:00:37. > :00:41.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Labour win
:00:42. > :00:45.Wythenshawe with an increased share of the vote. UKIP push the Tories
:00:46. > :00:47.into third, and the Liberal Democrats lose their deposit. We'll
:00:48. > :00:58.discuss the by-election fallout. David Cameron repeats his message
:00:59. > :01:01.that money is no object in the relief effort as yet another
:01:02. > :01:06.Atlantic storm hits the UK. Plans for a law to allow MPs to be sacked
:01:07. > :01:09.by local voters are rained off. The Lib Dems are livid. As is the
:01:10. > :01:11.Conservative Zac Goldsmith. We'll talk to him live.
:01:12. > :01:22.And could viral videos swing the outcome of the next general
:01:23. > :01:28.election? We will take a look at the latest effort from the Labour Party.
:01:29. > :01:33.All that in the next hour, and with me for the duration editor of
:01:34. > :01:36.Prospect Magazine Brownen Maddox, and the political editor of the
:01:37. > :01:43.Economist, James Astill. Welcome to you both. Let's start with the
:01:44. > :01:49.Wythenshawe by-election, won last night by the Labour candidate
:01:50. > :01:53.Michael Kane. This was entirely inspected -- expected. Speaking in
:01:54. > :01:56.the last hour, Ed Miliband claimed it showed Labour were listening to
:01:57. > :02:01.the electorate. It was a very, very good result for the Labour Party. We
:02:02. > :02:06.added to the share of the vote, we gained support and I'm delighted by
:02:07. > :02:09.the result we have. What you saw was the governing parties, the
:02:10. > :02:14.Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, in total retreat. This is a
:02:15. > :02:19.constituency where, even in 1997, the Conservative Party were polling
:02:20. > :02:22.about 20% of the vote, so they should be deeply concerned. There is
:02:23. > :02:26.a reason for this, that they have been telling people that everything
:02:27. > :02:31.is fixed, that the economy is fine, the cost of living crisis is there,
:02:32. > :02:36.and the people of Wythenshawe and Sale East no differently. --, they
:02:37. > :02:39.no differently. Earlier this morning David Cameron was asked whether he
:02:40. > :02:44.was worried that his party had been pushed into third by UKIP. This
:02:45. > :02:48.by-election, the result was never in doubt. It's a relatively safe Labour
:02:49. > :02:55.seat and I congratulate the winner and welcome him to Parliament. In
:02:56. > :02:58.terms of coming third, that is disappointing. By-elections are a
:02:59. > :03:01.time when people know they're not changing the government. They often
:03:02. > :03:05.use them to send a message to politicians to make a protest. I
:03:06. > :03:08.always believe in listening to the messages, and I want to win back
:03:09. > :03:15.people to my party, and that's what I'm fighting to do at the next
:03:16. > :03:21.general election. Our Adam spent the night at the Wythenshaw count, and
:03:22. > :03:27.joins us now. You lucky man. It is the morning after the night before.
:03:28. > :03:31.How does it look today? Looking a bit windy and wet, at the moment.
:03:32. > :03:36.Thank you, Andrew, for making me to stay up till 3am from a result that
:03:37. > :03:39.we predicted three weeks ago when the by-election was called. Labour
:03:40. > :03:44.with is really strong showing an increasing the majority -- a really
:03:45. > :03:48.strong showing. UKIP making it to second place, all eyes were on UKIP,
:03:49. > :03:52.and they did pretty well, increasing their share quite a lot, but not one
:03:53. > :03:55.of the stronger showings they've had in a by-election. They've had quite
:03:56. > :03:58.a few others in the north where they've done better. The
:03:59. > :04:02.Conservative Party shoved into third place, a bad night for them. Not as
:04:03. > :04:06.bad as it was for the Liberal Democrats, losing their deposit with
:04:07. > :04:13.less than 5% of the vote which cost them some money. Somebody much
:04:14. > :04:19.happier is Michael Kane. Have you had much sleep? A few hours, but not
:04:20. > :04:24.much. Were looking at the election through the prism of UKIP. Was that
:04:25. > :04:28.an issue or a distraction? When the election started the Westminster
:04:29. > :04:31.story was it was about UKIP, but they didn't break through at all. If
:04:32. > :04:35.I was David Cameron I'd be more worried about UKIP, if I was Nick
:04:36. > :04:40.Clegg I'd be more worried about them. The results shows that the
:04:41. > :04:44.Labour Party increased its majority Ed Miliband's message is getting
:04:45. > :04:47.through, so we were delighted. Did you even need to go out and
:04:48. > :04:54.campaign? This is rock solid territory for the Labour Party. We
:04:55. > :04:57.had deep relationships here. Paul Goggins was respected, dedicated,
:04:58. > :05:00.immensely popular. We knocked on doors every week, and we will go
:05:01. > :05:04.back out again to knock on the doors. We have deep-seated roots in
:05:05. > :05:07.this constituency, and I think people recognise that, and they
:05:08. > :05:12.recognise the issues we campaigned on, hospital pressures, the cost of
:05:13. > :05:18.living crisis and the on her council cuts. I know one of the accident and
:05:19. > :05:22.emergency unit down the road -- the unfair Council cuts. Where is this
:05:23. > :05:27.crisis that Labour keep going on about? The evidence is that this
:05:28. > :05:31.Tory led government, propped up by the liberal -- Liberal Democrats,
:05:32. > :05:35.they closed the accident and emergency at Trafford, of the road,
:05:36. > :05:40.then they closed the walk-in centre in the town centre, and overnight we
:05:41. > :05:45.had 1000 ambulances queueing up this winter with people waiting to get
:05:46. > :05:48.into the hospital. We have had over 700 people waiting on trolleys for
:05:49. > :05:53.over four hours. This is going back to the dark days. We have had 80
:05:54. > :05:58.operations cancelled. We cannot allow this to happen any more.
