:00:37. > :00:42.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. More personal, more
:00:43. > :00:45.passionate, more insulting. Round two of Clegg v Farage over Britain's
:00:46. > :00:49.membership of the European Union wasn't exactly a pretty affair. But
:00:50. > :00:52.the polls put Mr Farage further ahead than they did first time
:00:53. > :00:56.round. The coalition's in a spin over wind
:00:57. > :00:58.farms. The Tories have turned against them. The Lib Dems still
:00:59. > :01:02.love them. It's tough out there providing
:01:03. > :01:07.public services. We'll be analysing one council's "graph of doom".
:01:08. > :01:10.And this programme is brought to you by the CIA. We'll be dissecting some
:01:11. > :01:21.good old-fashioned conspiracy theories.
:01:22. > :01:27.The signal has just clicked in! All that in the next hour. And with
:01:28. > :01:29.us for the duration, journalist David Aaronovitch. Welcome to the
:01:30. > :01:32.programme. Now first today, let's kick off with
:01:33. > :01:35.the Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, who has been ticked off over her
:01:36. > :01:39.expenses. Our political correspondent Carole Walker has
:01:40. > :01:43.more. She has been cleared of the central
:01:44. > :01:48.charge of billing her expenses, but she has been strongly criticised?
:01:49. > :01:51.That's right, and she is about to make an unprecedented apology by a
:01:52. > :01:56.serving Cabinet Minister over her expenses. This was a lengthy and
:01:57. > :02:03.complicated investigation into claims totalling around ?90,000 over
:02:04. > :02:06.four years for their house in south London, which she designated as her
:02:07. > :02:12.second home, even though that was where she lived with her parents and
:02:13. > :02:15.her husband. What the committee was looking at is whether it was right
:02:16. > :02:21.to call it her second home, whether her parents benefited from taxpayers
:02:22. > :02:27.money, whether she claims the right amount, and so on. What the
:02:28. > :02:31.committee found was that they cleared her of benefiting her
:02:32. > :02:36.parents from the claims that she had made. They did say that she had over
:02:37. > :02:46.claimed for her mortgage repayments. They have ordered her to reap a
:02:47. > :02:50.?5,800 -- to repay ?5,800. But the most serious charge was that she
:02:51. > :02:53.failed to respond adequately to the various questions put to her over
:02:54. > :02:59.the course of the investigation, and it is for this that she is about to
:03:00. > :03:04.apologise to the House of Commons. Obviously a huge relief for her, and
:03:05. > :03:14.for David Cameron in the Government. That's right. He has said he has
:03:15. > :03:19.great support for Maria Miller. She has agreed to repay the money and
:03:20. > :03:24.apologise to the House, and we should leave it at that, he says. So
:03:25. > :03:28.it is clear that he believes he can hang on to her. I think the Prime
:03:29. > :03:32.Minister would have been very reluctant to lose one of the few
:03:33. > :03:36.women in his Cabinet, and so she will carry on in that role. But
:03:37. > :03:41.there is no doubt that this does leave something of a black mark on
:03:42. > :03:43.her reputation, and it will be something of a difficult and
:03:44. > :03:50.embarrassing moment for her to have to apologise to the Commons in the
:03:51. > :03:56.next hour. Carole Walker, thank you. David, are
:03:57. > :04:03.you surprised? I think people have had enough of this. The report seems
:04:04. > :04:08.to exaggerate her from the charges. So we are talking about her attitude
:04:09. > :04:11.towards the committee and so on. And I don't know whether this is the
:04:12. > :04:15.public perception, possibly the public doesn't have a perception
:04:16. > :04:21.about it. But to me, the committee is the sign of everything that has
:04:22. > :04:24.gone wrong with this situation. I don't even treat my children like
:04:25. > :04:29.this, forcing them to account for every tiny little thing. It is so
:04:30. > :04:33.long past time that we just created a situation where we give MPs and
:04:34. > :04:39.lump sum, they don't have to account for it, this is the account we think
:04:40. > :04:44.-- the amount we think is right for doing the job, spend it how you
:04:45. > :04:47.like. And some say that is the way forward, but if you think about the
:04:48. > :04:54.furore over the expenses scandal, and fair treatment of people, they
:04:55. > :04:59.say, who didn't commit any more of an offence than Maria Miller, why is
:05:00. > :05:02.there not more of a fuss? You think because we got so cross with people
:05:03. > :05:07.in the past, we should keep on being that cross? There are a whole series
:05:08. > :05:12.of discrepancies with people who have been treated much worse than
:05:13. > :05:28.other people during the hold parliamentary scandal. Nobody cares.
:05:29. > :05:31.The public do. Nobody cares about the people who are being affected by
:05:32. > :05:34.this. Now it's time for our Daily Quiz.
:05:35. > :05:38.The question for today is: What has David Cameron been complaining about
:05:39. > :05:42.the price of? Is it: a) A white sliced loaf of bread. B) A first
:05:43. > :05:46.class stamp. C) An England football team shirt. Or d) An Ed Miliband
:05:47. > :05:52.souvenir mug? At the end of the show, David will give us the correct
:05:53. > :06:02.answer. Even I know the answer to that! Don't give it away.
