24/02/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. You wait ages for a

meeting of government ministers in Aberdeen, and then two come along at

once. Yes, the UK cabinet is out in force in the North East of Scotland

today, and they're gathering just down the road from Alex Salmond and

his cabinet. The prime minister's been visiting an oil rig in his

latest attack on the campaign for Scottish independence. He says only

the UK can deliver the best returns on Scotland's oil and gas reserves.

The British Government says it's ready with the chequebook to help

support a new government. Russia's furious at the loss of an ally, so

what's next for the people of Ukraine?

Angela Merkel's coming to London this week. According to officials

we're going to roll out the "reddest of red carpets" for the German

Chancellor. But will tea with the queen help persuade her to help us

renegotiate Britain's membership of the EU?

They say clothes make the man, and the woman too. But do our leaders

need to look good to get us to listen?

All that in the next hour. And with us today is the man once described

as the world's most newsworthy hairdresser. He's trimmed the locks

of plenty of famous people, including Margaret Thatcher. He's

recently appeared on the reality skiing show, The Jump. And as he's

got to wait another four years until he can try out for the next Winter

Olympics, he's found time to join us on the Daily Politics. Welcome to

the show. But first, those of you watching in Aberdeen who've been

crying out of a meeting of government ministers on your

doorstep, don't worry, your luck is in. Yes, David Cameron has taken his

cabinet to the Granite City, just five miles away from where Alex

Salmond is meeting with his ministers. And they'll all be

avoiding each other as they head out for a series of visits in the local

area. The prime minister's opened up a new front in the campaign against

Scottish independence, claiming only the UK can deliver the best returns

from Scotland's oil and gas reserves. Hear is the Scottish

secretary Alistair Carmichael. Every economy has to have a range of

sources that contribute to it. North Sea oil is an important one but it

is a volatile commodity. The price peaks and troughs. As part of the UK

we can share the challenges that these peaks and troughs present. And

as a consequence you can see a much smoother path. And you have a great

deal more stability. That is the view of the UK government. But

supporters of Scottish independence did not agree. Here is the first

Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond. You just have to look to Norway to

see a country that is smaller than Scotland but has handled its oil and

gas resources much better. Not just the benefit for companies and the

workforce but for the benefit of the Norwegian people who have built up

an oil fund. Over the last 40 years Scotland could have done something

similar. But we still have another 40 or 50 years to get that second

chance. Joining me now from Aberdeen is our Chief Political

Correspondent, Norman Smith. Those meetings going on this afternoon. It

sounds as if it has stepped up a gear. I do not know if you like

cricket but it seems that this is body-line politics. It is about

bowling very hard and fast, straight at Alex Salmond. Bouncer number one

came a few weeks ago when George Osborne said an independent Scotland

would not be allowed to keep the pound. Number two came with those

questions about whether an independent Scotland could remain in

the European union. Bouncer three comes with David Cameron today

saying what would happen to North Sea oil if you went it alone? He

said it would be less profitable with fewer people employed in it. He

says the UK government can provide tax support to enable companies to

invest and the financial wherewithal to withstand changes in oil prices.

In other words North Sea oil would do better staying in the UK. And

that says to a second argument that the UK government seems to be

developing, arguing about the purse strings rather than the

heartstrings. To say to Scottish voters, think about this. You may be

significantly worse off. They seem to calculate that in that the people

who really have to be won over, they're not going to be won over by

the emotive arguments. What may swing them is the pound in your

pocket. And that is what the UK government are concentrating on. So

they are cutting rough a little bit. What about the reaction from the

SNP? In a way it plays to the advantage of Alex Salmond. This is

the first visit from the UK Cabinet north of the border since Lloyd

George in 1921. So it is rare. But it plays to Alex Salmond 's

narrative. Here comes UK Cabinet to tell us how we should run our oil.