:05:59. > :06:02.Talking to UKIP they would say there have been dark days in the
:06:03. > :06:10.campaign. They say Labour activists daubed graffiti on the UKIP shop in
:06:11. > :06:15.Sale and abused their activists. I think they are diverted away from a
:06:16. > :06:17.very poor result. We run an extraordinarily professional
:06:18. > :06:21.campaign with lots of volunteers, knocking on doors, listening to
:06:22. > :06:25.issues. They produced absolutely no evidence of that, and if they did,
:06:26. > :06:32.we would investigate and take action but there has been no evidence of
:06:33. > :06:37.that whatsoever. Congratulations again, and you have to wait a week,
:06:38. > :06:40.because they are all on holiday. Just finishing up on UKIP, I was in
:06:41. > :06:45.the office there earlier and they are still quite bullish. A few years
:06:46. > :06:48.ago, they say, they were nowhere in the seat but they have increased
:06:49. > :06:54.their vote by a lot, so they think that's a positive thing ahead of
:06:55. > :06:56.European elections in May. Sounds like the people of Wythenshawe have
:06:57. > :07:00.a new Paul Goggins on their hand from the way he spoke there. -- on
:07:01. > :07:03.their hands. We've been joined now by the Conservative MP Brooks
:07:04. > :07:07.Newmark and UKIP's head of policy Tim Aker. We did ask the Lib Dems
:07:08. > :07:16.for an interview, but no one was available. I wonder why. Let's come
:07:17. > :07:22.to the Conservatives. By-elections are here today, gone tomorrow, only
:07:23. > :07:26.a 28% turnout, it is derisory, but the Labour Party has consistently
:07:27. > :07:31.been strong in by-elections. It is their 13th win since 2010. It has to
:07:32. > :07:36.mean something. Yes, it does. Historically, anybody in
:07:37. > :07:40.government, it's very difficult when you are in government, particularly
:07:41. > :07:44.when you have to make tough decisions, that means you have to
:07:45. > :07:48.bring down the deficit, and it has an impact on peoples lives. But the
:07:49. > :07:52.good news is, the government has been creating jobs, reducing the
:07:53. > :07:58.deficit and increasing growth which means, for example, 1.6 million jobs
:07:59. > :08:02.today extra, which means 1.6 million extra who are secure. So why did
:08:03. > :08:09.your share of the vote dropped by 11% in Wythenshawe? There are a
:08:10. > :08:12.whole host of factors, as you heard from the new Labour MP. When it
:08:13. > :08:18.comes to by-elections, people, for whatever region -- reason, they want
:08:19. > :08:21.to give the incumbent government are kicking. We are no different than in
:08:22. > :08:26.the past when the Labour Party were in government, they got a kicking as
:08:27. > :08:30.well. One of the reasons you did not win the last general election was
:08:31. > :08:35.because your performance in the North was lacklustre, particularly
:08:36. > :08:41.in the cities. This suggests that the Conservative brand in the North
:08:42. > :08:44.of England is still dying. We actually gained a number of seats in
:08:45. > :08:50.the North, in the north-west, and the north-east. Maybe in the rural
:08:51. > :08:56.seats, but you did not win a seat in the northern city. And in the
:08:57. > :08:58.suburbs as well. It's like asking why Labour parties don't win the
:08:59. > :09:06.rural areas, they just generally don't. It is about the general
:09:07. > :09:09.trajectory of what is going on. As you pointed out, in this
:09:10. > :09:13.by-election, we didn't do well. I totally acknowledge that. It would
:09:14. > :09:18.be hard to argue any other way. Whether it matters in the long term
:09:19. > :09:26.it's harder to say. UKIP, you came from nowhere, you got 18% of the
:09:27. > :09:32.vote. It's OK. Not life changing. It's a solid result. It is a tough
:09:33. > :09:39.seat. You were 9000 votes behind the winner. He won't exactly breathing
:09:40. > :09:43.down their necks. Our vote went up five fold. We are seeing a trend
:09:44. > :09:47.that we are the opposition in the north. It's a waste of time voting
:09:48. > :09:50.for the Conservative Party and the Liberals in the north, because as
:09:51. > :09:56.the results show, not just the by-election, but rather, South
:09:57. > :10:00.Shields, we are challenging Labour. Can you reply to that? From this
:10:01. > :10:05.by-election, and other straws in the wind, the Tory and Liberal Democrat
:10:06. > :10:13.vote is collapsing in the north and UKIP is the beneficiary will stop
:10:14. > :10:16.they have become the Liberal Democrat repository. It's for people
:10:17. > :10:19.who are not sure. That's what we see in the north and the south. What the
:10:20. > :10:22.Liberal Democrats are finding out is there is a cost of being in
:10:23. > :10:28.government and being responsible. The price that is that their vote in
:10:29. > :10:31.particular, compared to ours, is dropping enormously, and UKIP has
:10:32. > :10:35.been the beneficiary. , general election, I think things will be
:10:36. > :10:42.different. -- come a general election. You have taken a leaf out
:10:43. > :10:46.of the Liberal Democrat book, changing your colour depending on
:10:47. > :10:51.the seat. We saw the emergence of red, promising to protect welfare
:10:52. > :10:56.benefits. You are now the kind of red UKIP up in the northern
:10:57. > :11:01.constituencies, and the Thatcherite party in the South. All of these
:11:02. > :11:06.labels mean very little. We would prioritise that spending here. Where
:11:07. > :11:11.we lead on the response was about putting our people first. I don't
:11:12. > :11:17.remember you talking about protecting people's welfare benefits
:11:18. > :11:22.in the Eastleigh by-election. We proposed the bedroom tax, that's a
:11:23. > :11:26.benefit cut. They have become more like the Liberal Democrats. They say
:11:27. > :11:31.one thing nationally. We heard Nigel Farage a few weeks ago saying he
:11:32. > :11:36.would cut benefits and the NHS, but in this particular by-election, they
:11:37. > :11:42.changed their tune completely. We will take no lessons from a
:11:43. > :11:51.party... They are the Liberal Democrats now. We will not take
:11:52. > :11:57.lessons from a party that has made at lifetime out of doing one thing
:11:58. > :12:01.and saying another. You can have too much of a good thing, and it's great
:12:02. > :12:05.fun watching the Conservatives and UKIP going together. What did you
:12:06. > :12:09.make of the by-election? I'm enjoying this, but there are two
:12:10. > :12:12.questions. Whether UKIP can take votes of labour, and it is plausible
:12:13. > :12:19.they might in the north, but I then think this shows that. -- I don't
:12:20. > :12:21.think this election shows that. But it makes a good point about where
:12:22. > :12:26.the Conservatives in the North are at the moment. The thing about UKIP
:12:27. > :12:33.in the North is whether people will vote differently in a general
:12:34. > :12:39.election. The next issue is going to have detailed polling. Prospect
:12:40. > :12:42.magazine will have details of whether UKIP supporters who voted
:12:43. > :12:47.Conservative last time will vote for them again when given a choice
:12:48. > :12:52.between that and Ed Miliband. The polling does say yes, a lot of them
:12:53. > :12:59.will. That tends to support David Cameron's view but there's still a
:13:00. > :13:04.big question hanging out there. Nonetheless, this by-election was
:13:05. > :13:08.not South Shields, it was ultimately a bit of support for UKIP, and it
:13:09. > :13:12.suggest that the notions that the mainstream parties will suffer
:13:13. > :13:14.somewhat equally because of the rise of UKIP, but that might not be
:13:15. > :13:22.correct. I think the Conservatives will be able to say that they will
:13:23. > :13:26.get the UKIP vote away from Ed Miliband, even if it works against
:13:27. > :13:32.them in northern seat. I suppose it doesn't matter in the European
:13:33. > :13:38.elections. But what does? I think we will do well. I think we have to
:13:39. > :13:42.make sure that we get more than 20 MPs. The formula is different, and
:13:43. > :13:46.it is by region, and in some regions we do well and in other regions we
:13:47. > :13:50.are working on it. It's encouraging for the north-west. It's early days.
