has been laid out from both sides.


Now, what will you be doing at 11pm on June 14 2014? Cheering on the


opening games of the World Cup in Brazil, of course. The problem is,


you probably will not be doing it in the pub, because of the time


difference. Quite a few of the matches will be happening when it is


last orders. So, the pub trade and one Tory MP have joined forces to


campaign for a change to the licensing laws. Here is Adam to


explain. if you want to. Well, they can,


thanks to the 2003 Licensing Act. It has happened before, most recently


in the royal wedding, two years ago, when 20,000 pubs took advantage of


it. The idea of doing it again has been raised at the highest level.


Football fans across England are looking forward to cheering on Roy


Hodgson's team in Brazil next year. There is no better way to do that


than by enjoying a pint in your local pub. Yet because of Britain's


licensing laws and because of the time delay, many people will be


unable to watch the football and enjoy a pint at the same time. Pub


trade say it would help them raise an extra ?20 million in revenue, and


they only want to open longer in the opening and closing weekends, rather


than for the whole tournament. The Home Office say they are considering


the request, but say they only Home Office say they are considering


British Beer And Hub Association. Welcome to The Daily Politics. Can


pubs apply locally anyway? Yes, they can apply for a temporary event


notice, but as your piece showed, if you have to pay and you can only


have a certain number each year... This was done for the Diamond


Jubilee and for the royal wedding. We believe that football is our


national game, that British beer and British pubs are hugely important to


local communities, and it is worth probably conventionally about ?20


million. The biggest business will be done when you are following


England games, this is going to be a very temporary event, why not just


leave it to the local authorities? We are not asking for it just for


the England games, and of course, the police have the right


the England games, and of course, some football, but we do not yet


even know whether that would be England or not. I suspect crowds


going to the pub for the royal wedding would be slightly different


to those going to the pub for a foot or match. But leaving that to one


side, don't most people watch these football matches, particularly at


this time of night, in the comfort of their homes, with a few mates?


No, actually, people have a tradition of going to the pub to


watch matches which we do every weekend. The increase was up to 8%


on food, as well as 5% on alcohol. Food is a very important part now


make up, we need an economic boost in this country at the moment, as


well as for pubs. We are still closing pubs. We have had a


fantastic reduction in beer duty this year, we would like to see


fantastic reduction in beer duty worth ?1.5 trillion. I have already


said that the World Cup is worth ?50 million overall to pubs. That ?20


million is purely for these extended hours. It is about drinking a bit


more, but it is also about, I mean, beer in is a great British product,


it is relatively low in alcohol. But then they will be pouring out of the


pubs at one o'clock in the morning in a drunken stupor, creating


problems for the police, creating noise... And some of us know that


the proper sports in this world are rugby and cricket, so what are we


going to do? Andrew, you know that football is a great British


institution. We know that 35,000 pubs showed the last World Cup.


institution. We know that 35,000 a proper sport. Even though England


have not it is real men that play that. Where are you on this? I loved


everything you said, and also, can we please bring back the real pub,


as opposed to the gastropods which ICN my bit of London? They are so


snooty, they are so fake. -- which I see in my bit. Where do you live? S


W ten, West London. It is only posh pubs around there. What about in


Scotland, will they be cheering on whoever England is playing, even if


it is North Korea? whoever England is playing, even if


that Labour had never liberalised the licensing laws in England. Let


me just get a final word from our friend up in Leeds - how is your


argument going with the Government? The reason we are asking now is


because this is quite a complicated process, and would need a vote in


both Houses of Parliament. But I think there is a lot of support for


this, and from an economic perspective, there should be,


whether you are interested in the football or not. Thank you for being


with us. I will let you go because the pubs are open. Now, for the


latest in our series of political thinkers. This week, the comedian


Alistair McGowan has been to Giles' allotment to explain why his


favourite thinker is the Green Economist EF Schumacher, best known


for his 1973 bestselling book Small Is Beautiful.