It also seems to play to his demand for a debate. He can say hang on,

David Cameron is just five miles down the road, why cant we just get

together and have this debate. There is a danger with all these big UK

government initiatives, whether from George Osborne or David Cameron,

there is a danger of them backfiring. This is a debate which

may be people in Scotland resent. English -based politicians coming

north to tell them how they ought to run things. So in a way it is at

gamble. But I said Dean Cameron feel that by raising bees have

questions, -- raising these tough questions, it is now up to Alex

Salmond now to make a move. Nicky Clarke, you think Scotland should

stay part of the UK. Do you think that the change from heartstrings to

press strings will play better with the Scottish electorate? I think a

lot of Scottish people do not necessarily understand the economics

of the whole thing. I think once there is some reality there, and

certainly the pound possibly not being there, George Osborne is

certainly playing heavy now. I think that will get a number of people to

rethink. It is closed at the moment and there is not long. The recent

opinion polls have actually narrowed slightly perhaps because of that

announcement from George Osborne about the pound. What do you think

of the campaign so far? I think it needs to step up a gear. David

Cameron is starting to do that now. I do not think it is a bad thing him

going up there. A coincidence, of course! But I think he will be able

to put forward a number of things that people will have to think twice

about. Gone will be the days of worrying about the romanticised

version of things. Now it's time for our daily quiz, and there's a new

health fad sweeping the political world. It's not pilates, or just

steering clear of the chips in the Commons dining room. No, the latest

thing is a fasting diet championed by celebrities such as Beyonce, it's

called the 5:2 diet. So which of these political big beasts is not

trying to become a slightly smaller beast? A, Alex Salmond? B, George

Osborne? C, Danny Alexander? Or D, Ed Balls? At the end of the show

we'll give the correct answer. It's been another turbulent weekend

in the history of Ukraine - and that's putting it mildly. This

morning we've learned that an arrest warrant has gone out for ousted

President Viktor Yanukovych, after MPs voted for his removal on

Saturday following months of protests. But how did a nation less

than 25 years old get to this point? Ukraine declared independence from

the USSR in 1991, making it the largest country with its boundaries

entirely within the European continent. The struggles of modern

Ukraine first grabbed international attention almost a decade ago, when

the Orange Revolution launched pro-Western candidate Victor

Yushchenko to the Presidency. Yushchenko began the tug of war

between the EU and Russia, as he tried to steer Ukraine towards a

European future, before Moscow tugged back dramatically in 2010

when pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych became President. Then at

the end of last year President Yanukovych's cabinet announced that

it is abandoning an agreement that would strengthen trade ties with the

EU, and will instead seek closer co-operation with Russia. From that

point thousands of people began taking to the streets in protests

which escalated to the point last week where at least 77 people were

killed in violent clashes in the capital Kiev. Over the weekend,

Viktor Yanukovych reportedly fled the capital and MPs voted to remove

him from power and called elections for May. An arrest warrant's been

issued for the former president, and a new unity government could be

formed by tomorrow. We can speak now to Olexiy Solohubenko who's an

expert on the region. What do you think is going to happen to

Ukraine? It is a difficult question at the moment. It is the period of

first steps, very urgent steps to stabilise the situation now and have

a government in place. And after that they would need to get the

money. I think the economic problem for Ukraine is absolutely massive.

While there is a political dialogue with the European union, Catherine

Ashton is coming today to the Ukraine and there are negotiations

with different ambassadors will stop I think the urgent question is how

the country will be kept on an even keel when there is political turmoil

coupled with economic turmoil. So the idea of the cheque-book in

opened is critical? I think the finance ministry published the

figure today that it needs 35 million US dollars just to keep the

country going for a year. The IMF may be involved there were

previously discussions with the European union. But the Russians

have promised 9 billion pounds. They now seem to have stopped that until

further notice. There was also a statement from one of the officials

of the Russian federation relating to increase tariffs on Ukrainian

goods. So pressure is coming from outside and internally the economy

has been terribly mismanaged. It had zero growth. So the economic problem

coupled with the political problem and tension in areas like the Crimea

will be big challenges for the new government. The question is does

anyone know the exact whereabouts of the ousted president? The short

answer will be no but probably he is somewhere in the Crimea. There are

not many places for him to hide in the Ukraine any more. Most of his

allies have now abandoned him. The leader of his action in Parliament

basically yesterday blamed the corrupt family for deceiving the

party and deceiving millions of honest supporters of his party of

regions. All of the governors who wear his keen supporters have either

resigned or pledged allegiance to the new authority. The Crimea I

think is the only area where there is still support for him. And

perhaps he could use the Black Sea route if he really wants to escape.

With us now is Chair of the All Party Group on Ukraine, John

Whittingdale, and expert on Russia and former Europe Minister, Chris

Bryant. Welcome to you both. What does Russia do now? I fear that

Russia will want to use heavy boot or aggressive economic tactics

against the Ukraine. What we need is the European union working

hand-in-hand with the Russians to make sure the physical integrity of

Ukraine is maintained. And that minority groups are protected.