:13:51. > :13:56.We had a big peak in the run-up to the last European elections, so we
:13:57. > :14:00.will see. One polling survey company has some 30%, and the Conservatives
:14:01. > :14:05.well behind. We will talk more about this later in the programme, but
:14:06. > :14:12.thank you to all of at the moment. -- all of you. Now it's time for our
:14:13. > :14:15.daily quiz. And while turnout was down to a rather depressing 28% in
:14:16. > :14:18.the Wythenshaw by-election, there's been another contest at Westminster
:14:19. > :14:21.this week which has been anything but apathetic. In fact, so desperate
:14:22. > :14:24.were MPs to win the Westminster cat of the year contest there were even
:14:25. > :14:27.accusations of vote rigging. The well of democracy has truly been
:14:28. > :14:38.poisoned. Anyway the winner's been chosen, but which cat has taken the
:14:39. > :14:42.prize? Is it a) Bosun? B) Parsnip? C) Kevin? Or d) Scaredy-Cat? At the
:14:43. > :14:58.end of the show, Bronwen and James will give us the correct answer. It
:14:59. > :15:04.seemed like such a good idea, and a pretty popular one. If your MP has
:15:05. > :15:08.been up to no good, you have the power to recall them and force a
:15:09. > :15:11.by-election. A form of MP recall was in all three party's manifesto. And
:15:12. > :15:14.it made it into the Coalition Agreement. But now it looks like the
:15:15. > :15:19.idea has been dropped all together and it's left coalition relations on
:15:20. > :15:23.thin ice. It all started so well for the two-man luge at the head of the
:15:24. > :15:27.Government, as both parties agreed it was time to clean up politics
:15:28. > :15:30.after the expenses scandal. And promised to pass legislation to
:15:31. > :15:33.equalise constituency boundaries, reduce the number of MPs and
:15:34. > :15:37.introduce the power of recall. The idea was that 10% of the electorate
:15:38. > :15:48.could sign a petition calling for a by-election when their MP was guilty
:15:49. > :15:51.of serious wrongdoing. The coalition agreement even stated they would
:15:52. > :15:54.bring forward early legislation. But a draft bill in 2011 was frozen out
:15:55. > :15:57.after some complained about the additional requirement that a
:15:58. > :16:00.committee of MPs would first have to decide if wrongdoing had taken
:16:01. > :16:04.place. Now we learn that the power of recall won't be in the next, and
:16:05. > :16:08.final, Queen's Speech by the time things have thawed out in May or
:16:09. > :16:11.June. It must have been squeezed out by all that other legislation they
:16:12. > :16:18.are going bring forward over the next year.
:16:19. > :16:23.It's left one or two Lib Dems, including party president Tim
:16:24. > :16:26.Farron, rather unhappy. He said last night the decision to drop the
:16:27. > :16:35.policy showed the Conservatives didn't trust the electorate. Let's
:16:36. > :16:36.get more on this now from our political correspondent Carole
:16:37. > :17:10.Walker. Tim Farren said the Prime Minister
:17:11. > :17:13.had blocked the idea, and I think you're about to speak to Zac
:17:14. > :17:21.Goldsmith, a Conservative MP who will disagree strongly given what
:17:22. > :17:26.his Twitter feed. -- said today. It's is a sense that before the
:17:27. > :17:31.general election the parties want to get on with issues that really are a
:17:32. > :17:37.voter's priorities. Although there was a massive public outcry after
:17:38. > :17:41.the MP expenses scandal, this is not something that voters are clamouring
:17:42. > :17:47.for at the moment. There is also a big disagreement about exactly how
:17:48. > :17:51.the principles of this should work. MPs will tell you that the principle
:17:52. > :17:55.is a good one, that voters should have more power to get rid of MPs
:17:56. > :17:58.who misbehave, but when it comes to exactly how that should be
:17:59. > :18:05.triggered, there's a lot of dispute. Something you should not have first
:18:06. > :18:08.in the findings by this Parliamentary standing -- standards
:18:09. > :18:12.committee. Others think that the bar has been set too high, and
:18:13. > :18:15.constitutional reform committees in the Common criticised the proposals
:18:16. > :18:21.and said they should be dropped because, in practice, it would never
:18:22. > :18:25.happen, so voter expectations would be raised and realistically. In the
:18:26. > :18:29.mix of all that, the idea is not going to make the Queens speech, it
:18:30. > :18:31.won't be put into law this side of January -- of a general election,
:18:32. > :18:40.and there's a good deal of scrapping about who is to blame. With us now
:18:41. > :18:44.is the Conservative MP who's been pushing for a new right of recall,
:18:45. > :19:44.Zac Goldsmith. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:19:45. > :19:53.If you are a maverick, George Galloway, myself, Caroline Lucas,
:19:54. > :19:56.you haven't got a hope. It was totally anti-democratic. It was not
:19:57. > :20:01.a small step towards a recall, it was a step backwards in terms of
:20:02. > :20:04.democratic evolution. It was an appalling piece of legislation and I
:20:05. > :20:07.am thrilled it was dropped. I'm less thrilled that the principle is
:20:08. > :20:10.dropped. Recall was the only promise we made in the heat of the expenses
:20:11. > :20:15.scandal, running up to the last election. The only reform proposal
:20:16. > :20:19.that might have empowered voters. Everything else was nonsense. This
:20:20. > :20:21.would enable voters to hold their MPs to account in safe seats, and
:20:22. > :20:27.people knew it, and they looked forward to it. Could David Cameron
:20:28. > :20:32.have rescued it? I think he could have, and I think he's behaved
:20:33. > :20:34.appallingly. I have seen clips all date from David Cameron about what
:20:35. > :20:40.it meant before the last election, and it's been dropped. It didn't
:20:41. > :20:43.mean anything to him before. Nick Clegg and Tim Farren have been
:20:44. > :20:46.disingenuous. They had three and a half years to deliver it. After the
:20:47. > :20:49.criticism of the first draft bill, they haven't changed it. It was
:20:50. > :20:52.never going to get through Parliament. I would have voted
:20:53. > :20:56.against it and this is one of my big issues, I couldn't have supported
:20:57. > :21:00.the bill. He had an opportunity to come back with something proper but
:21:01. > :21:03.he chose not to. He kept talking about kangaroo courts. The only
:21:04. > :21:11.caught in a recall system is the constituency, so not a nice word to
:21:12. > :21:14.use. He effectively said that he is worried that genuine recall would
:21:15. > :21:18.make MPs vulnerable. He wrote to me this morning to make the point.