:06:03. > :06:05.Now, the idea of an in/out debate on Europe was Nick Clegg's. He threw
:06:06. > :06:08.down the gauntlet to the the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage,
:06:09. > :06:12.no wilting wallflower, rose to the challenge. But after two debates and
:06:13. > :06:15.with Mr Farage declared, by the pollsters at least, as victor, one
:06:16. > :06:18.wonders if Mr Clegg might be regretting his decision. Let's take
:06:19. > :06:22.a look back at last night's contest. It is 40 years since the BBC debated
:06:23. > :06:26.this great question. The one thing that has remained the same as David
:06:27. > :06:29.Dimbleby. We want to trade with Europe, get on well with our
:06:30. > :06:34.next-door neighbours, but we don't want to be part of a political
:06:35. > :06:38.union. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If you do what
:06:39. > :06:44.Nigel Farage recommends, and you isolate Britain, sort of Billy no
:06:45. > :06:50.mates Britain, a Billy no jobs Britain... The principle that drives
:06:51. > :06:53.my entire political career is that I think the best people to govern
:06:54. > :06:56.Britain are the British people themselves. Let's be in independent
:06:57. > :07:02.United Kingdom, and I want the rest of Europe to free themselves from
:07:03. > :07:07.the European Union, too. 200 people dying in Syria, being mown down,
:07:08. > :07:13.killed, every single day, and Nigel Farage says he admires, he admires
:07:14. > :07:17.the way that Vladimir Putin has played, as if it is a game... The
:07:18. > :07:21.difficulty is we can't plan anything, because we don't know how
:07:22. > :07:27.many are going to come. We have a chronic problem in schools, we need
:07:28. > :07:30.to make a quarter of a million new primary school places immediately,
:07:31. > :07:34.and housing, goodness me. We need to build a house every seven minutes
:07:35. > :07:39.just to cope with immigration into this country. So whichever way you
:07:40. > :07:44.look at it, we have huge problems with a population over which we have
:07:45. > :07:49.no control at all. It is simply not true to say that anyone can come
:07:50. > :07:52.here. People can only come here from the European Union and stay here if
:07:53. > :07:57.they want to support themselves and want to work. It is good for the
:07:58. > :08:01.rich, because it is cheaper nannies, chauffeurs, gardeners. But it is bad
:08:02. > :08:05.news for ordinary people in Britain. We need to have control
:08:06. > :08:09.over the number of people who come here and the quality of people who
:08:10. > :08:12.come here. I don't want to discriminate against India and New
:08:13. > :08:19.Zealand because we have an open door to Bulgaria and Romania. When the
:08:20. > :08:24.rules change, a new treaty, powers that belong to you are being given
:08:25. > :08:28.up, it shouldn't be for the government to decide, it should be
:08:29. > :08:31.for you to decide. Let's free ourselves up and given examples of
:08:32. > :08:36.the of Europe. I know that people are behind this, and I would urge
:08:37. > :08:40.people, come and join the people's army. Let's topple the establishment
:08:41. > :08:45.who have led us to this mess. And there are those of us who believe
:08:46. > :08:53.and love modern Britain as it is today. Compassionate, diverse,
:08:54. > :08:56.outward facing. We have challenges and complexities, but by working
:08:57. > :09:01.with other countries, you deal with those challenges and make Britain
:09:02. > :09:10.richer, stronger and safer. So, that gives you a flavour of last
:09:11. > :09:13.night's debate. And here's what David Cameron had to
:09:14. > :09:16.say on BBC Breakfast this morning when he was asked who he'd been
:09:17. > :09:19.rooting for last night. The problem with the debate is that
:09:20. > :09:22.the people taking part have quite extreme views. Nick thinks there is
:09:23. > :09:25.nothing wrong with Europe and we shouldn't have a referendum, and
:09:26. > :09:31.Nigel thinks that there is nothing right with Europe and we should
:09:32. > :09:34.leave. They are both wrong. We should get tough with Europe,
:09:35. > :09:38.negotiate a better deal, and then give people a choice and a
:09:39. > :09:42.referendum. And that is what I will do if I am Prime Minister after the
:09:43. > :09:46.next election. That is what people want, a proper choice on changing
:09:47. > :09:47.Europe, and that is what these European elections should be about,
:09:48. > :09:50.too. We're joined now by the former
:09:51. > :09:52.Liberal Democrat director of communications, Olly Grender, UKIP's
:09:53. > :10:01.director of communications, Patrick O'Flynn, and the political editor of
:10:02. > :10:09.the Sun, Tom Newton Dunn. We will see what things are like! Whose
:10:10. > :10:13.bright idea was it to give you get a foreign policy which involves
:10:14. > :10:19.respecting Mr Putin for what he has done in Syria and Crimea? Our
:10:20. > :10:22.foreign policy, as I told you last week when you predicted we would
:10:23. > :10:27.have to back down, seems to have been extremely well received by many
:10:28. > :10:32.people in Britain. It is not a matter of backing Mr Putin. But you
:10:33. > :10:37.respect what he does. What we haven't said is that we admire him
:10:38. > :10:42.as a human being or someone who runs a country which flout human rights.
:10:43. > :10:46.But what we are focusing on is that it is outcomes that matter, not
:10:47. > :10:50.sanctimonious student policies. The road ahead is paved with good
:10:51. > :10:56.intentions, and we feel that the political class in this country, it
:10:57. > :10:59.is an exercise in vanity. They like to look at themselves in the mirror
:11:00. > :11:02.in the morning and think, I am on the side of the good guys. But if
:11:03. > :11:07.you look at the outcomes in Syria and Libya and now in Ukraine, they
:11:08. > :11:10.are terrible. And was it not quite clever of UKIP to get into position
:11:11. > :11:19.where, in last night's debate against the Lib hems, they were busy
:11:20. > :11:23.as posturing, the anti-war party. I think there is a Tony Blair legacy
:11:24. > :11:31.on the Iraq war that is very difficult. If you were against it,
:11:32. > :11:34.and you still didn't get credit. And Mr Clegg was having to defend
:11:35. > :11:39.intervention in parts of the world. What did you think to that? I think
:11:40. > :11:44.is right to defend intervention in parts of the world. I think it was
:11:45. > :11:48.extraordinary. I think the foreign affairs stuff will come back again
:11:49. > :11:56.and again and again. It was an extraordinary moment. The stuff
:11:57. > :12:01.about having played Syria right, that was brilliant and will come
:12:02. > :12:05.back to haunt him. But given that you are positioning ourselves as the
:12:06. > :12:12.anti-war party, it was difficult to let UKIP paint you into a different
:12:13. > :12:15.box. We are anti-illegal wars, and if Putin did anything with regard to
:12:16. > :12:22.the UN, something legally could be done. Hopefully, about these
:12:23. > :12:28.hundreds of children and women persecuted every day in Syria. Even
:12:29. > :12:34.the Lib Dems, powerful as they are... Maybe Nigel Farage could have
:12:35. > :12:43.a word with him. What did you make of that part of the debate? Nick
:12:44. > :12:46.Clegg... Let's look at what has changed in four years. Nick Clegg in
:12:47. > :12:52.2010 was the outsider, the fresh face. He had an extraordinary poll
:12:53. > :12:58.rating. He turned the general election on its head. He is now the
