:00:36. > :00:41.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Maria Miller has
:00:42. > :00:43.been ordered to repay thousands of pounds in expenses and told to
:00:44. > :00:47.apologise. The view from Fleet Street this morning is that the
:00:48. > :00:51.punishment doesn't fit the crime. So has she been let off with a slap on
:00:52. > :01:01.the wrist, or are the papers just unhappy about plans for press
:01:02. > :01:09.regulation? The polls say Nigel picnic by a big margin. Just how
:01:10. > :01:13.Eurosceptic is the British public? People of Quebec know a thing or two
:01:14. > :01:18.about independence referendums. They have had two. There are some
:01:19. > :01:25.surprising similarities with this year's vote in Scotland. And in this
:01:26. > :01:28.week's least shopping News, David Cameron shops at Waitrose, which is
:01:29. > :01:33.your choice of supermarkets say about you?
:01:34. > :01:37.All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme today are
:01:38. > :01:41.two journalists more likely to be found in the aisles of a pound shop
:01:42. > :01:44.than a super-market for the well-heeled - it's Anne McElvoy from
:01:45. > :01:51.the Economist and Kevin Maguire from the Mirror. Well it's true of one of
:01:52. > :01:54.them anyway, I'll let you decide which. Let's start with Maria
:01:55. > :01:57.Miller. After a 14-month investigation into expenses claimed
:01:58. > :02:00.on her London home, the culture secretary was told yesterday she had
:02:01. > :02:09.to repay ?5,800 and apologise for her "attitude" during the inquiry.
:02:10. > :02:12.The Commons Committee on Standards, that's made up of MPs, cleared her
:02:13. > :02:27.of making false expenses claims but said she'd overclaimed on her
:02:28. > :02:30.mortgage payments. It did so by a lot less than the commission had
:02:31. > :02:33.conceded. The papers this morning are far from happy, making the
:02:34. > :02:36.familiar claim that when it comes to expenses, MPs still don't get it.
:02:37. > :02:46.And the apology itself hasn't gone down well. Here it is in its
:02:47. > :02:49.entirety. It's not that long! With permission, I wish to make a
:02:50. > :02:55.personal statement in Russian to today's report. The report resulted
:02:56. > :03:00.from an allegation made by the member for Bassetlaw. The committee
:03:01. > :03:03.has dismissed his allegation. The committee has recommended that I
:03:04. > :03:07.apologised to the house for my attitude cheering the
:03:08. > :03:14.commissioners's enquiries and I of course unreservedly apologise. I
:03:15. > :03:18.fully accept the reconditioned of the committee and thank them for
:03:19. > :03:21.bringing this matter to an end. -- accept the recommendations.
:03:22. > :03:24.That was Maria Miller apologising to the Commons yesterday. We're joined
:03:25. > :03:28.now by our political correspondent Iain Watson. How strong is the
:03:29. > :03:34.feeling in Westminster and the media that the punishment hasn't fitted
:03:35. > :03:37.the crime? It's pretty strong in the media. Not quite as strong at
:03:38. > :03:43.Westminster, as you can imagine, Labour MPs are bee sting in, the man
:03:44. > :03:47.who made the original complaint is criticising the committee on
:03:48. > :03:53.standards because in their weighty tome, this report, most of it is
:03:54. > :03:57.made up of correspondence between her and the parliamentary standards
:03:58. > :04:02.Commissioner, the person who carries out the initial enquiry. The
:04:03. > :04:06.Commissioner said she should pay back ?45,000, in the end of the
:04:07. > :04:13.committee, made up largely of MPs, decided she should pay back only
:04:14. > :04:20.?5,800, the amount she identified as an administrative error on her
:04:21. > :04:23.mortgage. They are saying this is a cover-up for MPs, marking their own
:04:24. > :04:27.homework, another Labour MP is saying the police should look into
:04:28. > :04:31.the matter. When it comes to her own colleagues, they are saying, she
:04:32. > :04:36.should have handled this better perhaps, the brevity of this apology
:04:37. > :04:42.was inappropriate, nonetheless the key, central allegation that she is
:04:43. > :04:46.using taxpayers money to fund a home for her parents was disproved, and
:04:47. > :04:50.because that was the case, there are not huge to see Asians for her. When
:04:51. > :04:56.she was asked a second time, in the wake of the report, in the wake of
:04:57. > :05:02.that apology, the Prime Minister gave his backing to Maria Miller.