:21:19. > :21:22.Recall would make MPs vulnerable, which is why he has not supported
:21:23. > :21:25.it. He has instead supported the complete and utter nonsense Billy
:21:26. > :21:34.put forward. If we were to have five seconds silence, would we not hear
:21:35. > :21:40.an audible sigh of relief from your party's own backbenchers that that
:21:41. > :21:44.isn't going ahead? I don't buy into that. I pressed my own recall bill
:21:45. > :21:49.to vote. It was a vote in which only backbenchers could take part and it
:21:50. > :21:54.won with a thumping majority. Only 17 MPs voted against. The majority
:21:55. > :21:57.who backed it were MPs. That was genuine recall. Parliament is up for
:21:58. > :22:01.reform, the difficulty is that Cameron and Nick Clegg are not. It
:22:02. > :22:05.remains to see if Ed Miliband is. If he would have put this forward in
:22:06. > :22:09.opposition, he could have won. He could take the agenda and show that
:22:10. > :22:14.he believes in democracy and the electorate. He has an amazing
:22:15. > :22:17.opportunity and I hope he takes it. You would encourage Ed Miliband to
:22:18. > :22:20.take the batter? It must be delivered because it's the only way
:22:21. > :22:25.to have a meaningful change that will shake up Parliament, genuinely
:22:26. > :22:28.empowered voters and ensure that Parliament does its job of holding
:22:29. > :22:35.them to account and make sure MPs are kept on their toes. You don't
:22:36. > :22:42.think the mood has changed after the demonstration of the defection of
:22:43. > :22:45.your MPs? I don't think it mattered at all. I'm lucky I get on with my
:22:46. > :22:54.association but if they had chosen to deselect me last month, I would
:22:55. > :22:58.have been happy to go to the voters to try my luck in a general
:22:59. > :23:02.election. Recall is democracy full for this no other way to describe
:23:03. > :23:07.it. All arguments against recall effectively our arguments against
:23:08. > :23:13.democracy itself. It is extraordinary, really. Despite the
:23:14. > :23:17.noise as we make, the party today believe they can get away with
:23:18. > :23:22.breaking promises on this scale. It's extraordinary. You have had an
:23:23. > :23:28.interesting conversation on twitter with Tim Farron, from the Lib Dems,
:23:29. > :23:32.who is broadly on the same space as you on this issue? Any chance you
:23:33. > :23:39.could get together to put the show back on the road? Yes, I will work
:23:40. > :23:43.with anyone. I think he agrees with me and supported my bill. I know he
:23:44. > :23:49.supports general recall, but his entire body language suggests he
:23:50. > :23:52.will always put his party first. I don't think we can move forward and
:23:53. > :23:57.that is willing to hold his party to account in the way I am. Otherwise
:23:58. > :24:03.we won't make any progress at all. I sympathise with this noble
:24:04. > :24:06.endeavour. It was promised by party leaders but it's tough to argue MPs
:24:07. > :24:13.are not becoming increasingly accountable for their constituencies
:24:14. > :24:17.and the deselection is the Tories have seen recently, perhaps the
:24:18. > :24:21.promise of reform with the unions, it promises more of the same in the
:24:22. > :24:28.Labour Party. There's no doubt, that rather fundamental change is making
:24:29. > :24:33.Government tougher to run. We have seen that in enormous rebellions the
:24:34. > :24:37.party is carried out in recent times. Voters still want to see
:24:38. > :24:44.efficient smooth running Government so there is a balance there. We are
:24:45. > :24:48.edging towards a slightly more accountable system. It's still the
:24:49. > :24:54.case and it would be the case under Nick Clegg's reforms, as an MP could
:24:55. > :25:00.go on holiday for five years and you could be deselected but you would
:25:01. > :25:05.still be the MP. I could either BNP or going on holiday that two years,
:25:06. > :25:10.there's nothing in the structures today or anything Nick Clegg
:25:11. > :25:14.proposed in his bill to prevent me from doing that. I could be the
:25:15. > :25:18.worst MP and as long as I'm not in jail for 12 months, I'm fine full is
:25:19. > :25:22.nothing voters could do about it. It matters less than a marginal seat.
:25:23. > :25:26.You would be booted out at the next election. If you are in an old
:25:27. > :25:32.Labour mining town where people never vote Conservative or a
:25:33. > :25:38.rock-solid Tory seat, that's the choice people would have. You want a
:25:39. > :25:45.system to protect an MP from harassment, from people who don't
:25:46. > :25:47.like the views. I completely support the democratic principles you've
:25:48. > :25:54.said, but it proves not as simple as that when people started. People
:25:55. > :25:59.argued about the system. You mean the process of it? The process how
:26:00. > :26:04.to do about the party would have a lot of influence on it and so on. I
:26:05. > :26:08.welcome the rebellions. The increasing independence shown by MPs
:26:09. > :26:14.right across the budget spectrum. He said he needs a mechanism. In the
:26:15. > :26:17.end, the people themselves, not a committee of MPs, not the party of
:26:18. > :26:20.whips, but the people themselves can take action. I would agree with that
:26:21. > :26:25.but they have won at least every five years. But it on a flawed
:26:26. > :26:32.mechanism if you're in a safe seat. Even in a marginal seat. What would
:26:33. > :26:35.additional voters have to do, vote for the Lib Dems? They might
:26:36. > :26:40.disagree with anything they stand for, they might vote Labour... They
:26:41. > :26:45.could be deselected. But, until the election, I would still be the MP.
:26:46. > :26:50.You grab two or three years without any representation at all. It's a
:26:51. > :26:53.flaw in the system. MPs need to be kept on their toes throughout the
:26:54. > :26:58.five years and no, when they make promises, they will be held to those
:26:59. > :27:02.promises. You might find MPs make less extravagant promises because
:27:03. > :27:04.they're more likely to keep them. I think it would improve the
:27:05. > :27:11.relationship between people and those in power. People are pulling
:27:12. > :27:14.away from politics. And the political establishment. And all the
:27:15. > :27:19.data backs that up. Something big is needed, and I think this could be
:27:20. > :27:29.it. There is one example in the world where recall exists, plenty of
:27:30. > :27:33.times but not one success story. Let me ask you a final question. What
:27:34. > :27:38.the Conservatives going to put in the next manifesto on this? If we
:27:39. > :27:41.walk away from this side of the election and have the gall to
:27:42. > :27:46.introduce into our next manifesto, frankly, it makes a mockery of the
:27:47. > :27:52.whole idea of a manifesto. People are going to struggle to believe
:27:53. > :27:57.anything I say. It's open to the black me to point that out. If you
:27:58. > :28:01.put it on, we say, why should we believe you? No one can blame the
:28:02. > :28:08.coalition. Both parties promised it. We could push this through, and that
:28:09. > :28:11.could easily be demonstrated if he were to take the lead on this
:28:12. > :28:14.because it would get support in parliament. No doubt about that. We
:28:15. > :28:22.shall see if he takes up the challenge. Thank you. Who wouldn't
:28:23. > :28:25.want to live in a nice affordable House, with local parks, well
:28:26. > :28:28.financed local amenities, and well thought out public spaces? Ah, if
:28:29. > :28:31.only local authorities could deliver such an idyllic dream. The Garden
:28:32. > :28:35.City movement however has always said it could deliver that, and a
:28:36. > :28:38.number of Garden Cities exist and thrive to this day across the globe.