Effectively that there is some kind of Marshall plan in place to secure

the economic future of the country. When Poland joined the European

Union, Poland and Ukraine had the same GDP. Now Poland has double that

of Ukraine. It is about the economics. So you really do feel

there could actually be Russia marching into the Ukraine? I'm not

predicting that but I do get nervous. Deviously Russia has used

in its backyard, who is in Georgia. David Cameron while he was leading

the opposition wisely went off to Georgia and said they would stand

side-by-side with them. That has unfortunately not happened in recent

years. I am worried that the European Union rarely gets its act

together dealing with Russia. Do you agree that the European union has to

step in not just with money but also with some political clout as Mac or

they could be a risk of you came disintegrating. -- the Ukraine. I

agree with Chris. The Russians are an inextricable part of the solution

as well. Yanukovich withdrew from an agreement because of the economy.

Vladimir Putin offered him cheap loans to pay off the debt and cheap

gas. Those two things are now been withdrawn. So the economy is in a

dire straits. To get out of that state will require cooperation right

across the board. Will that realistically happen in time? We

have seen the shocking pictures from Independence Square of the scores of

people who have been killed. But that is going to continue and is

likely to get worse in some sort of power vacuum, even though there is

somebody supposedly in charge. Is there a realistic chance that this

will hold together until May? You are right that the protests will

continue because almost everything they wanted has been delivered. They

have essentially won in large part, but the problem is that the people

in that square do not trust any of the existing politicians. Anyone who

has been tainted over the last 20 years in Ukraine is now not trusted.

It is Yulia Tymoshenko the answer here, crisp right? That is a

question for the people of Ukraine. To some, she is a divisive figure.

It is interesting that the interim president is one of her allies. He

was the speaker of parliament previously. It may be the kind of

moment when a lot of people need to stand to one side so that a uniting

figure can take the helm. But it is a decision for the people of

Ukraine. 46% of people speak Ukrainian in Ukraine, but 33% are

very determined Russian speakers, and they have a strong cultural

alliance to Russia. That has to be guaranteed as well. But if we are

talking about economics, is there a feeling in your mind, John, that

this could turn out well? If Ukraine does manage to ally itself to the EU

in a more formal way, even with a significant number of people who

feel more allied to Russia, it could be positive. That is what we must

work towards. If we can reach the point where Ukraine resumes its

discussions with the European Union about becoming closer and signing

association agreements, whilst at the same time working out a new

relationship with Russia, that is the best outcome. But getting from

here to there will be very hard. Everybody has got to stop thinking

about it in terms of backyard politics. It is not about Russia or

the EU, it is about Ukraine. That is the best way of protecting all

interests. The role of Cathy Ashton in this is important. I know some

people get sceptical, but if you look at what she has done in the

former Yugoslavia in relation to Kosovo and in Croatia, she has

played a key role because she can bring together a wider set of people

than any one from the individual countries. The other person who

could play an important role is President Putin. If he decides to

adopt the kind of approach he did in Syria, where he tries to find a way

forward which the international community can agree on, it would be

a triumph. On the other hand, if he reacts by saying, I am going to do

tend Russian speakers and terror of the financial agreements, it will be

worse. If that's not more likely? I am no expert on Vladimir Putin, but

despite what he has attempted to do with Syria, cynics might say, he

thinks he's losing a power base in Ukraine. He will do anything to stop

that happening. Is he going to sit back and let that happen? It may

affect his own backyard. That is the fear. And in relation to Syria, I am

deeply sceptical about his motives. He has still got troops in Georgia.

I would say a lot of the deals he has done with other countries

bordering Russia to do with oil and gas have been profoundly corrupt.