:12:59. > :13:06.insider. It didn't turn out that way on the day. It all went down to
:13:07. > :13:10.nothing at the election. What happened last night was Nick Clegg,
:13:11. > :13:14.four years on, has the scars of government all over his back. He has
:13:15. > :13:18.had to take decisions, locking salt into policies, he is now the
:13:19. > :13:30.ultimate insider, and so is Nigel Farage. -- locking himself into
:13:31. > :13:35.policies. Political brilliance from Nigel Farage, talking about the
:13:36. > :13:42.people's army, and he probably put ten point poll rating. Imagine Tony
:13:43. > :13:45.Benn having come out with the same phrase, I don't know whether it
:13:46. > :13:55.would have had quite the same resonance. Does this have perches on
:13:56. > :13:58.the politics of this moment? If you look at the economic situation in
:13:59. > :14:02.the last five or six years, what Nigel Farage has shown clearly is
:14:03. > :14:05.that he stands for a significant portion of the population who
:14:06. > :14:09.doesn't like Britain as it is, doesn't like the world as it is, and
:14:10. > :14:16.wants to cut itself off. It is isolationist in foreign policy, and
:14:17. > :14:19.I don't think for a second that he likes Vladimir Putin, but what he is
:14:20. > :14:23.saying is I don't want to have much to do with the world, I wanted to go
:14:24. > :14:34.away, I want to get out of the EE you. -- EU. I think Alex Salmond
:14:35. > :14:45.thinks the same about Scotland. And on immigration, there hasn't been
:14:46. > :14:52.the predicted influx of body -- people from Bulgaria and Romania. We
:14:53. > :14:59.haven't had any figures apart from one that covered the year up to
:15:00. > :15:03.November 2013. If I can just bring you to the person with the best
:15:04. > :15:14.projections, time and time again, it is Andrew Green at Mine -- Migration
:15:15. > :15:19.Watch. It has always been the case that the whole EU immigration issue
:15:20. > :15:25.has been wider than Bulgaria and Romania. We have what are called
:15:26. > :15:35.eurozone refugees, people locked into Mediterranean economies that
:15:36. > :15:40.are going down the pan. We are going to inherit the best and the
:15:41. > :15:52.brightest? It would be nice to have some volume control, but last night,
:15:53. > :15:55.with respect, we have neither. A native American poster that Mr Clegg
:15:56. > :16:03.unveiled from UKIP, do you think it work? Yes, it makes a point. It
:16:04. > :16:08.makes a compelling point. There is a scare tactic which is deployed by
:16:09. > :16:17.Nigel Farage with regard to economic migrants seek and immigration. I
:16:18. > :16:23.thought it worked. Did it work in terms of the kind of fears and
:16:24. > :16:27.concerns and thought people about immigration? That continues to be a
:16:28. > :16:32.debate that needs to be held on as rational a level as possible. If you
:16:33. > :16:38.look at the line that UKIP took, in terms of positioning it is clever.
:16:39. > :16:43.They came out as the anti-war and the anti-politics party, which plays
:16:44. > :16:48.well in this country, and then he cast immigration almost in terms of
:16:49. > :16:53.class. It is fine if you can afford servants or chauffeurs, but not if
:16:54. > :17:02.you are low paid and having to compete with people coming in. That
:17:03. > :17:08.is an anti-establishment position. He went further than that, and went
:17:09. > :17:14.into racial terms and topped about creating an underclass and that set
:17:15. > :17:17.alarm bells ringing. Ten seconds. I am not saying whether you agree or
:17:18. > :17:26.disagree, but what he did was very clever. Nick Clegg's personal rating
:17:27. > :17:33.went up four breast-fed for people who watched the debate. But Nigel
:17:34. > :17:39.Farage's went up by 12%. He speaks the people's language and it works.
:17:40. > :17:48.The antiestablishment training ground of the city and stockbroking.
:17:49. > :17:55.He taps into that. He is not an MP, so he is not tainted. People do not
:17:56. > :17:58.trust his judgement, and that will be held over him, but it is very
:17:59. > :18:03.difficult to interrogate these things. I spent a lot of time
:18:04. > :18:08.writing that the evidence does not stack up behind the notion that
:18:09. > :18:12.ordinary Britons have not benefited from immigration, they have and the
:18:13. > :18:16.evidence is there. But when somebody says the elite have walked away with
:18:17. > :18:24.all the benefits and we have suffered together, people like that.
:18:25. > :18:30.Very quickly, why did Mr Farage do even better in the second one? I
:18:31. > :18:35.think he had the stronger arguments. I must go back to the race thing. He
:18:36. > :18:39.made one mention of the white, working-class in an hour and he made
:18:40. > :18:46.mention of African Caribbean young men in London. The difficulties of
:18:47. > :18:52.white, working-class kid is well established in literature. Why did
:18:53. > :18:57.he do better? I think he was more relaxed and more confident in his
:18:58. > :19:04.arguments. I thought Nick Clegg was worse because he was rattled. Why
:19:05. > :19:08.did he do better? This is an argument that has only had one side
:19:09. > :19:13.to it for the last two decade and finally somebody is standing up with
:19:14. > :19:20.the pro-European argument. You cannot argue the more you hear, the
:19:21. > :19:24.more we come round. He lost by more. If we had a sustained period of
:19:25. > :19:32.anti-European commentary, I think things would improve. Why did he do
:19:33. > :19:35.better this time? Because Nick Clegg was disingenuous and he tried to be
:19:36. > :19:46.Nigel Farage and Nigel Farage tried to be Mr Clegg. They swapped roles.
:19:47. > :19:53.There we go, on that line. Stay where you are. The Westminster
:19:54. > :19:56.village set up camp in New Broadcasting House last night. Chris
:19:57. > :20:05.Mason was brave enough to enter the spin room. Not a place for the
:20:06. > :20:09.faint-hearted. Here is his report. All right, so it looks like a
:20:10. > :20:14.roomful of people doing an accountancy exam and someone has
:20:15. > :20:20.left the TV on. Welcome to the spin room, reporters and spin doctors in
:20:21. > :20:24.a conference room over the road from the debate, watching it on the box
:20:25. > :20:29.like people at home. But the minute it finished, this room was the
:20:30. > :20:33.centre of things. Let's see what various journalists are making of
:20:34. > :20:44.it. I can just see Kevin Maguire from the Daily Mirror. Let's see if
:20:45. > :20:49.we can grab a quick word. Could you have a quick word with the Daily
:20:50. > :20:56.Politics? Always. What do you make of it? Last week Nigel Farage was a
:20:57. > :21:03.bit all over the place. He looked calmer. Nick Clegg came out like a
:21:04. > :21:07.terrier and started out well, but it did not last and Nigel Farage
:21:08. > :21:13.knocked him out of the park. Nick Clegg came out very fast and he was
:21:14. > :21:19.painting Nigel Farage is a bit of a crank and that was effective. He
:21:20. > :21:23.tired at the end and Nigel Farage began to find his rhythm, but
:21:24. > :21:29.tonight I found it was won by Nick Clegg. Some were left smiling by
:21:30. > :21:35.Nick Clegg's reference to a cricket England could be proud of. My
:21:36. > :21:39.favourite cricketer is WB grace, because I had the idea of all the
:21:40. > :21:49.Eurocrats watching this debate as thing, who is she? But this room was
:21:50. > :21:57.something of a bearpit. We will not tolerate this rude interruption. I
:21:58. > :22:02.just had my interview nicked by Norman Smith on the news channel.