:28:39. > :28:42.Two and half years ago the Coalition said it wanted to build more in
:28:43. > :28:48.England. And then has said very little since. You can see a pattern
:28:49. > :28:55.in this programme. Giles has been looking at why. There has been an
:28:56. > :28:58.upsurge in focus on the garden city of Letchworth recently. At least the
:28:59. > :29:03.concept behind it. The founder of the Garden City movement at the
:29:04. > :29:05.knees Howard. Why? Because the Victorian mixer planning social
:29:06. > :29:11.interaction, housing and infrastructure might be a solution,
:29:12. > :29:21.albeit updated for the 21st-century. To me, garden city is about creating
:29:22. > :29:26.a balance community and thinkable to do for their enjoyment. Ethical
:29:27. > :29:29.brands of a planned development for the committed and that the Garden
:29:30. > :29:34.City. Whether it was a hundred years ago or not. I know what your
:29:35. > :29:38.thinking. These houses look expensive and they are. Nobody in
:29:39. > :29:42.bad urban housing could just move here now. But the Garden City
:29:43. > :29:46.concept was always rooted in being affordable, even turning a profit
:29:47. > :29:52.but those who lived and invested in it. One of the main reasons we are
:29:53. > :29:54.interested in Garden City is at an ideas precise because of the idea
:29:55. > :30:00.they can behave themselves. You're talking about bits of land who are
:30:01. > :30:03.currently very low value, once you build a town have enormous value and
:30:04. > :30:06.if you can capture that uplift and recycle it into the town to pay for
:30:07. > :30:14.the infrastructure and the facilities, the schools, new towns
:30:15. > :30:17.doing Canon have pay for themselves. At the knees Howard came up with the
:30:18. > :30:20.idea of a garden city and he didn't just think about how people lived
:30:21. > :30:25.and where they lived but where they would work, how they will spend
:30:26. > :30:29.their leisure time and also, more importantly, how they could afford
:30:30. > :30:32.to live here. Letchworth was the first. Welwyn Garden City followed
:30:33. > :30:36.and there are many places around the country that would say they had at
:30:37. > :30:41.least a bit of a Garden City concept within them. But given the fact that
:30:42. > :30:44.most parties, quite like the Garden City idea, and the coalition
:30:45. > :30:52.committing to building more of them, in 2011, why has it all gone quiet?
:30:53. > :30:55.Well look at what happens if you want to build anything in a a leafy
:30:56. > :30:59.rural environment. Now imagine a building a whole town. It's not the
:31:00. > :31:03.when. It's the where that might be the hiccup and then see the ripple
:31:04. > :31:06.you find who will be against. Recently the Telegraph said it had
:31:07. > :31:12.learned of plans for Yalding in Kent and Gerrard's Cross in
:31:13. > :31:15.Buckinghamshire. No one welcomes new development. I know it's not
:31:16. > :31:18.perceived as the best thing, but I think everyone is recognising
:31:19. > :31:25.something has to be done so I think you answered the light with who was
:31:26. > :31:27.going to take that big decision. In November last year, Lord Wolfson
:31:28. > :31:31.offered a quarter million pound prize for anyone who could come up
:31:32. > :31:34.with a blue skies Garden City design that was visionary, economically
:31:35. > :31:37.viable and sparklingly popular. The Government however has hardly
:31:38. > :31:40.bubbled over on the topic. It is disappointing. We have been calling
:31:41. > :31:47.on the Government to publish its plans for Garden City is the two
:31:48. > :31:51.years. We certainly hope the prize will prompt the Government into
:31:52. > :31:54.action. For some, the exciting prospects of Garden cities as one
:31:55. > :31:57.part of a housing solution seem obvious but unless it's grasped
:31:58. > :32:04.we're all just going round and round in circles. Giles Dilnot reporting.
:32:05. > :32:08.And we've been joined by Miles Gibson, director of the Wolfson
:32:09. > :32:12.Economics Prize. We know what garden cities. Why do need competition?
:32:13. > :32:16.Because plenty of people, although they understand the concept of the
:32:17. > :32:21.Garden City, album worried about how you could implement one. We have
:32:22. > :32:26.done it before and we think we can do it again. As your board
:32:27. > :32:31.indicated, painted people think that the concept of garden cities in
:32:32. > :32:35.something, and I'm including the politicians the day, but what the is
:32:36. > :32:39.asking how would you do it quit at how can you persuade people that
:32:40. > :32:42.there's a future for them in a nice place to live? How can you offer
:32:43. > :32:48.them something better than what have so far. Let's come back the
:32:49. > :32:55.practical edges of this. Let me ask you this. We've had Welwyn Garden
:32:56. > :32:59.City, the most famous one, because the names on the title. That was a
:33:00. > :33:03.while ago. Before the Second World War, continued afterwards. If we
:33:04. > :33:07.were to start today, in what way do you think would garden cities
:33:08. > :33:11.different from the ones we have done it in the past? And how would you
:33:12. > :33:16.stop them ending up as just another Newtown? Actually, that's a question
:33:17. > :33:22.we are asking for thought we were offering ?250,000 for the answer to
:33:23. > :33:28.that question. There could be a university. There's money to be made
:33:29. > :33:31.here. What might be different? We are asking people about, what's
:33:32. > :33:36.different about the way we live today compared to Welwyn Garden
:33:37. > :33:40.City? We are a car dominated society for example full that can be push
:33:41. > :33:45.the clock back on that? What about technology? What can broadband and
:33:46. > :33:49.Wi-Fi do for us. Cycle lanes, great places to bring up your children,
:33:50. > :33:53.with parks, gardens, allotments, flood plains, things that we need in
:33:54. > :33:59.the new cities which you might not have had in cities prewar and
:34:00. > :34:03.post-war. Is there any sign in your view that the current Government is
:34:04. > :34:06.prepared to commit on this? You have to look at other politicians have
:34:07. > :34:10.actually said, so I think Eric Pickles come out recently and said
:34:11. > :34:14.the coalition was paid to build a few garden cities. Nick Clegg said
:34:15. > :34:18.in a speech he is interested in the concept, as well, and Ed Miliband at
:34:19. > :34:21.who's interested in new generation of new towns, and asked Sir Michael
:34:22. > :34:26.Lyons to think about how that might come about. We are hoping the body
:34:27. > :34:32.of entries we get to our prize will give people a bit of material to do
:34:33. > :34:36.the thinking necessary. Can you point to Labour not in power, but
:34:37. > :34:41.can you point to any ground work being done by the coalition on this?