And he has thousands of troops in Ukraine as well. Is Vladimir Putin a

character people can do business with? It is worrying, because he's

worried about his power base. Implications are far-reaching. I

don't stick your lily think you have a division in Ukraine which is

pro-EU and Russia. -- pro-Russia. I do not think Yulia Tymoshenko is the

person for it. She does not really have the kind of support from all

over. She is tainted from the past. The one person who is not associated

with the past is Vitali Klitschko. He is getting support because he is

a newcomer into politics . And he has this international status. The

classic misjudgement that Putin has made repeatedly in Ukraine is either

violently and aggressively opposing people and therefore the support

behind them, or doing the opposite and poisoning. Has William Hague

done enough? The challenge for the West is what happens now. We sat and

watched people dying with a feeling of impotence. We could not intervene

militarily. Now we can help, so the challenge for the next few weeks

will be to provide the support Ukraine needs. This is where I

disagree, because I think that since 2010, Britain has been rather craven

towards Russia. We have just pursued financial and economic interests. If

you don't stand up to Putin, if your MPs still sit in the same group as

Putin's MPs in the Council of Europe as the Conservatives do at the

moment, it is a problem for our relationship for Russia -- with

Russia. Well, Putin will be part of the solution whether we like it or

not, so we have to talk to him. Does a sharp suit and a winning

smile account for more than your view on the welfare state or what to

do about the budget deficit? Logicians like to think it is their

idea is that win over the voters, but that that is not the case. So

does style really matter more than substance? We sent David out for a

make over. They say that clothes make the man

and presumably the woman, but is that true of politicians? Are we

more interested in their policies or how they parked their hair? I don't

know, but there is someone here who has strong views on the matter. We

are human beings. Our brain has evolved for us to judge someone in

part on how they look. We can't not judge them by the way they look. The

best thing a politician can do is to think about what he stands for and

to make sure his image aligns well with that. Then you get the words

and pictures going together. If they are very separate, research has

shown that we believe what we see more than what we hear. But can

someone like Jennifer really make much difference? We could not find a

real politician to pay -- play with because they are also -- too busy

washing their hair, so he will have to make do with me instead. Let's

get you dressed. It did not begin well. There were a few false starts.

But finally, a winner. Now you look like someone with something to say.

It is a great suit, but why is this more likely to get me elected? You

look authoritative. You have gravitas and you look interesting,

and you look like a man of the current world. Our politics is being

played out on screen and in the press. Before, you looked like you

had been rummaging in the back of the Westminster wardrobe. I spent

ages choosing that suit! It did not show, sorry! You may be wondering

whether there is any actual proof that image is important. Here is the

political science. People often do vote on policy and other factors,

but we do want someone who will effectively be attractive, who will

have a value we can associate with and therefore, we feel we have some

sense of cause to follow. And if it is a straight choice between style

or substance? The difficulty is, do we vote for them because of their

style, or do we think about whether they have the appropriate leadership

qualities outside of being able to manufacture image? Should you vote

for someone because you think they are good at their job, or is it the

appearance of the England at your job? Most of us would go down the

latter line. So, politicians, next time you are slaving away over that

policy paper, remember this. Voters go crazy for a sharp dressed man.

Joining me now is Dr Caitlin Milazzo, political lecture at Muslim

university, Obama, entrepreneur and star of the TV show Made In Chelsea.

He is also the founder of a website which rates MPs according to how

sexy they are. And of course, Nicky Clarke is with us. You did a study

into the attractiveness of MPs, what did you find? We found that before

the 2010 British general election, candidates perceived to be more

attractive by our students tended to be election winners. They got 2%

more votes than their less attractive counterparts. Does that

surprise you, Nicky? It doesn't. It is a shame that it has become that,

but it is about people being better looking, taller, sharper. But

something would worry me about somebody that was taking slightly

too much care of themselves and worrying too much about how they

present themselves and not having the substance I would want to see in

a politician. But do you think the message matters less if it is coming

from a more attractive person? I would hope not! I think one should

be well groomed. I certainly don't want to go back to the days of

Michael Foot in a donkey jacket. But people need to get it into

proportion. It is about politics. We have seen in life that people who

have those advantages, I am sure Mr JFK was one of the examples of the

clean cut looking American. And when up against the likes of Nixon, it

did not work. But was it also because he was less likeable? In the

end, is being attractive being dressed in a sharp suit and having a

good haircut, having great make-up if you are a woman, you look the

part? But if you open your mouth and what comes out is not intelligent,

doesn't it all gets cancelled out? Well, in the case of SexyMP.co.uk,

there is not much relevance to this debate, because it is about

incumbent MPs. But the problem is that people who are uninformed make

more judgement on people's appearance. If they are informed and

they engage with the message of each politician, that is what is

important. Unfortunately, most people are not informed, so they

make judgements and vote because of how someone looks. But they used to

save politics is showbiz for ugly people. Do you think that has

changed? Has politics become something that attractive people or

people who make themselves attractive can be successful at?