:05:03. > :05:07.But apprentice delay was that Maria Miller was cleared of the original
:05:08. > :05:13.charge made against -- what happened yesterday. She made mistakes, except
:05:14. > :05:15.that, repaid the money, apologised unreservedly to the House of
:05:16. > :05:23.Commons, so we should leave it there. Denning Street are sticking
:05:24. > :05:29.by them, what happens next? If there is a reshuffled post, the rumours
:05:30. > :05:34.are that she might be heading west rather than South, Cardiff, becoming
:05:35. > :05:39.the next Secretary of State for Wales. But certainly, David Cameron
:05:40. > :05:43.is keen to keep women at the Cabinet table but perhaps not in that
:05:44. > :05:47.current role. The reason she might not stay in that is she's normally
:05:48. > :05:53.in charge of the writers of regulating the press as culture
:05:54. > :05:56.secretary and many are saying that Westminster are much more hostile
:05:57. > :06:00.does smaller, about MPs covering this up, the reaction was perhaps
:06:01. > :06:06.driven by the fact that she agreed with other politicians, in setting
:06:07. > :06:12.up his royal charter on present regulation. Not much has happened
:06:13. > :06:16.since and most of the press have been able to do their own thing. The
:06:17. > :06:21.press themselves have been critical, not just of Maria Miller, what some
:06:22. > :06:26.are calling her arrogance, but also suggesting that MPs expenses could
:06:27. > :06:31.be back on the agenda again. Her political career isn't over but she
:06:32. > :06:37.may be up for a change sometime soon. I'm sure that has cheered up
:06:38. > :06:40.the people of Wales this morning! The former Telegraph editor Tony
:06:41. > :06:43.Gallagher was on the Today programme this morning. He accused Maria
:06:44. > :06:46.Miller of "breathtaking arrogance", and he repeated his claim that David
:06:47. > :06:48.Cameron's Director of Communications, a man called Craig
:06:49. > :06:51.Oliver, of personally putting pressure on Tony Gallagher not to
:06:52. > :07:00.publish a story about Maria Miller's expenses. Craig Oliver reacted
:07:01. > :07:03.angrily to that allegation, he said: "'It is utterly false for Tony
:07:04. > :07:05.Gallagher to suggest he was threatened over Leveson by me in any
:07:06. > :07:18.way. That was a reference to Maria
:07:19. > :07:22.Miller's parents, who were at the centre of the original Telegraph
:07:23. > :07:25.story. They were in the house that she was claiming for. So let's talk
:07:26. > :07:28.to the man who's made the allegation, former Telegraph editor
:07:29. > :07:39.Tony Gallagher, he joins us now from North London. Craig Oliver, saying
:07:40. > :07:49.that you are lying, in effect. Can you hear me? OK. We usually get live
:07:50. > :07:54.to Baghdad without a problem, but getting to North London is defeating
:07:55. > :08:00.the gremlins... Or at least the gremlins are defeating us! We were
:08:01. > :08:03.trying to get that line back to Mr Gallagher.
:08:04. > :08:06.We're joined now by Shaun Kemp, he worked for the Lib Dems and was
:08:07. > :08:13.deputy head of press at Downing Street. What do you make of these
:08:14. > :08:15.claims? Craig Oliver said he made no threats. I remember when this was
:08:16. > :08:20.going on, the account of the conversation was not true. We will
:08:21. > :08:25.hear what Tony says in an Quebec, but I had no idea he was such a
:08:26. > :08:29.sensitive flower, that one phone call could upset him to that extent,
:08:30. > :08:32.that is not quite the reputation he has had more generally. I think it
:08:33. > :08:37.is a comfortable for our press person to ring up a newspaper when a
:08:38. > :08:41.family is being approached by a newspaper. The press officer is then
:08:42. > :08:44.entitled to say, the family are distressed, they don't want to speak
:08:45. > :08:51.to you, please speak to be MP's office. Let's see if we have made
:08:52. > :08:59.contact now. Can you hear me now? Very well. I apologised to the
:09:00. > :09:03.technical glitch. We quoted Craig Oliver's statement there, saying it
:09:04. > :09:08.is utterly falls, his words, for you to suggest that he threatened you
:09:09. > :09:15.over Leveson in any way. He's effectively accusing you of lying.
:09:16. > :09:20.I'm very happy to discuss Craig Oliver all day, but he hasn't really
:09:21. > :09:23.addressed the key issue and in rushing out a denial, he has made
:09:24. > :09:28.the story about Craig Oliver Rather than the more substantive point that
:09:29. > :09:33.this is all about press freedom and the threats to them. He was only the
:09:34. > :09:38.third call that the Telegraph call. The first, more sinister call, was
:09:39. > :09:46.made by Maria Miller's special adviser to my reporter, essentially
:09:47. > :09:50.to warn her of the story. "Maria Miller has been having a lot of
:09:51. > :09:55.meetings around Leveson, you might want to talk to people higher up
:09:56. > :09:59.your organisation. " Miss Hindley then spoke to an executive at the
:10:00. > :10:04.Telegraph to point that out, we then got a third call from Craig Oliver
:10:05. > :10:09.who pointed out, " she is looking at Leveson, the call is badly timed".