:34:42. > :34:45.You'd have to ask them, I think. But you are the specialist full subdue
:34:46. > :34:51.follow these things. Day in day out. I they talk vaguely about it. It
:34:52. > :34:55.sounds nice. We have a housing problem in this country. I'm not
:34:56. > :34:58.aware that any area has been designated, the groundwork has been
:34:59. > :35:04.done, any plans being drawn up. Are you? You would have two ask them
:35:05. > :35:07.that but my job is to dangle a ?250,000 check-in for the people who
:35:08. > :35:13.can give is the best ideas how we should do it. What Lord Wolfson has
:35:14. > :35:17.been clear about, he thinks the politicians will follow the debate
:35:18. > :35:20.rather than lead it. They need answers. They need technical answers
:35:21. > :35:25.as to how to actually do this and then they will come forward with
:35:26. > :35:27.proposals. You will have to wait because it's inconceivable that the
:35:28. > :35:31.Conservatives in particular are going to go down this road this side
:35:32. > :35:36.of the election. The harsh truth is that the biggest need for these
:35:37. > :35:40.garden cities is in the south-east of England. That's where the housing
:35:41. > :35:44.shortage is greatest for the bats where people want to live. And the
:35:45. > :35:48.Conservatives are not going to open this whole can of worms in
:35:49. > :35:54.constituencies that they either want to hold onto or hope to win a couple
:35:55. > :35:58.from the Lib Dems. Too bad the whole thread of the people in leafy
:35:59. > :36:04.villages, and by the way, where going to have a Garden City over the
:36:05. > :36:07.hill. That might be the perception, at the national level, but if you
:36:08. > :36:10.look at what's going on in local authorities in the south-east, there
:36:11. > :36:13.are some local authorities capable of delivering quite large
:36:14. > :36:17.settlements, for example, if you look at Charlot District Council,
:36:18. > :36:21.they're proposing a extension to this stuff. North Huntington, big
:36:22. > :36:24.settlement of over 5000 homes going in there. I was talking to the
:36:25. > :36:29.developer about that recently come and they had just four objections to
:36:30. > :36:38.that proposition, so it can be done. It can be done. That is not a garden
:36:39. > :36:46.city though. A garden city 's 50,000 new homes and we've not built any
:36:47. > :36:50.since the 1960s. The government at the time of the 40s and 50s, like in
:36:51. > :36:56.Stevenage, said to the local objectors, thank you, but stuff you,
:36:57. > :36:59.it's happening anyway. It's hard to think our government today could not
:37:00. > :37:07.adopt a broadly similar tack. I know that this is my playful at ?250,000,
:37:08. > :37:12.but please. Three entries already this morning. But that is why, given
:37:13. > :37:15.that demand is hottest in the south-east, it won't happen under a
:37:16. > :37:19.Tory government. It could only happen under a Labour government. It
:37:20. > :37:27.is politically impossible this side of the election. What is easier is
:37:28. > :37:33.due dribbling five or 10,000 town -- five or ?10,000 house clutches, you
:37:34. > :37:36.cannot have a garden bed. Although I am sure your prize will get the most
:37:37. > :37:43.wonderful vision and the dream of the little figures walking through
:37:44. > :37:47.the models. It's always the same little figure. That person has made
:37:48. > :37:54.a fortune. The parents pushing the body and all that. One of the things
:37:55. > :37:58.were asking, one of the Di mentions of the question is, how do you make
:37:59. > :38:03.a garden city popular -- the dimensional. People will say it
:38:04. > :38:06.cannot be done. There is no point in you asking. I don't believe that. We
:38:07. > :38:10.have to be optimistic. We have to think that people can be persuaded
:38:11. > :38:13.that development of high quality that brings new infrastructure and
:38:14. > :38:19.services with it is a good thing for them and their communities. Didn't
:38:20. > :38:28.Gordon Brown talk at one stage about those for new towns? What happened
:38:29. > :38:36.to that? One of those was Bicester. All the 5000? They are tiny. I'm not
:38:37. > :38:41.going to save that was a good initiative or not. I think we will
:38:42. > :38:43.get more propositions of that kind of size from entrance to the
:38:44. > :38:47.competition, but we need to be ambitious about this. The figures
:38:48. > :38:52.that James was using earlier are more what we are looking for. A
:38:53. > :38:55.city, the clue is in the title, you want something that will end up as a
:38:56. > :39:03.city even if it doesn't start as one. Haven't you got a problem of
:39:04. > :39:07.perception here? When people hear the words garden city, they think
:39:08. > :39:12.that is nice, but what they fear is they will end up with a new town,
:39:13. > :39:16.and that is not so nice, and with some honourable exceptions, they
:39:17. > :39:21.aren't so nice. You need to speak to some people who live in the new
:39:22. > :39:26.towns. Milton Keynes is a nice place. That is the honourable
:39:27. > :39:31.exception. But people living near it before it was billed might have a
:39:32. > :39:37.different view. -- before it was built. I am sure the residents of
:39:38. > :39:42.Milton Keynes would not be that happy. I will guarantee you that the
:39:43. > :39:46.value of those houses has gone up not down. I'm sure of that, but
:39:47. > :39:50.that's true everywhere in the south-east. In the end, to get this
:39:51. > :39:57.done, to be brutally honest about it, do you not need French style
:39:58. > :40:04.planning laws? Otherwise the central government says you will do it. Or
:40:05. > :40:10.even Chinese style? That is how we did the new towns. But we should
:40:11. > :40:14.remember that Letchworth was not built in that way. They were built
:40:15. > :40:18.with private money and they are successful places. Places that
:40:19. > :40:23.people want to live. They have high value. If we did it before, we can
:40:24. > :40:27.do it again. Thank you very much. An interesting concept, and good luck
:40:28. > :40:32.with the essays. I'll be writing mine tonight. In just over three
:40:33. > :40:35.months, 400 million people across Europe will be able to cast their
:40:36. > :40:39.vote in fresh elections to the European Parliament. How many
:40:40. > :40:43.actually will? Property a third. So what's at stake? Adam's been to
:40:44. > :40:50.Brussels to find out. -- probably a third.
:40:51. > :40:56.The perfect addition to the Brussels skyline, a 70 metre tall platform
:40:57. > :41:03.that goes round and round in circles. It's a great place to get
:41:04. > :41:07.an overview of Europe's big year. The first big event affects one of
:41:08. > :41:11.the building over there, the European Parliament, because those
:41:12. > :41:17.elections to it in May show that the way the wind is blowing, it could be
:41:18. > :41:21.in for a historic realignment. Polling across Europe suggest that
:41:22. > :41:28.far left, far right and extreme Eurosceptic parties could be on the
:41:29. > :41:31.up. Do they organise themselves into an efficient legislative machine
:41:32. > :41:37.that will achieve what they want to try and undo bits of legislation,
:41:38. > :41:42.try to roll back the political frontiers of Europe? Or will they
:41:43. > :41:45.simply become a blocking my obstructive group that sit on their
:41:46. > :41:50.hands and try to stop things from happening? But the excitement
:41:51. > :41:54.doesn't end there. Then a new president of the European Commission
:41:55. > :42:00.needs to be is elected. You will miss all this by the end of the
:42:01. > :42:02.year. We are still working. He is still working until November but
:42:03. > :42:08.then a replacement needs to be found, and frankly, it is a
:42:09. > :42:11.merry-go-round. For the first time ever, the seven pan-European
:42:12. > :42:15.political groups in the Parliament have picked their own candidates for
:42:16. > :42:18.the job because the Lisbon Treaty says the appointment should reflect
:42:19. > :42:21.the results of the European elections. But the final choice will
:42:22. > :42:25.be made by the national leaders at a summit, and they do not want their
:42:26. > :42:29.hands tied, so there's a good chance they will take no notice. But their
:42:30. > :42:32.decision then goes back to parliament, where it has to be
:42:33. > :42:35.approved by a majority, who might kick up a fuss. Then the leaders and
:42:36. > :42:39.the new president select a commissioner from each member state,
:42:40. > :42:44.and the Parliament can veto all of those. Confused? Well, so are they.