The environment and sustainability are ideas which we have become used


to in the modern world, but where did they come from? I have come to


my allotment to meet an impressionist the things we could


all imitate the ideas of EF Schumacher. Alistair McGowan,


welcome to my little patch of soil. We are going to dig up some


beetroot. What attracts you about what Schumacher was saying? I first


became an environmentalist, if you like, 25 years ago. I had read an


article about recycling and how we were throwing away our national


resources, and it was amazing to think that 15 years before that,


Schumacher, in Small Is Beautiful, have been saying the same thing. He


was ahead of his time, but actually we are still catching up with his


theories. You should be we are still catching up with his


Schumacher talking about? He wrote a treaty of 280 pages, and people are


still trying to come to terms with it. But really, funny, it is living


within your means. We all try to that financially. He refers to


natural resources as capital, and that they are finite, so we have to


manage them, and make sure we do not run out of them. In this country we


are consuming enough that we would need three planets to sustain as if


the whole world lived like us. Let's go and get some lunch. Does it have


to be beetroot? It does not. Small Is Beautiful is undoubtedly one of


the most influential and important political books of the 20th-century.


His work speaks to people political books of the 20th-century.


for our time. Fritz Schumacher, a German emigre who came to Britain


before the Second World War, became an internationally influential


economic thinker, statistician and economist, serving as CEO and


adviser to the coal board in the 1950s for 20 years. But bits of his


thinking made some people uncomfortable. He had ideas of the


great chain of being, different kinds of economics, Buddhism, into


his moral view about how human life should be led. So, it is not


beetroot, we have got cake, but isn't there a problem for the


environmental movement that it sometimes comes across as a bit of a


religion, that if you do not believe, then you are a bad person?


Possibly, yes, because people who believe in the environment show a


lot of emotion. The very sensitive to the way the world is being


ruined, the way animals are to the way the world is being


screens, all of them on, nobody watching any of them. I thought,


that sums up our wistfulness, our lack of sustainability, right


there. You eat up, I have got a plan. Fritz Schumacher would be very


proud of us. Michael Schumacher might not be quite so impressed. I


suppose the essential question is, are we paying any attention to


Schumacher today? Inadvertently, I think we are. A huge number of


businesses have put sustainability at the call of their business model.


They know it makes sense ethically, and also it saves them money. But I


do think an awful lot of politicians, the likes of William


Hague, Boris Johnson, and even Andrew Neil, still think that


business is about making money at all costs. It cannot do that because


there is a huge cost all costs. It cannot do that because


are joined from Bristol by Ian Roderick, the director of the


Schumacher Institute. Welcome to the programme. Can we discern an


influence of this man on our current politics? I think the influence he


has is indirect, in many ways, that we have both a vibrant green


movement in this country and across Europe, which is extremely


influenced by his work, and also, where we see issues is in the way


that our politics is organised, which makes it very difficult to


make big decisions. Schumacher in many ways worked towards big


decisions. Should we see him as an environmentalist or as an economist?


He was certainly environmentalist or as an economist?


and how we are employed. Work was an extremely important aspect of his


own work. Small Is Beautiful is the catchphrase which he is most


associated with in the public mind - what did he mean by that? That is a


very interesting thing. In many ways, you can rephrase it as


appropriateness. Going just after things which are small is not


necessarily right, it has to be of an appropriate level and scale. He


was reacting to the gigantism of his day, where the idea that bigger was


better. So, smallness is a nice idea, because it gets you back to


working with your local people, with the community, getting everything in


the right the community, getting everything in


not seem to have won the argument? , it is true, but there is a


tremendous social appeal. For me it is the catholic social justice. He


says, take pleasure and pride in your work. Even if it is a small bit


of carpentry that you are doing. Take great pleasure in that. You are


never a cork in the wheel, you are part of a big, holistic industry. I


know it sounds romantic and sentimental to you, but I loved


Small is Beautiful. I remember when it came out. Is Scottish


independence part of it? Schumacher is excited by


reality of modern governance and globalisation is that we are at


different levels and the trick is finding the best one. He was writing


at a time in 1973 where prices have quadrupled and the world was running


out of oil and sustainability became popular. The world is awash with oil


and gas now, compared to 1973. People like him who said it was all


going to run out for them it has not worked out that way. Yes, it has. We


are running out of conventional oil, which peaked probably about two or


three years ago. Now we are using unconventional oil from deep ocean


drilling. It is difficult to get it and it is extremely expensive, that


is why the Schumacher published his book.


Certainly there are reserves that are being tapped, but we are very


seriously seeing the decline in conventional oil and that is going


to continue. We are trying to patch a system, we are trying to keep


things going and we are very successful at that. Thank you for


joining us today. With his incisive questions, his Ulster broke and the


trademark overcoat, John Cole led us through the turbulent political


events of the 80s. As the political editor he had a ringside seat on


Thatcherism, the unions and the Falklands War. Yesterday at the age


of 85 he passed away. Let's revisit some of his finest moments.