:22:03. > :22:07.Typical. These audience members reflected the opinion polls,
:22:08. > :22:12.claiming it was a UKIP victory. I think Nick started off strong, but
:22:13. > :22:18.undoubtedly it was a Nigel Farage victory. Did Nigel Farage win? He
:22:19. > :22:24.did, he knew what he was talking about and he knew what he was
:22:25. > :22:29.wanting to get out of it. We might have expected Ukraine to come up in
:22:30. > :22:34.the conversation, but perhaps not Derby County Council and Orpington.
:22:35. > :22:37.They got a mention. Now the room has seemed to stop spinning and the
:22:38. > :22:43.deadlines are approaching for the journalists. But the big question is
:22:44. > :22:50.will we get the same thing again in a couple of months? That is during
:22:51. > :22:56.the general election campaign. Chris Mason braving it inside. What
:22:57. > :23:00.was the atmosphere like? It was slightly flat, I will not lie to
:23:01. > :23:09.you. Last week was quite interesting. They had to drink,
:23:10. > :23:16.which always gets the adrenaline going. How to get the debate
:23:17. > :23:21.swinging. It was the second time around and both these debates have
:23:22. > :23:26.not changed anything at all. It is man bites dog, dog bites man, they
:23:27. > :23:32.confirmed the stereotypes. Nigel Farage is on a roll and Nick Clegg
:23:33. > :23:36.is not going to do very well. We see the spin doctors standing around,
:23:37. > :23:42.what did you say to the journalists immediately afterwards? That he is
:23:43. > :23:47.right to hold this debate and he is right to stand up for his beliefs. A
:23:48. > :23:53.lot of people question is he true to his beliefs and no one can question
:23:54. > :23:58.that he believes in a positive, pro-European message. What was
:23:59. > :24:05.telling in the polling yesterday was that again a large swathe of Labour
:24:06. > :24:12.supporters are finally opening their ears to Nick Clegg, which I thought
:24:13. > :24:19.would always be a struggle. More people to UKIP, to be honest. 51%.
:24:20. > :24:30.More Labour voters went to UKIP, sorry. I thought it was a shift. For
:24:31. > :24:36.you, then, what was the main thrust of your strategy after the debate? I
:24:37. > :24:43.instinctively knew that he had won by more than last week and if I can
:24:44. > :24:46.mention Kate Burley, she was interviewing me live, implying we
:24:47. > :24:50.were on the back foot in foreign policy and we would struggle and I
:24:51. > :24:55.said, we had won by more and the poll came through and indeed we had.
:24:56. > :24:59.It was important for Nigel to emotionally connect with the
:25:00. > :25:02.audience and I thought he did that several times really well,
:25:03. > :25:08.particularly in the final closing minutes. What did you do between
:25:09. > :25:14.last week and last night to improve the performance. I suspect on both
:25:15. > :25:18.sides there was a secondary round of anything coming out of the last
:25:19. > :25:23.debate, what will the other guy do? The fact that Nigel had one last
:25:24. > :25:28.week, Nick Clegg could argue it was a points victory, but it was a
:25:29. > :25:33.victory nonetheless. That was important to us, to try and deliver
:25:34. > :25:39.a knockout win. We were very focused and feeling quite bullish. One of
:25:40. > :25:44.the criticisms was that people felt that Nick Clegg, who believes what
:25:45. > :25:48.he thinks about, he does not have to have scripted lines, but last night
:25:49. > :25:54.it was too scripted and he did not do it in a natural enough weight to
:25:55. > :25:58.be convincing. Would you accept that? If anyone is scrutinised on
:25:59. > :26:05.telly they will know it is not a natural environment. I thought a few
:26:06. > :26:10.of the jugs personally did not work. Anti-tried to get to them a bit
:26:11. > :26:15.more. What about the difference between what the Westminster bubble
:26:16. > :26:23.things and as things and outside in the real world? Thanks to LBC we
:26:24. > :26:29.were all pretty tanked up by the end of it and we had had lots of booze.
:26:30. > :26:35.We knew what was going to happen, but everyone was calling it for Nick
:26:36. > :26:40.Clegg. We listen to the debates, people who know the arguments and
:26:41. > :26:45.heart as you are being paid to, listen to the words being said. The
:26:46. > :26:49.TV viewers feel the words coming out and they look at the guys and they
:26:50. > :26:54.react to the person rather than the policy. But you think there is a
:26:55. > :27:00.difference in how big can be interpreted? Interestingly I do not
:27:01. > :27:06.think the bubble was necessarily with Nick Clegg, I think the bubble
:27:07. > :27:10.found him disingenuous. That was not him last night. If the polls were
:27:11. > :27:19.indicating it was a clear Nigel Farage win, you were mentioning that
:27:20. > :27:23.he had not lost? If we were doing the usual run-up to the European
:27:24. > :27:29.elections it would be business as usual and not much discussion and
:27:30. > :27:35.not much of a look in for the Lib Dems and UKIP. The fact there has
:27:36. > :27:42.been a strong, public debate, with quite large viewing figures last
:27:43. > :27:47.week and this week... 1.7 million. Whatever you say, yesterday I was
:27:48. > :27:52.part of a 10% team and today I am part of a 31% team. That is
:27:53. > :27:59.progress. What about the guys who work there? I joined the 58.3
:28:00. > :28:04.million who were not watching the debate. That is not to denigrate it,
:28:05. > :28:09.I think it is a good thing to do. Firstly, I think it is important to
:28:10. > :28:14.have this discussion precisely because of the reasons Nick Clegg
:28:15. > :28:22.thinks we should. The big parties go for the 60-40 split. They try and
:28:23. > :28:30.palliate the 60% and the 40% never get heard. I watched the billy no
:28:31. > :28:35.mates jokes go down and Alan Johnson can get away with them, but he
:28:36. > :28:41.cannot. And then looking at the polling reflection this mooring it
:28:42. > :28:44.was an interesting indication of where the arguments will have to be
:28:45. > :28:49.made and which ones will have to be taken more seriously. What about
:28:50. > :28:57.David Cameron's view that these were the two extreme views? They were not
:28:58. > :29:02.there. They do not have to take part in the bear garden public debate,
:29:03. > :29:08.but it is not good for the public. They do not have answers, neither of
:29:09. > :29:11.them have answers on this. Is there anyone who believes David Cameron
:29:12. > :29:17.will successfully negotiate a change that will satisfy even his own
:29:18. > :29:20.party? This will come up in the prime ministerial debates and
:29:21. > :29:29.everyone thinks they will come up in some form. How will the impact on
:29:30. > :29:32.those debates? Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband will think we have
:29:33. > :29:40.to have them, but not anywhere near us. We can all make silly bets, but
:29:41. > :29:45.I think it will be Cameron and Milliband and they will knockout
:29:46. > :29:52.Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg. How can you justify that? You can think of a
:29:53. > :30:01.million ways. But what this debate is told as... And very relieved
:30:02. > :30:06.Thomas in these negotiations. No one knows what the outcome is going to
:30:07. > :30:14.be and that is too much of a mess for Cameron and Ed Miliband. David
:30:15. > :30:18.Cameron did say he wanted these debates ahead of the campaign. He
:30:19. > :30:27.wasn't willing to come and debate. When Nigel said yes, it was on the
:30:28. > :30:33.proviso that David Cameron and Ed Miliband were invited along, but
:30:34. > :30:37.they both said no. We wanted them to come, because we had some good
:30:38. > :30:39.arguments about blue-collar wages and pressures on social housing that
:30:40. > :30:47.would have shown up their weaknesses, plenty of arguments for
:30:48. > :30:52.both of them. Time for a new strategy for Nick Clegg? He was
:30:53. > :30:57.always going to be against the tide of a large amount of opinion, but
:30:58. > :31:04.the fact that he stood up for what he believes in makes me proud today.