There is evidence to show that more attractive people in business are

generally more successful. People treat them better and put more trust

in them. In politics, the best evidence I found was a study by UCLA

about Congress law candidates. They looked at about 1000 candidates and

found there was nothing indicating that looks had an effect on them

winning elections. But they did find that good-looking people tended to

stand for congressional constituencies where they were more

likely to win. And is it different in America than Britain? Actually,

you would expect that in the US, attractiveness would matter more,

because that is our culture. But all the studies of the US find that it

is not attractiveness that matters, it is perceptions of confidence. Do

you perceive someone to be a capable leader? That is why we were amazed

when refined out that it was not surly confidence in ASEAN

elections, it was more attractiveness but was driving

things -- in British elections. If people come to you and say, I want

to project this sort of image, can you do that? You certainly can. The

business I am in is all about the image somebody wants to project.

Whether that happens to be a famous actor or a politician, I have been

fortunate over the last 40 years to do all of those. It is important

that people want to be seen as they see themselves. There is certainly a

power, whether it is a well groomed outfit or hair or make-up that is

important. No matter what you do, it is important. George Osborne changed

his hair. He has brushed it forward more. Does that change the way we

view him? You have to remember that people are people. We have seen Ed

Balls running and being in touch with his fitness levels. We have

seen people on the 5:2 diet, George included. That is more about them

being able to do the job than wanting to be seen to be fit to do

the job. I don't think that is necessarily a massive image crisis,

it is more about the fact that his hairline was receding. We talked

about David Cameron letting himself go grey. Does that matter? Does

gravitas come with maturity and age? That is the strain of the job!

Youth and age is another component of this. Would you feel more

supportive of our younger politician? I would support a

politician I was in agreement with. No matter what they looked like? I

am not that shallow! Every now and again there is always someone who

throws it to the wind. Youth is fine in terms of the energy brings but

every now and again you get someone like Vince Cable who is clearly

trying to prime himself as the next leader. I do not think there will be

any sudden make over with him! I would not vote for someone if they

were model, in spite of their views. I like people who have actually

lived in the real world. The Labour MP Sadiq Khan has

attacked the Conservatives today. Nothing unusual about that. But he's

questioned the party's record when it comes to engaging with ethnic

minorities, and says Tory attempts to reach out to black and Asian

voters should be viewed with suspicion. Writing in the Mirror

this morning he says, "Having grown up as an Asian boy in Thatcher's

Britain, I'm suspicious of the Tories on race. They ignored Stephen

Lawrence's family after his murder and they were never on my side when

I suffered racism. Britain will know when the Tory party has finally

changed on race and ethnicity - after all, seeing is believing." The

Tories say they have changed. Sadiq Khan joins us now, and the

Conservative MP Paul Uppal joins us from Birmingham. Is the Conservative

party a racist party in your mind? I do not think the party is racist.

Nikki and I last met in the green room of Newsnight. The member of

Parliament we appeared with is no longer in her job. David Cameron

promised more women, more ethnic minorities. And he has gone

backwards. And asking Lynton Crosby the man who ran the campaign for

Boris Johnson and did not want to focus on Muslim voters, I think that

is a step backwards. I would hope there would be an arms race to try

to win every one does not vote and not simply cater for some. You said

that the Conservative party has not changed since the 1980s. What is the

evidence for that? Mrs Lawrence said her experience as a black woman was

similar to date to that of the 1980s. Young black men are still

being stopped and searched now. There is an argument about changing

those laws. Unemployment is going up for black and ethnic minority

people. Last year the Conservative lead government had advertisements

saying, go home, a run -- around the most mixed parts of London. The

Labour Party has fallen over itself to apologise for what it is called

an open-door immigration policy. They apologised for the pressure put

on working class communities. So in a sense the Labour Party has been

playing the same game as the Conservative party. We held a public

enquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence within one month of being