:42:45. > :42:49.No one is quite sure how the back and forth will actually work. Please
:42:50. > :43:00.remain seated, the ride is not over yet. Because the President of the
:43:01. > :43:08.Council, Herman van rhomboid -- Rompuy. He has not been -- he will
:43:09. > :43:11.leave at the end of the year. Cathy Ashton, the foreign policy supremo
:43:12. > :43:14.is out of the door as well. It really is enough to make your head
:43:15. > :43:21.spin. But fear not, here is the really, really easy version. By the
:43:22. > :43:28.end of the year it will have set in motion the way Europe moves from
:43:29. > :43:31.here over the next five years. It is not so much what happens during the
:43:32. > :43:36.year, but what is in place by the end of the year, that is what will
:43:37. > :43:37.set off Europe on a course which could be very different from that
:43:38. > :43:50.which we see at the moment. Adam Fleming reporting. The turnout
:43:51. > :43:56.was 28% in this by-election in the north-west yesterday. The European
:43:57. > :44:01.elections in this country, you could probably put a number three in front
:44:02. > :44:06.of it, but not a number four. This by-election saw a very low turnout
:44:07. > :44:10.and there will be a low turnout in the parliamentary elections, and
:44:11. > :44:14.what we are all looking for is how well UKIP does, how badly the
:44:15. > :44:23.Conservatives do, and how that feeds into the general election next year.
:44:24. > :44:26.Do you think UKIP, is there an amateur bit about them, that they're
:44:27. > :44:31.not very good at managing expectations? It is a political
:44:32. > :44:35.skill and they have had Nigel Farage and other leading UKIP people on the
:44:36. > :44:42.programme saying that they will come first, which, of course, they might
:44:43. > :44:48.not. An interesting problem is that Labour will run 32% in a poll, and
:44:49. > :44:51.UKIP on 26, a good second, so the Tories on 23. If they had not been
:44:52. > :44:58.telling everybody they would come first, and they come second, it will
:44:59. > :45:03.seem they've not done well. That's why this OK result for them in
:45:04. > :45:09.Wythenshawe is not such a bad thing. Just two, sort of, slow their energy
:45:10. > :45:16.little bit. A big fallout, if the Tories and Lib Dems do badly. Which
:45:17. > :45:21.is widely expected. In the European elections? Yes, the fallout for them
:45:22. > :45:24.afterwards? Yes, they will have to be arguing even more strongly that
:45:25. > :45:30.the European elections, like a by-election, not ready any guide to
:45:31. > :45:35.a general election. But people are expecting UKIP to do well. And, if
:45:36. > :45:39.you like, parallel parties right across the continent coming up with
:45:40. > :45:44.an anti-Europe message expecting them to do well, as well. It is
:45:45. > :45:47.interesting, even though I'm not expect the turnout to be very high.
:45:48. > :45:53.We could end up with a different European Parliament. And real reason
:45:54. > :45:57.to pay attention to it. And that's the story on the European
:45:58. > :46:01.elections. UKIP is just a part of it because you will see that phenomenon
:46:02. > :46:04.and much further to the right in France, with the National front, the
:46:05. > :46:10.Freedom parties in Finland and Holland, even Sweden looks like it
:46:11. > :46:15.may have one or two MEPs from the hard right. Who knows what Greece
:46:16. > :46:22.and Italy are going to send us? The European Parliament could have a
:46:23. > :46:29.block of 35-40% of MEPs outside, to the right of the mainstream. And, at
:46:30. > :46:32.a time, moreover, when the parliament is claiming more powers
:46:33. > :46:37.and more of a say in the way the commission runs itself. So it is
:46:38. > :46:44.concerning, no doubt so it will be worth watching the election results.
:46:45. > :46:50.The boating. I wouldn't go that far. -- the voting. Of course, I always
:46:51. > :46:54.vote. Now, as we know, the next General Election is going to be on
:46:55. > :46:57.seventh May 2015. And that means the campaigning and electioneering is
:46:58. > :47:01.already taking place. How do we know that? Well, the parties are turning
:47:02. > :47:03.to youTube, Facebook and Twitter to try and create a viral internet
:47:04. > :48:03.buzz. Take a look at this. Make yourself heard. Don't wait for
:48:04. > :48:08.a general election, don't wait for a referendum, don't let anyone put
:48:09. > :48:14.jobs at risk and don't let anyone throw our recovery away. Let's keep
:48:15. > :48:27.Britain prosperous Thomas safe and strong. Vote Liberal Democrat.
:48:28. > :48:32.That was an example from each party but how they're trying to use social
:48:33. > :48:35.media to get their message across. And we're joined now by the
:48:36. > :48:39.political editor of BuzzFeed, Jim Waterson. It's at the cutting edge
:48:40. > :48:43.of social media. Welcome. Let's take the Labour won, because of the most
:48:44. > :48:49.recent one, and it's clearly the most sophisticated as well. What did
:48:50. > :48:52.you make of it? I thought was brilliant, the first time any
:48:53. > :48:57.British poetical parties accident something to communicate outside of
:48:58. > :49:02.someone of Westminster on this scale. It won't have cost much to
:49:03. > :49:06.do. A few hours with staff they've got, nothing to distribute and it
:49:07. > :49:11.reached 400,000 people, people who are normally look at political
:49:12. > :49:17.videos. Is it good or bad but it looks like the Conservatives can
:49:18. > :49:21.afford less good graphics and the Daily Politics? It was pretty awful.
:49:22. > :49:25.I think some people would agree with that as well, but I think they will
:49:26. > :49:28.come back with something better. The main thing they got to do is have a
:49:29. > :49:32.bit of humour. It's hard for politicians to drop their guard and
:49:33. > :49:36.show self-deprecation. And awareness. That was lying about Ed
:49:37. > :49:40.Balls being controlled by Ed Miliband and predictions going
:49:41. > :49:46.wrong, and that's an interest of 10,000 people, it's not going to
:49:47. > :49:52.spread far. The Labour won, it got almost 440,000 hits. It's a lot for
:49:53. > :49:59.a political video. -- belabour one. When I see things that go viral,
:50:00. > :50:04.quite often, they are not made to go viral. But they do go viral because
:50:05. > :50:10.people just like them. -- the Labour one. Can people make them go viral?
:50:11. > :50:15.Just try to be funny, drop your guard. The Labour won and funny,
:50:16. > :50:19.it's serious. It's poignant, in fact. There's pictures of George
:50:20. > :50:25.Osborne eating a pasty, looking very unhappy with that. The reaction was,
:50:26. > :50:36.people are finding it funny. Here is the big question. In this country,
:50:37. > :50:41.we've never had the video political advertising and like the USA and
:50:42. > :50:46.other countries. We don't allow the parties to advertise on TV. They get
:50:47. > :50:49.free space instead, whereas, in America in particular, campaigns can
:50:50. > :50:55.be dominated by television advertising. Will this, the fact the
:50:56. > :50:59.parties can go round the existing broadcasters, and go direct to the
:51:00. > :51:04.public, get round the broadcasting rules, is this the beginning of
:51:05. > :51:07.American-style advertising in British politics? I wouldn't go that
:51:08. > :51:13.far but we will see a lot of paid adverts in the 20 15th election.