:31:05. > :31:08.Thank you to all of you. Now here's something that's going to
:31:09. > :31:11.surprise you. There's a disagreement rumbling in the coalition. I know, I
:31:12. > :31:15.know, who would have thought it? This time it's over wind farms. Most
:31:16. > :31:27.Lib Dems still love them, but quite a few Conservatives have fallen out
:31:28. > :31:29.of love with them. Here's JoCo with the details.
:31:30. > :31:32.Wind farms are becoming quite a battle ground within the coalition.
:31:33. > :31:36.Yesterday Lib Dem sources told the BBC that David Cameron's hopes to
:31:37. > :31:39.restrict the number of onshore wind farms have been blocked by Nick
:31:40. > :31:43.Clegg, who sees them as a vital source to help the UK hit its target
:31:44. > :31:46.of 15% of the county's energy coming from renewable sources by 2020.
:31:47. > :31:52.There are currently over 4,000 wind turbines onshore and over 1,000
:31:53. > :31:55.offshore. Together these provide enough energy to power the
:31:56. > :32:02.equivalent of just over six million homes. However, it's not cheap.
:32:03. > :32:05.Energy producers are paid a guaranteed amount above the market
:32:06. > :32:09.price for their electricity as a way of encouraging firms to invest.
:32:10. > :32:12.Called a strike price, for onshore wind farms the figure is ?95 per
:32:13. > :32:19.megawatt hour, and for offshore it's ?155 per megawatt hour. Compare that
:32:20. > :32:24.to the ?50 per megawatt hour for wholesale electricity and you get
:32:25. > :32:27.the idea. What's more, the building of new onshore wind farms is
:32:28. > :32:30.controversial, with many complaining the turbines ruin the countryside
:32:31. > :32:37.and can cause health problems for people living nearby.
:32:38. > :32:44.And we're joined now by the Conservative MP, Peter Bone. We did
:32:45. > :32:47.try to get a Liberal Democrats come and talk about this as well, but
:32:48. > :32:53.none of them wanted to talk this morning. What have you got against
:32:54. > :33:00.them? If you were trying to watch your programme in some areas this
:33:01. > :33:06.morning, you wouldn't be able to, because the wind farms affect the
:33:07. > :33:10.television signal. ?8.7 million last month we paid to turn the wind farms
:33:11. > :33:16.off because it is too windy. It is just subsidy for subsidy's fake.
:33:17. > :33:22.What do you think? It is complete nonsense. We had overcapacity in the
:33:23. > :33:31.grid, and that is when you decide to turn it off. Because it is too
:33:32. > :33:33.windy. Because every body is producing too much electricity, so
:33:34. > :33:38.that is the cheapest point at which to turn it off. But if you are
:33:39. > :33:42.looking in the long term, which is a greater desire for renewables, and
:33:43. > :33:46.defender thing, this business with Russia has told us that we don't
:33:47. > :33:51.want to be alive as we have been on the importation of fuel and so on,
:33:52. > :33:56.let alone discussions about climate change, then we need to have
:33:57. > :34:00.renewables, and we have them. Some of the arguments against onshore
:34:01. > :34:08.wind farms are preposterous to say the least. The television signal
:34:09. > :34:16.argument is one of them. You tell that to the people affected? ! But
:34:17. > :34:23.they will also have cheap sources of renewable energy in the long term.
:34:24. > :34:30.It is not cheap! Cheaper compared to what we will be paying. Why don't we
:34:31. > :34:35.go for fracking? If you look at the USA, they didn't sign up to Kyoto,
:34:36. > :34:40.but they met the targets by going to fracking. So now people are coming
:34:41. > :34:45.back because energy prices are falling in the States. Here, we are
:34:46. > :34:48.putting prices up the people, driving people into fuel poverty and
:34:49. > :34:59.sending industry offshore. It is madness. I am in favour of fracking
:35:00. > :35:02.too, as it happens. But your equivalent is saying that we don't
:35:03. > :35:18.want it in our area, we don't like it. You are just displacing the name
:35:19. > :35:21.nimbyism from one place to another. What you can't get away from is that
:35:22. > :35:25.wind farms cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. We already have
:35:26. > :35:33.enough to commit to the energy target. We don't need a single
:35:34. > :35:40.turbine more. You should turn your back if another wind farm comes up.