For years I some of his finest moments.


first offered another post... Rather dramatically I appeared on radio for


having dashed downstairs from Radio 2 to say the same thing. You have


heard about these atrocities and bombs and you do not expect them to


happen to you. But life must go on. And your conference will go on? The


conference will go on as usual. Which I joined by a colleague of


John Cole's Nick Jones. It is a sad day for the country, for journalists


and the BBC. He is famously known for his broadcasting, but he was


originally a print journalist. He started in Belfast and was on the


Guardian and on the observer and started in Belfast and was on the


I also work. You had to remember that he had this background


knowledge about the whole of the trade union movement and the


industrial world which is exactly where Margaret Thatcher was


interested. And where the story was. And you saw that moment with


Margaret Thatcher after the bomb in Brighton and she sees John Cole and


she picked him out. She knows he is a recognisable face, although the


security people are pushing them away. She goes straight to John Cole


and that is the tribute. He became a national figure through being the


BBC's political editor and a very distinctive figure as well, not in


the tradition of BBC political editor is. He had the ability to be


emphatic. editor is. He had the ability to be


remember those days, I am sure you do, we are talking about the early


80s and there was not rolling news. The nine O'Clock News was a very


important statement by the BBC. John Cole would come in and he would


often have that lovely, herringbone coat, because it was very cold


during the miners' strike, and there he would be. There was no doubt


about it, he was putting that ending to the story in a way that people


understood. That is the authority he brought and he had this tremendous


experience in print, so he was able to command that position. Because of


his knowledge and his contacts and the distinctive Ulster broke, he


became very popular. it onto spitting image. Everybody


tried to take him off. One of the things that was so memorable to me


when I got into television was the camera crews used to say, we made


John, because they used to frame the picture in the best possible way


because he got on with everybody. They made sure there was never any


problem with the shock of John Cole. That made it for him. You would turn


on the television on a major story and you knew he would be there. Who


did Mrs Thatcher turn to? John Cole. I do remember him and I think the


authority he had, but it was never cold. He was a warm, sympathetic


person as well as that authority. What a good man.


as well. He carried writing dashed carried on writing during his BBC


career and that had a lot of authority as well. When I look back


on those years there is no doubt about it, because of rolling news,


our journalism has become a bit diluted. There is not so much. It


was very authoritative when he wrote it. Who has had a good week and who


has had a shopper? This is the political week in 60 seconds. Ed


Miliband stopped by for a quick cuppa and offered a friendly deal.


The living wage. It was also boosted by the victory of Bill de Blasio,


New York's left leaning Mayor. by the victory of Bill de Blasio,


put. It is clear our adverse arrays are rubbing their hands with glee. I


cannot apologise. That sorry is not the hardest word for the Toronto


Mayor. I sincerely, sincerely, sincerely apologise. I mean that


most sincerely, folks. You have got this new book out on Scotland. Am I


right in thinking that the vote for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom


and those who want to stay is not changing very much as the campaign


gathers pace. No, it is changing very much as the campaign


most recent poll makes it look as if it is down, but it has not changed


on the yes side or the no side and that is after a year of campaigning.


Am I right in thinking when the Nationalists had led conference


there was a change in tactics or strategy? The emphasis had been on


independence and the case for it. At this conference they started


treating it more like a general election. If you voted to leave, the


minimum wage would rise, the energy bills would fall, you can retire


early, there will be no welfare cuts. I am going to fight it like a


general election to see if that moves the polls. In a week or so we


have the White Paper which has been overhyped. This is from Edinburgh?


Yes, overhyped. This is from Edinburgh?


they got a majority. I wonder what it would take to move the polls much


more in their direction and bring the two sides much more even


Stevens? The New York Times correspondent said it would take a


seismic event in England, a catastrophic political crisis, a


memo by the prime minister saying why Scotland was terrible, something


of that magnitude to see a decisive shift, and that has not happened so


far. There is still time. The quiz. Vince Cable is putting ?1.5 billion


into Milton Keynes. What was it for? Driverless cars. That is the correct


answer. Really? Driverless cars. That is the correct


Remembrance Sunday. My guests will include labour's deputy leader


Harriet Harman and the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage. Sadly not


together. That would be fun!


Download Subtitles