:51:14. > :51:18.There's nothing to stop the Tories or Labour or the Lib Dems going and
:51:19. > :51:23.buying all the adverts on you Tube. A new voter, they sit down to watch
:51:24. > :51:26.something and they will see an advert which is what you have just
:51:27. > :51:31.shown there for them is nothing to stop that happening. They could be
:51:32. > :51:36.in bed in newspapers and magazines, couldn't they? They would pay for
:51:37. > :51:42.them. They could pay for print ads in some respects now. But a video is
:51:43. > :51:46.much more powerful. The trick is, the reason it goes viral is because
:51:47. > :51:49.your friends are recommending it. Your friend on Facebook is saying
:51:50. > :51:56.it's great. It's not like somebody chucking a leaflet through your
:51:57. > :52:01.door. What do you make of this? Very watchable. It doesn't have that you
:52:02. > :52:12.must see this, I must pass it on, quality. 400,000 in a short time, it
:52:13. > :52:17.is very watchable, but this really isn't American political
:52:18. > :52:23.advertising. That's not so far away. I would suggest it's early days. The
:52:24. > :52:28.techniques could take is that way, but the tone of it is actually
:52:29. > :52:33.rather marvellously British. It's funny. They will hire the people who
:52:34. > :52:36.can do this sort of thing. I would suggest it's quite a short jump from
:52:37. > :52:41.doing this sort of thing, once you get the in-house expertise, to say,
:52:42. > :52:49.let's try some negative advertising. Let's try what works in America.
:52:50. > :52:56.Sure, I'm sure it will change politics in the media for ever.
:52:57. > :52:59.Colossal election shaping way, but what we have since over it's hard to
:53:00. > :53:07.get excited about. I struggled to find that Labour advert in any way
:53:08. > :53:10.amusing or ground-breaking. It seems me perfectly straightforward and I'm
:53:11. > :53:14.sure it will appeal to people who are basically minded to vote Labour
:53:15. > :53:20.anyway. That's why they approve this message. It is not entertaining. We
:53:21. > :53:24.run it for people who are no interest in politics, Labour ought
:53:25. > :53:28.Tory, tweeting, I don't like either party but it was funny for some it
:53:29. > :53:34.was influencing them against the parties. What was funny about it? I
:53:35. > :53:38.don't know, ask them for sub at 400,000 people liked it. I don't
:53:39. > :53:44.think it's funny but it's well made and slick by the standards of the
:53:45. > :53:48.Tories won. It was slightly funny. It could've been better. It was
:53:49. > :53:53.hitting on ahead of a hammer funny, not subtle funny. That hit me on the
:53:54. > :54:04.head with a hammer funny. Are the parties hiring the expertise
:54:05. > :54:07.now to do this sort of thing? Yes, Labour have an in House person
:54:08. > :54:12.separate from the main campaign team doing this sort of thing, and using
:54:13. > :54:16.this to raise money. If you got this sent to you by the Labour Party
:54:17. > :54:21.mailing list, you would get things sane would like to donate ?5? That's
:54:22. > :54:29.the way Barack Obama raced his money. -- raised his money. At the
:54:30. > :54:34.moment, the law does not allow you to place a party political advert in
:54:35. > :54:39.the middle of the break of Coronation Street. If I watch
:54:40. > :54:43.Coronation Street on ITV player, can I place the ad in the middle of
:54:44. > :54:48.that? There's absolutely nothing to stop you buying it and putting VAT
:54:49. > :54:53.advert in that slot, if you're watching it on any online catch-up
:54:54. > :54:56.service. There you go. This will change British politics.
:54:57. > :54:59.Fascinating, thank you free much. The politicians had to dig their
:55:00. > :55:03.wellies from the back of the cupboard this week as they set out
:55:04. > :55:06.to tour parts of the England and Wales hit by flooding and storms.
:55:07. > :55:09.And the political response to the weather was the main event at
:55:10. > :55:18.Westminster. Here's David with a round-up in just 60 seconds.
:55:19. > :55:24.It was raining politicians this week as they got their feet wet to show
:55:25. > :55:28.that those affected by the wild weather haven't been left high and
:55:29. > :55:31.dry. But there were some good news as David Cameron declared he'd
:55:32. > :55:37.splash the cash to help people affected with the flooding. Money is
:55:38. > :55:41.no object in this relief effort. But not so good and slightly confusing,
:55:42. > :55:45.ministers said that would be no blank cheque to deal with the
:55:46. > :55:49.fallout. Meanwhile, smoking in cars with children side may become an
:55:50. > :55:54.offence, even though Nick Clegg originally had his doubts about it.
:55:55. > :55:58.Relief for London's commuters as a threatened Tube strike was called
:55:59. > :56:04.off but Bob Crow and Boris Johnson both declared victory. And
:56:05. > :56:08.cross-party unity as George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander all
:56:09. > :56:13.ruled out sharing the pound with an independent Scotland. SNP 's were
:56:14. > :56:17.less happy at what they described as a latest bout of bullying from the
:56:18. > :56:30.Westminster playground. Scotland Yard has confirmed that a
:56:31. > :56:34.48-year-old journalist has been interviewed under caution by
:56:35. > :56:40.detectives from operation building, the investigation into illegal
:56:41. > :56:44.interception of voice mail messages at Mirror group newspapers. The
:56:45. > :56:49.journalist in question is a former Daily Mirror editor, peers Morgan.
:56:50. > :56:58.More on that, no doubt, in the news coming up. The politics of the flood
:56:59. > :57:03.so far, politicians were slow off the ground, they usually are, they
:57:04. > :57:06.are rushing to catch up. The stakes are bigger for Mr Cameron than
:57:07. > :57:13.anybody else. So far, I would suggest terrible for the people, but
:57:14. > :57:17.not a seminal political event? Not yet, but clearly if David Cameron
:57:18. > :57:21.didn't manage to show some basic competence in this, it could stick
:57:22. > :57:27.for the rest of his parliament, so he has to show they were slow but
:57:28. > :57:36.were hoping the water would go away. Not bad so far. The floods are
:57:37. > :57:40.happening in a lot of Lib Dem and Tory areas weather will be a
:57:41. > :57:43.conflict and contest, so I'm watching whether there has been more
:57:44. > :57:47.rows within the Tories than between the Tories and Lib Dems. New Orleans
:57:48. > :57:50.on a different scale from this. It is one of the defining moments of
:57:51. > :57:55.the Bush administration, but so far, this doesn't look like a defining
:57:56. > :57:59.moment for Mr Cameron. No, I would take a punt and say it isn't going
:58:00. > :58:08.to be either full support could've gone very badly wrong. As it did for
:58:09. > :58:13.Mr Bush. I got to interrupt you. Never mind Piers Morgan. There's
:58:14. > :58:16.just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz. The question
:58:17. > :58:19.was which cat won the Westminster Cat of the Year competition this
:58:20. > :58:22.week following allegations of vote-rigging? Was it: a) Bosun. B)
:58:23. > :58:26.Parsnip. C) Kevin. Or d) Scaredy-Cat. We have 15 seconds. Who
:58:27. > :58:33.can tell me the answer. Kevin would have my vote. Actually, you are
:58:34. > :58:37.right. It was Kevin. Owned by Bill Esterson, Labour MP for Sefton
:58:38. > :58:41.Central. That is it for today. Thanks to Bronwen, James and all my
:58:42. > :58:46.guests. I'll be back on BBC One on Sunday with the Sunday Politics.
:58:47. > :58:53.I'll be joined by the RMT union leader Bob Crow. Westminster is on a
:58:54. > :58:56.break all next week. We're not back for ten days. Bye bye.