:35:41. > :35:45.We have selected the Conservative candidate to fight the Corby general
:35:46. > :35:55.election who is the director of together against wind. It is in
:35:56. > :36:06.important issue in my area. I love that there is an organisation called
:36:07. > :36:10.Together Against Wind! People are concerned. Take it seriously. You
:36:11. > :36:17.say we have enough wind farms to hit the target, but at the moment, wind
:36:18. > :36:22.generates an average 9% of our electricity. Sometimes it is more,
:36:23. > :36:30.sometimes less. Our target for 2020 is 30%. On the wind farm side of it,
:36:31. > :36:33.with all of the planning applications approved, we have
:36:34. > :36:38.reached the target. I am personally not a great fan of these wind farm
:36:39. > :36:41.targets. What I want to see is, as you mentioned earlier, energy
:36:42. > :36:45.security. And wind farms cannot please energy security, because of
:36:46. > :36:50.the wind doesn't blow, you have no energy. You need sensible
:36:51. > :36:55.alternatives like nuclear power and fracking. Nuclear is at least as
:36:56. > :37:05.expensive as onshore wind. Indeed, it is more, because as Jo showed, we
:37:06. > :37:15.have just done a strike deal and ?92 50 per megawatt hour for nuclear. It
:37:16. > :37:20.gives you energy security, that is what I was talking about. It is
:37:21. > :37:24.cheaper than offshore wind. We should be making sure we have energy
:37:25. > :37:35.security. We had a debate earlier today in the Commons. David
:37:36. > :37:39.Aaronovitch, when these prices were agreed, the offshore price was by
:37:40. > :37:47.far the most extensive. It was done at a time when the Westminster
:37:48. > :37:52.consensus was that fossil fuels would continue to rise in price, so
:37:53. > :37:56.that by 2020, this wind wouldn't seem so expensive, because fossil
:37:57. > :38:00.fuels and got up to that price as well. Since then, most of the
:38:01. > :38:10.evidence suggests, that probably isn't true any more. Although it
:38:11. > :38:12.could. It always seems to me to be prudent to invest in renewables,
:38:13. > :38:20.precisely because they were renewable, and precisely because...
:38:21. > :38:24.And the wind usually does blow somewhere in the United Kingdom. I
:38:25. > :38:29.am in favour of fracking as well, but it does have carbon emissions. I
:38:30. > :38:35.am also in favour of nuclear power being part of the mix. We are
:38:36. > :38:41.probably agreeing that there should be a moratorium on future wind farm.
:38:42. > :38:48.I don't think we should agree on any such thing. You are just paying
:38:49. > :38:52.subsidies for people. And it is affecting our long-term plan. We
:38:53. > :38:56.have run out of time, I'm afraid. No doubt we will come back to it. Peter
:38:57. > :38:59.bone, thank you very much. You're watching the Daily Politics,
:39:00. > :39:02.and we've been joined by viewers in Scotland who have been watching
:39:03. > :39:05.First Minister's Questions from Holyrood. Wind power has been very
:39:06. > :39:09.big north of the border, too. Now, we all know local councils have
:39:10. > :39:14.been feeling the pinch. But let me introduce you to Barnet's "graph of
:39:15. > :39:19.doom". Be warned - it doesn't make pretty reading, and there's even a
:39:20. > :39:23.video. It is a projection, not a
:39:24. > :39:27.prediction. The instance, the council will be failing to run seven
:39:28. > :39:32.statutory services in 2025 if this came true. But as a projection, or
:39:33. > :39:38.we receive national coverage, and it is a clear expression of the
:39:39. > :39:43.financial challenge facing the government, and it became known as
:39:44. > :39:47.the Barnet graph of doom. The gap between the services and the Budget
:39:48. > :39:50.is the money left over to provide services such as libraries, rubbish
:39:51. > :39:54.collections, recycling, road maintenance, street cleaning.
:39:55. > :39:58.And I'm joined now by Barnet's deputy leader, Dan Thomas, and from
:39:59. > :40:03.the LSE by Professor Tony Travers, who knows everything there is to
:40:04. > :40:12.know about local government. We always Bill you that we! Time will
:40:13. > :40:16.judge if you are correct. You said by the end of the decade, you would
:40:17. > :40:21.only be able to fund children's services and adult social care for
:40:22. > :40:26.the power things changed? They have. The population was due to expand,
:40:27. > :40:31.but also, the council tax base will go up. But also, as a council, we
:40:32. > :40:38.are making major headway in savings. At the end of this year, we will
:40:39. > :40:41.have saved ?70 million, added time when satisfaction with the council
:40:42. > :40:45.has gone up 20%, so those are the sorts of things changing for the
:40:46. > :40:50.better. So the projection is not as bad as you first thought? It is
:40:51. > :40:55.going to be difficult. You heard in the presentation, the graph of doom,
:40:56. > :41:02.but they asked -- there are still pressures. Do you think that by
:41:03. > :41:06.2022, the vast majority of your funding will have to be spent on
:41:07. > :41:11.social care and children services? If we don't change what we do. We
:41:12. > :41:13.need to work more with the resident bloomer and the community, which is
:41:14. > :41:18.why we are carrying out this consultation. We are asking
:41:19. > :41:23.residents what their priorities are, what they want to keep. And we have
:41:24. > :41:25.a second stage and are going where we are saying, those are your
:41:26. > :41:29.priorities of how can we deliver them? But in a commissioning way, so
:41:30. > :41:33.that the council won't be able to deliver things directly. We will
:41:34. > :41:38.have to work with allsorts of groups throughout the borough to keep
:41:39. > :41:41.services going. Is this scaremongering by an authority that
:41:42. > :41:44.has basically said, we need more money if you want is to actually
:41:45. > :41:50.provide service outside those two important areas? Not this particular
:41:51. > :41:57.graph of doom, because ministers will interpret this as a graph of
:41:58. > :42:01.delayed doom, so they will think that they can squeeze them a bit
:42:02. > :42:11.more and the doom will be in the future. If they want to make major
:42:12. > :42:15.reductions in public spending, but they can still protect schools and
:42:16. > :42:20.the health service. If you protect big items and try to level off the
:42:21. > :42:23.total, local government gets cut. Except councils have proved across
:42:24. > :42:27.the country that they can make savings and they have made savings,
:42:28. > :42:33.and even Dan Thomas has said that there has been good news. So your
:42:34. > :42:40.delayed doom may just forever be delayed. That is what the Treasury
:42:41. > :42:43.will read into this. They will think, if we squeeze local
:42:44. > :42:46.government, it can deliver cuts. You wouldn't dare to do that to the NHS,
:42:47. > :42:52.because heaven knows what will happen. So they will read this as an
:42:53. > :42:56.incentive not to reward local government but to put them under
:42:57. > :43:01.greater pressure in the future. Is your authority unique? I think it is
:43:02. > :43:04.in the way that we have met the challenge. Is it unique in terms of
:43:05. > :43:08.the burden you are having to deal with in terms of an ageing
:43:09. > :43:13.population, for example, and social care? I would say that ours is one
:43:14. > :43:19.of the lowest funded councils in London, and with the reduction in
:43:20. > :43:24.our Budget... A lot of councils will say either that they don't get as
:43:25. > :43:28.much money as other boroughs, or that they have more problems. It is
:43:29. > :43:38.quite difficult to know that in the whole scheme of things, who really
:43:39. > :43:41.is suffering. When you live in a centralised system such as ours when
:43:42. > :43:44.the government allocates the spending power, everyone will feel
:43:45. > :43:50.hard done by because the government allocates it to them, so they will
:43:51. > :43:53.also there are hard done by. I think Barnet deserves much credit for
:43:54. > :43:58.articulating the issue in this clear way. But you still have to come back
:43:59. > :44:02.to the fact that it is councils more than any other part of the public
:44:03. > :44:08.sector that are being put under pressure. What you think central
:44:09. > :44:11.government should do? Rather than just talk about what they should do,
:44:12. > :44:14.one of the things the graph tells you is that there are very
:44:15. > :44:17.significant long-term shift in this country, and the question you have
:44:18. > :44:21.to ask yourself is whether you think in the run-up to the 2015 elections
:44:22. > :44:24.what you have heard so far from any of the parties actually addresses
:44:25. > :44:33.them, because I can't think that they do. Even in terms of the NHS,
:44:34. > :44:37.we have two major statements out of the NHS, the new head of the NHS
:44:38. > :44:43.saying, in effect, we haven't got anything like enough money for the
:44:44. > :44:47.health care we think we are going to need ten or 15 years ahead. So you
:44:48. > :44:52.have Lord Warner suggested copayment is one of the ways, but we will have
:44:53. > :44:56.to grasp nettles like that. If you shove a load of stuff onto councils,
:44:57. > :45:02.you will then reap the whirlwind when it comes to what happens in
:45:03. > :45:06.accident and emergency or in parts of the health service, and parts of
:45:07. > :45:09.the education service the Government says it is trying to grapple with
:45:10. > :45:14.the problems of long-term care and how we are going to deal with an
:45:15. > :45:17.ageing population. But if they do, as David Aaronovitch predicts, keep
:45:18. > :45:26.pushing it on to local councils, when you think the penny will drop?