let did. We brought about changes... Doreen Lawrence says very

little has changed. Paul Apple, do you recognise that characterisation

of the Conservative party and of Britain as a whole? Well I grew up

in the 1970s and faced racism almost on a daily basis. I actually

represent Enoch Powell's old seat. So the critique that the party has

not changed I think is far-fetched. What has changed is the approach of

both parties engaging with communities. I am the only seek

member in the House of parliament. -- Seikh. I have used the values to

enhance educational opportunities for everyone. Just a few years ago

we had three boys in the state system get the highest marks. We now

have educational opportunities for all communities. To look at the

evidence, even people in your own party think that the Conservatives

have a problem. One candidate for Dudley said the general perception

was that the party remained a racist party. Ethnic minority voters make

up almost one tenth of the electorate but just 16% of them

voted Conservative in the last election. What has changed? What has

changed in my experience, we have interaction with younger voters in

particular. We do have some baggage from the past about this. But what

is a real differentiation between us and Labour, Labour still see the

black and ethnic minority vote as a block vote. What he now found --

what you now found is people are asking who can provide education and

employment opportunities? The Labour Party has taken the ethnic minority

vote for granted and is now beginning to pay the price? People

are now beginning to be a little more discriminatory when they look

at the parties. They're not just giving their vote to the Labour

Party. In the past we have taken it for granted. I want an arms race. I

want every single vote to be courted. Every vote the urn. The six

people drafted in the Conservative manifesto are all male and pale. In

London more than 70% of our candidates in target seats are

women. So you're saying it is about the way the party looks and about

the Cabinet? Is that not a problem for the Conservatives and the

Liberal Democrats that there is not enough representation? We have

increased the number of MPs, sixfold from the intake period. It was from

a very low bar. I am involved with the policy board and helping to form

Conservative party policy. People in glass houses should not throw

boulders. The reality is that this article has appeared because they

have always taken the black and ethnic minority vote for granted. Do

you think the Conservative party should do more to attract ethnic

minority voters? I would love to think the Conservative party of

today is not that that you grew up with in the 1980s. David Cameron

would love to have a more diverse looking cabinet. Wide doesn't he?

Things are changing. But just not fast enough perhaps. We had the same

issue with the black and Muslim community as with women, there are

not enough women either. Do we want positive discrimination? I'm not so

sure that we do. On Thursday 13 February during a

discussion about Gordon Brown and his life outside of Parliament, a

guest on the show made remarks about the use of the money raised from

those engagements. Gordon Brown's office has asked us to make it

clear, and we are happy to do so, that he receives no personal gain

from any of his speeches or his writings and the money goes to

charity and to charitable and public service work carried out by himself

and his wife. MPs are back from a week-long

parliamentary recess. So what have they got to look forward to now

they're back at Westminster? As we've been discussing, the UK

cabinet's gone to Aberdeen today in the government's latest offensive

against Scottish independence. By Wednesday they'll be back for PMQs.

Will it be a session of "yobbery and public school twittishness" - in the

words of the Speaker - or will it be an altogether more sedate affair? On

Thursday, the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and the

Education Minister David Laws will unveil a new strategy to tackle

child poverty. Also, on Thursday, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel

visits the UK. She's expected to address both houses of Parliament.

No doubt, discussion on reforming the UK's relationship with the EU

will be on the agenda. On Friday, both UKIP and the Green party begin

their spring conferences. And on Saturday, the Labour party will hold

a special conference to decide whether to approve reforms over the

party's links with trade unions. Joining me now are Pippa Crerer from

the Evening Standard and James Lyons from the Daily Mirror. Welcome to

you both. The UK Cabinet meeting up in Aberdeen alongside Alex Salmond

and the Scottish government. How is that going to play out? It is the

clash of the cabinets and oil is the issue of the day. Do not forget the

slogan it is Scotland's oil helps the SNP to their largest Westminster

victory years ago. It is an important issue. And it is the

latest in a long line of issues brought up by the UK government to

hector the Scottish people. That is what the SNP want Scottish voters to

think. This is just the latest in a long line. There is Jeb --

definitely a ground swell of opinion towards independence. And there is a

closing of opinion and moved towards people being open to the idea. The

SNP have called that bullying, you think it will backfire? The danger

is that David Cameron takes the Cabinet up to Scotland and there is

a huge win for the independence campaign. Because the Conservatives

are still toxic brand. Some pro-Unionist believe that the fate

of the UK is in the hands of Nigel Farage of all people. If UKIP do not

do too well this year, that could hand to give to the SNP. The most

convincing argument in many parts of Scotland and Glasgow in particular

that the SNP are using that you will get rid of the Tories for ever if

you vote for independence. Angela Merkel comes to town later this

week. Is that significant? Hugely. The red carpet has been rolled out

for her. A state visit in all but name. Contrast that to the visit of

Francois Hollande. She is the single most important figure when it comes

to David Cameron's hopes of renegotiating the European Treaty.