:10:10. > :10:13.If you are making a series of phone calls to a newspaper investigating
:10:14. > :10:18.the conduct of a Cabinet minister, that comes close to menace. Bear in
:10:19. > :10:23.mind, there was quite a climate of anti-press hysteria in the aftermath
:10:24. > :10:25.of Leveson, so when a cabinet minister's advises ring up
:10:26. > :10:30.newspapers in that fashion and warned them in that fashion, they
:10:31. > :10:36.are bound to take the threats seriously. Happily, we decided we
:10:37. > :10:42.would publish. I will come back to Mr Oliver, there is a very
:10:43. > :10:48.interesting set of examples you have given their of pressure being put on
:10:49. > :10:54.the newspaper in the context of Leveson. What evidence can you offer
:10:55. > :10:58.to substantiate these claims? Reported most of this at the time. I
:10:59. > :11:03.don't think it's disputed that Joanna Hindley rang the Daily
:11:04. > :11:10.Telegraph and was recorded making those threats. The fact we are
:11:11. > :11:15.debating it now is really in the aftermath of the report. It was all
:11:16. > :11:18.debated fully at the time. So if need be, you could furnish the
:11:19. > :11:27.evidence to substantiate that, including recordings? Yes, I think
:11:28. > :11:30.we could. More broadly, of course... Craig Oliver says he spoke to you
:11:31. > :11:39.because your journalists were harassing members of Miss Miller's
:11:40. > :11:43.family, is that true? It's a bit late to be raising the spectre of
:11:44. > :11:50.harassment of a family, 16 months after the event. I would suggest it
:11:51. > :11:54.is a smoke screen. It is a Cabinet minister who wanted to muzzle the
:11:55. > :11:57.freedom... I don't recall that at all. If we want to discuss that
:11:58. > :12:01.issue, it should be pointed out that the reporter in question had an
:12:02. > :12:06.amicable conversation lasting under ten minutes with Maria Miller's
:12:07. > :12:10.father on the doorstep. He was even a Telegraph reader. He was not in
:12:11. > :12:14.any way distressed commie didn't seem harassed, and she left after he
:12:15. > :12:23.didn't want to talk about it in detail. So there was no question of
:12:24. > :12:29.harassment. Just to clarify, are you saying that Craig Oliver at the time
:12:30. > :12:35.did not raise concerns about the behaviour of the Daily Telegraph
:12:36. > :12:39.towards the Miller family? The point of his phone call and my clear
:12:40. > :12:43.recollection of this was that it was in the context of Leveson. Bear in
:12:44. > :12:47.mind the climate of anti-press hysteria at the time, every
:12:48. > :12:50.newspaper was super-sensitive about the prospect of Leveson proposals
:12:51. > :12:57.being implement it and being caught up in a scandal in the wake of the
:12:58. > :13:01.report. In mind that both newspapers and editors can recount similar
:13:02. > :13:06.conversations with government spin doctors over the past 12 months.
:13:07. > :13:15.MPs, officials, businessmen, will always the spectre of newspapers.
:13:16. > :13:18.Special advisers regularly have conversations with journalists and
:13:19. > :13:23.editors, we speak to them, they are always private conversations stop
:13:24. > :13:31.why did you decide to break the privacy and publish the Hindley
:13:32. > :13:35.conversations? We decided to do that because they were calling into
:13:36. > :13:38.question the veracity of what the reporters had said, and we wouldn't
:13:39. > :13:42.have otherwise made those conversations public. But they lied
:13:43. > :13:46.about the nature of what it was that we were attempting to prove. They
:13:47. > :13:50.were trying to throw up a smoke screen around the important fact
:13:51. > :13:53.that Maria Miller had wrongly claimed expenses and they told lies
:13:54. > :14:00.about my reporters, and I wasn't there to have their integrity
:14:01. > :14:04.challenged. Once they came the integrity of the staff, I will
:14:05. > :14:07.afraid we decided that the convention by which we wouldn't
:14:08. > :14:18.publish the conversations was abandoned. Did it also play to your
:14:19. > :14:24.anti-medicine agenda as well? You could say that. Undoubtedly, we have
:14:25. > :14:29.a dog in the fight. Maria Miller, in many ways, has done us a tremendous
:14:30. > :14:33.favour. Her conduct and that of her advisers has shown very clearly why
:14:34. > :14:38.no politician should ever be allowed near the press. Once they get their
:14:39. > :14:43.hands on the press, it will only go one way. They cannot resist keeping
:14:44. > :14:47.their hands off the press. You saw how the House of Commons voted
:14:48. > :14:52.overwhelmingly in favour of a Royal Charter. MPs hate us for the fact
:14:53. > :14:57.they exposed our expenses troubles back in 2009 and they are desperate
:14:58. > :15:03.to get one over us and ensure, in one way, there's that is on our