:45:27. > :45:31.I am not sure they were ever quite get to that point. There is a
:45:32. > :45:35.tipping point, somewhere between what the councils are spending now
:45:36. > :45:40.and the rope. To pick up David's issue, he is absolutely right that
:45:41. > :45:45.what we have got is all the parties unwilling or unable to put up the
:45:46. > :45:50.level of taxes in total. They stay at the same level year in, year out,
:45:51. > :45:53.but they want to promise higher spending. They cannot bring
:45:54. > :45:59.themselves to tackle that inconsistency. What about the
:46:00. > :46:05.division between health care and social care? Will that change? We
:46:06. > :46:11.will have to have more integration and collaboration with other public
:46:12. > :46:19.service bodies. We need to temper up with other councils. We have done
:46:20. > :46:23.that successfully and the big prizes are with the big services and social
:46:24. > :46:30.care and with the police and the NHS and the DWP. But politically it is
:46:31. > :46:35.not palatable which is why the Government will not talk about the
:46:36. > :46:39.issues you have outlined. That is true and the question is at which
:46:40. > :46:48.point does it become inevitable where we have to get people to pay
:46:49. > :46:55.an allowance to their GP? I heard somebody say, we do not have a
:46:56. > :47:01.funding problem, we can just do this and that. I sympathised with that,
:47:02. > :47:04.but that is not the answer. Interesting, thank you very much.
:47:05. > :47:07.David Aaronovitch is on the programme. He has written a book
:47:08. > :47:11.about conspiracy theories you know. He is more of a denier than a
:47:12. > :47:19.believer, but it always makes good telly. Take a look at this. The
:47:20. > :47:26.problem is with conspiracy theory like best... I am here to warn
:47:27. > :47:32.people, you keep telling me to shut up. This is not a game. You have an
:47:33. > :47:43.arrest for public safety, life in prison. You are the worst person...
:47:44. > :47:46.No, it is off with their heads! You are watching the Sunday Politics, we
:47:47. > :47:59.have an idiot on the programme today. You cannot stop the Republic!
:48:00. > :48:03.It is like that every morning. It makes pretty good television and you
:48:04. > :48:07.Tube liked it and so did the BBC online service. And here are David
:48:08. > :48:12.'s top five conspiracy theories. Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The
:48:13. > :48:27.assassination of JFK. Princess Diana's death. 9/11. And finally,
:48:28. > :48:31.the secret bloodline of Christ. Joining us now from Bristol 's Tony
:48:32. > :48:38.Gosling who investigates conspiracy theories. What attracts people to
:48:39. > :48:46.conspiracy theories? Because they make order of aiders ordered world.
:48:47. > :48:53.They suggest a world that is as chaotic as it is, somebody is behind
:48:54. > :48:57.it all. Take the case of the disappeared Malaysian plane. That is
:48:58. > :49:00.scary, but if you could bring yourself to believe somebody had
:49:01. > :49:04.planned to do it and there are people who believe it, then you take
:49:05. > :49:12.some of the frightening elements away. Tony Gosling, what do you
:49:13. > :49:18.regard as the current, most important thing you think some would
:49:19. > :49:23.regard as a conspiracy theory? That is easy. The Malaysian airline. If
:49:24. > :49:27.you were to talk to families of the relatives of people on edge, a lot
:49:28. > :49:34.of them are starting to say, we have not been told the truth. What is
:49:35. > :49:38.your theory? There are a fact that we know and we know news management
:49:39. > :49:44.has been going on on a big way in the story. First of all, when
:49:45. > :49:47.Rolls-Royce announced the plane looked like it had been travelling
:49:48. > :49:52.for five hours there was an avalanche of stories saying no, by
:49:53. > :49:57.people who could not have known. They even got Rolls-Royce to retract
:49:58. > :50:02.that story. There are also sightings in the Maldives. People could not
:50:03. > :50:09.have known if people in the Maldives had seen the aircraft or not. I
:50:10. > :50:15.understand all that. What I am trying to get is do you have a
:50:16. > :50:21.theory as to what happened to that plane? It is impossible to tell. A
:50:22. > :50:27.cover-up certainly of some sort is going on. Planes do not fly for five
:50:28. > :50:32.hours and crash into the sea. Ask any pilot. If it is in trouble, it
:50:33. > :50:40.will bitch or a land on the ground. It is the wife of Philip Wood, , the
:50:41. > :50:46.guy from IBM, she says it feels like Howard Government is lying to her.