He will invest a lot into making sure it is a good visit and she has

some ideas to give him on any compromises to be made. I think it

is unlikely that he will get the wish list that he wants. But he

wants to keep her onside. How much support to think he will get? In

terms of cosmetic changes may be. Certainly support for general

reform. What about the big stuff is Mac things that would require treaty

change? After all the disobliging remarks that David Cameron's

colleagues have made about France in the recent past I'm not surprised

that there are not supported by Francois Hollande. Downing Street

are talking up the chances of her helping them out. But even if they

do believe that and are not just trying to delay the inevitable

disappointment, the danger is that David Cameron has this read the

situation. He has a high opinion of his own powers of persuasion. We saw

what happened with President Putin, when Cameron returned from Sochi. He

said he had made huge progress and then the Russian leader humiliated

him at the G8. The Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom, Hazel Blears and

Lorely Burt joint as now. -- join us now. What do you want to hear from

Angela Merkel? David Cameron's agenda is clear, and Angela Merkel

has been clear that she once Britain to remain part of the EU. So I am

sure they will make progress towards that. William Hague said yesterday

that Angela Merkel's visit was just be starting point. David Cameron

gave his Europe speech over a year ago. What has happened in between? A

lot of discussion has happened behind the scenes. But have any of

the demands from your group been met? There is real progress. You

can't set a timetable and start negotiating something before you

even see whether the 2015 general election is won by the Conservatives

and whether David Cameron gets the opportunity to hold his EU

referendum. So there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes and

there is a lot of support across the EU. So you accept that none of the

serious negotiations will take place until after 2015? No, there was a

lot of negotiating behind the scenes. But it is all talk. Nothing

has been agreed. If you look at some of your demands for opt outs from

intolerable labour and social market legislation, boycotting defence

initiatives, are these things going to be done in two years before the

referendum in 2017? David Cameron has pledged to a fundamental

reform, and he is clear that that is to the advantage of the EU. It is

not about cherry picking for the UK. So what he negotiates with his

EU partners will be for him to decide and it will be dependent on

the outcome of the election in 2015. Hazel Blears, Number Ten is right.

Angela Merkel doesn't want the UK to leave the EU. So in that sense, they

are playing to an audience with open ears. Well, Angela Merkel is

incredibly important to David Cameron in all of this. If he does

not get her onside, he is in trouble. He has got her onside. We

shall see. But David Cameron is under huge pressure from UKIP. If

you look at some of the recent by-elections and council elections,

you can see the Tories haemorrhaging votes to UKIP. So this is David

Cameron's attempt to stave that off. In many ways, I wish him well, cos I

do think the view of the public is that they want to see Europe

reformed and they would like a say. So why won't labour give people a

say? In my view, it is essential that the people of this country do

have a say. So Ed Miliband should do that before the next election? It is

about reform of the system. The EU was about economics and jobs. Now we

are getting decisions about the deportation of foreign criminals. I

think the public want that to be changed. When are we going to see

that debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage? Soon, I hope. A lot

rides on it. We have our credentials. We owe -- we are the

only party of in the EU. We believe there are about 3 million jobs at

stake, and we are not afraid to put our head above the parapet. I wish

you would speak to young Edward, Hazel, and get him to come on board

as well. But you are not promising a referendum. We are promising an

in-out referendum, should there be any treaty change. But everybody has

agreed to that. You say you are the only party for in, so why not

campaign for in in an in-out referendum? We will campaign for in,

should a referendum arise. We will see how things pan out. We will see

what happens after the 2015 elections. That will be an

interesting time for the future of Britain and Europe. You say the

Liberal Democrats are the only party for in. David Cameron has been clear

that he wants to see a reformed EU. Having spent a lot of time in

Strasbourg recently, the rest of Europe still thinks it is a way for

Britain to leave the EU. They see it as a tactic for pushing at the door

to exit. That is not my understanding. It might not be your

understanding, but that is the danger. You have got UKIP reading

down your neck on this. It is not the case. This is a positive

campaign. So nothing to do with UKIP or the people who do just want to

leave? David Cameron is trying to lead the country into a position

where the EU is globally competitive. With one hand behind

his back. What are you basing the evidence on that actually, the rest

of Europe does see it as a quick exit out of the EU? I have not got

the perspective of the whole of Europe, but I see what is happening

in Britain. In the Conservative Party, there are some pro-European,

good Conservatives, but they are hopelessly split and they are

fearful of UKIP. It just isn't the case. There are few in the

Conservative Party would like to see Britain leave. Most are behind David

Cameron's view that the EU needs to be more globally competitive and

more democratically accountable. PMQs has been a little rowdy of

late, so much so that last week, the speaker said the "twittishness"

needed to end. Labour leader Ed Miliband said he has agreed to

that. Here is an example of how difficult it can get. Anne-Marie

Morris. This government has a great record on educational reform.

Will the prime minister confirm he will support a further round this

autumn so that businesses and universities... We got the gist of

that. Very good to see the honourable lady on such feisty form.

Well, she would have to be to be heard. She had already broken her

arm. That is amusing, but is it acceptable? Absolutely not. When you

stand to ask the prime minister question, there is a microphone. She

did not need to shout. We had a laugh about that. But there is a

serious point here. I think agreement has broken out between us

here, because we all find it distasteful. We would all like to

see more of a sensible approach. People ask the Prime Minister's

Questions because they are interested in knowing the answer.

But does it actually put people off? In your postbag, Hazel, do you get

letters saying, can you please do something about the noise and the

general, but if they drop PMQs? I get more letters about housing,

education and social services. But I do get comments. Sometimes when I go

to schools, young people say, what happens on a Wednesday afternoon? It

looks like bad behaviour. If they behaved like that at school, they

would get sent out. But having said that, I liked our Parliament for the

two for a debate that we get. When you go to the European Parliament

and people just read speeches, it is so boring. There needs to be a

better balance between being boring and being boorish. How do you do it?

It seemed that we all reported on the idea that after Christmas, Ed

Miliband had agreed to try and turn it down a bit. And it seems

impossible to do. Can you achieve it without it becoming boring? I think

you need an agreement between everybody that when there is a

question, you get an answer. If people tried to answer the questions

more, that might calm it down. What about the Punch and Judy, and ending

it? Like the other ladies, I find it distasteful. I was recently at a

human day with a group of year 12 and 13s, all of whom said the only

time I see the chamber of the House of Commons is during PMQs, and they

all thought it was just funny. It is not good for serious politics. Most

of the time in the chamber, it is intelligent and courteous debate.

But this is the showcase. David Cameron said he would end Punch and

Judy. Is it that they don't want to, or is it that they can't find a way

of doing it? I think it is the most tense period of the week, where the

leaders of both parties are being held to account. So tempers and

tensions are high. It is partly down to yourselves as well. Because the

press judge you on that half hour on a Wednesday, are you up, are you

down, other threats to your leadership, are you going to be

deposed next month? It is all on that moment, and it becomes like a

theatre. The atmosphere is so intense, so maybe journalists need

to be part of this as well. No, let's leave it to the politicians!

But does it put off women? That has always been the claim, that it puts

off women, voters, viewers and MPs themselves. Is that true? To a

degree. I remember standing to ask the prime minister a question and,

forgive me, Hazel, but if the opposition sense that you are going

to say something that is in anyway derogatory to them or critical, you

get a wall of noise hitting you. That is very intimidating. Is that

the reason you are standing down? Have you had enough of the toing and

froing of it all? No, I have in here nearly 20 years. As a minister, I

have stood in that chamber. I was at one of the last all-night sittings

at four o'clock in the morning on very controversial legislation when

one or two members had perhaps had one or two drinks. I have been

there, done that, got the T-shirt. Not at all. I just feel that at this

point, it is time for the next generation in my seat to come along.

I genuinely want to choose bend more time with my family. And I am

looking for new challenges. We have all been in local politics for

years, and I don't want to become part of an institution. What is your

proudest achievement? Introducing neighbourhood policing, and changing

the whole way we do policing in this country. The Liberal Democrats and

the Conservatives and people around the world now think that

neighbourhood policing is the best thing for our country. Biggest

regret? You always think there is more you could have done. But I am

not a person for regrets. My biggest regret would be leaving the people

of Salford. I would still live there, but they will have a new

voice and I hope they get a strong champion. Just briefly go back to

atmosphere of how we do politics, do you think the speaker is the problem

or part of the solution? I actually think he is rather a good speaker.

He defends the backbenches very well in terms of their right to speak. He

keeps us all to order. This is my first time, but I understand he gets

through the questions so that he gives loads of people the chance to

have their say. He is unpopular with a few of your colleagues. I don't

like him insulting colleagues. He is as bad as anyone when it comes to

personal insults. Sometimes it is hurtful. Just time before we go to

find out the answer to our quiz. Question was, which politician is

not on the 5:2 diet? Is it Alex Salmond, George Osborne, the

Alexander or Ed Balls? They are all men! And who is not on it? I have

worked for Danny, and I don't think he is on it. You are right! Danny

Alexander is not on the 5:2 diet. I am! That is all for today. Thanks to

our guests. The one O'Clock News is starting on BBC One now. I will be

here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the day.

Thanks. Bye-bye.