:50:47. > :50:52.The banking conspiracy, the massive fraud going on in the city. I guess
:50:53. > :50:56.because of all the uncertainty and the fact the plane has not been
:50:57. > :51:01.located it is an ideal subject for conspiracy theories. It absolutely
:51:02. > :51:07.is and Tony has outlined the classic build-up of the notion of what is
:51:08. > :51:12.odd or strange or anomalous about it, quite apart from the
:51:13. > :51:17.disappearance, and then in comes somebody's wife, what her
:51:18. > :51:21.qualifications are, we do not know, to say something about it. There
:51:22. > :51:28.will be websites which will build upon this. Gradually a theory will
:51:29. > :51:37.emerge from it. And it comes from the same impossibility about not
:51:38. > :51:41.knowing, which is appalling. Can you give an example of a conspiracy
:51:42. > :51:48.theory which in the fullness of time proved to be true beyond doubt? The
:51:49. > :51:52.JFK assassination, which David deals with in his book. I have not seen
:51:53. > :51:58.the book, but there is a similar book which David may know that deals
:51:59. > :52:05.very well with it. Lyndon Johnson was clearly meeting with the boss of
:52:06. > :52:13.the FBI in the days running up to the assassination. There is somebody
:52:14. > :52:17.who has confessed to having worked with the Mafia. With JFK he had come
:52:18. > :52:21.to power with the help of the Chicago Mafia and he got his brother
:52:22. > :52:28.after he was elected to start clamping down on the Mafia in
:52:29. > :52:34.Chicago. I understand the motive, but it does not prove the conspiracy
:52:35. > :52:38.theory. One of the things about theories like this is they are
:52:39. > :52:42.completely hydra headed. As soon as you think you have dealt with one
:52:43. > :52:48.set of facts, somebody will raise another. There are a few that you do
:52:49. > :52:52.not hear and you date you know the literature pretty well. There is not
:52:53. > :52:57.a great deal of mystery about the murder of JFK and there is no
:52:58. > :53:01.mystery about who killed him. But the psychic impact of the death of a
:53:02. > :53:07.president in that way gave rise to the need for it to be something
:53:08. > :53:13.other than this single, disoriented side, Lee Harvey Oswald. The
:53:14. > :53:16.industry that has grown up around it is absolutely massive. Tony is
:53:17. > :53:23.completely sincere in believing these things. You any example of a
:53:24. > :53:28.conspiracy theory which was ridiculed at the time, but turned
:53:29. > :53:33.out to either be true or there seemed to be something in it? There
:53:34. > :53:40.are all times of cover-ups which people say are true. The most
:53:41. > :53:43.heinous was it was thought the Conservative Government of 1956 had
:53:44. > :53:46.made a secret agreement with the Israeli Government to launch the
:53:47. > :53:55.attack which led to us entering into Suez. That was true. That was true,
:53:56. > :54:00.and it was denied in the House of Commons. I know you are interested
:54:01. > :54:15.in this, but do you meet people who think that the world is run by
:54:16. > :54:19.losers? No, David has mixed in real conspiracy in with some completely
:54:20. > :54:24.bogus stuff like the moon landings. We know Hillsborough was a cover-up.
:54:25. > :54:28.We heard the other day statements had been altered by the police to
:54:29. > :54:32.protect their friends. That is a conspiracy. I would hope some of
:54:33. > :54:38.those people who did that will go to jail in the fullness of time. We
:54:39. > :54:44.have got the builder burg conferences. The next one will be in
:54:45. > :54:50.Denmark at the end of May. I hope the BBC will cover it. This is
:54:51. > :54:54.NATO's political lobbying arm which is not being looked at by our press
:54:55. > :55:00.in this country and they are extremely powerful, set up by a
:55:01. > :55:06.former SS officer. I hope we do cover it in Denmark. Last time it
:55:07. > :55:15.was in Watford. Denmark will be much more fun. The land of Corgan, it is
:55:16. > :55:20.much better. What is not a conspiracy is finding out the answer
:55:21. > :55:25.to the daily quiz. The question was what has David Cameron been
:55:26. > :55:30.complaining about the price of? A white sliced loaf of bread? A
:55:31. > :55:36.first-class stamp? An England football team shirt? Or a souvenir
:55:37. > :55:44.mug of Ed Miliband. David, what is the answer? It is the football
:55:45. > :55:51.shirt. Well done, you say that with a sad look. I do. They are charging
:55:52. > :55:56.?90 for a replica England shirt. I looked up some of the average prices
:55:57. > :56:00.this morning, not because I knew it would come up, but because I was
:56:01. > :56:04.interested in the subject and roughly clubs sell their replica
:56:05. > :56:12.shirts for ?50. This is very close to being double. Let me introduce a
:56:13. > :56:19.guest who disagrees. Mark Littlewood does not think it is a rip-off. Why
:56:20. > :56:25.not? It is a prestigious, very heavily branded piece of kit. I do
:56:26. > :56:30.not want to sound sexist, but I am amazed what women spend on clothes.
:56:31. > :56:38.Way beyond ?90 because it is a brand in fashion. I know David Cameron
:56:39. > :56:43.suggested he could cap the price, but it strikes me we have got to
:56:44. > :56:48.bear in mind the FA is going to reinvest quite a bit of this money.
:56:49. > :56:56.Do you want the shirts to be ?10 so loads of people can wear them in the
:56:57. > :57:00.pub? Or do you want it to be ?90 and ?80 is invested by the FA in the
:57:01. > :57:08.grassroots game or improving the training of referees? Maybe I do not
:57:09. > :57:14.know how to work these things out, but I would have thought you would
:57:15. > :57:19.sell fewer at ?90. Markets do not tell you everything. They do not
:57:20. > :57:25.tell you about the kid in Sunderland or Kettering who might conceivably
:57:26. > :57:30.have got one of these shirts at ?45, but will not get one at 90p.
:57:31. > :57:37.They may invest the rest, but we are being asked to invest emotionally in
:57:38. > :57:41.the progress of a football team. It is not exactly the same as any other
:57:42. > :57:47.transaction, it has an additional element to it. You can invest in the
:57:48. > :57:52.England football team without investing in a replica shirt. It
:57:53. > :58:01.will not be affordable for a lot of people. They have to price it to
:58:02. > :58:07.maximise their return. They want to bring in the maximum amount of money
:58:08. > :58:10.to reinvest in football. There is a reputational question here as well.
:58:11. > :58:15.Not everything is in the pricing, a lot of it is in people's reactions.
:58:16. > :58:26.Should David Cameron have interfered? Yes,. The joke is they
:58:27. > :58:34.will get knocked out in the first round and you will not have paid
:58:35. > :58:39.enough to cover it. That is all for today. Thanks to our guests. The one
:58:40. > :58:43.o'clock News is starting over on BBC One and I will be on BBC One tonight
:58:44. > :58:46.with Rachel Johnson, Angela Rippon, Quentin Letts, Miranda Green, Diane
:58:47. > :58:52.Abbott and Michael Portillo on This Week from 11:35pm. I will be here at
:58:53. > :58:53.noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the day.
:58:54. > :58:57.Bye-bye.