:15:04. > :15:08.throats. Given your experience with the special adviser of Maria Miller
:15:09. > :15:12.and what we have now seen the Parliamentary Commissioner has said
:15:13. > :15:16.about the expenses. I put aside happy MPs voted. Do you believe
:15:17. > :15:24.Maria Miller is fit to be Culture Secretary? I do not have a view, one
:15:25. > :15:27.way or another, as to whether Maria Miller should resign. That is a
:15:28. > :15:33.matter for David Cameron and the Government. What I should say is I
:15:34. > :15:37.think she got off extraordinary lightly, which is perhaps inevitable
:15:38. > :15:42.given there are 13 MPs mocking their own homework and defending one of
:15:43. > :15:46.their own. The language in the report is extraordinary. If similar
:15:47. > :15:50.language when used about a newspaper editor, that person would be out on
:15:51. > :15:53.their ear by close of play. Another thing, if this was a benefit
:15:54. > :15:58.claimants, that benefit claimant would have had police involved very
:15:59. > :16:02.quickly. I am rather surprised that we do not yet have the spectre of a
:16:03. > :16:07.police enquiry into this matter. It seems to me, at the very least,
:16:08. > :16:12.there is something worth investigating about her conduct. I
:16:13. > :16:15.am sorry about the sound problems we had at the beginning of the
:16:16. > :16:21.interview. What do you make of what you have just heard? I can
:16:22. > :16:28.understand if the Joanna Hindley Frenkel is as described. They said
:16:29. > :16:39.they had a recording of it. -- phone call is as described. I do not think
:16:40. > :16:44.it is true there are numerous conversations threatening Leveson..
:16:45. > :16:53.It is a full to go around suggesting you can threaten journalists. She
:16:54. > :16:58.really tried to warn the Telegraph of the expenses story, Maria Miller.
:16:59. > :17:02.Not by saying it is not true or this is outrageous, or we will see you,
:17:03. > :17:09.saying, we would like to point out that Miss Miller is in charge of the
:17:10. > :17:15.Leveson process. Sign that is not a conversation that should happen.
:17:16. > :17:19.Should that not be a resignation? She threatened the press. You are
:17:20. > :17:23.the minister responsible for some new press regulation system. Because
:17:24. > :17:26.they have a story which is unpalatable to you, you don't
:17:27. > :17:32.threaten the press with this new regulation system. It is something
:17:33. > :17:39.special adviser should not be doing. Sky it is something a special
:17:40. > :17:42.adviser should not be doing. -- it is something a special adviser
:17:43. > :17:47.should not be doing. With Maria Miller, based on what we have heard
:17:48. > :17:51.from Tony Gallagher, and assuming this tape of the conversation
:17:52. > :17:57.exists, I think that creates a very grave problem. To make the linkage
:17:58. > :18:01.at the time after Leveson, when there was a particularly sensitive
:18:02. > :18:09.mood, not enough weight has been put upon the statement that reporters
:18:10. > :18:16.should be aware. To my ears, people bend my ear and say they will talk
:18:17. > :18:22.to... Editors, the proprietor, all the rest of it. Sign it is intended
:18:23. > :18:26.to back off. Maria Miller, we have not really heard in that brief
:18:27. > :18:32.apology, anything what she thinks about the behaviour. As we had been
:18:33. > :18:37.on air, Craig Oliver has been watching our interview and e-mail is
:18:38. > :18:41.to say, I am very clear I had a conversation about an old man who
:18:42. > :18:47.was distressed. That was the father of Miss Miller. There was no threat
:18:48. > :18:51.in any way over Leveson. Tony Gallagher is talking rubbish about
:18:52. > :18:55.me and you can use that. I was there at the time and I remembered the
:18:56. > :19:01.reaction of Craig on the day and it was as he described. I will find
:19:02. > :19:06.Maria Miller behind her elderly parents and add that to hire charge
:19:07. > :19:09.sheet. She has taken thousands and thousands of pounds of taxpayers
:19:10. > :19:13.money. All lies and threat should be on the record. I would love the
:19:14. > :19:21.Telegraph to put that recording on the website. We should all listen.
:19:22. > :19:24.Remember, Vince cable, when he was recorded by the Daily Telegraph,
:19:25. > :19:34.although it leaked out in an odd way, he was making threats about
:19:35. > :19:39.BSkyB and the Murdoch takeover. He had responsibility for that removed.
:19:40. > :19:45.Why was the responsibility for press regulation removed from Maria Miller
:19:46. > :19:48.when she is making threats, or her special adviser is making threats
:19:49. > :20:01.about Leveson and press regulation because of the own behaviour of her
:20:02. > :20:09.family? She went higher up the chain. That seems to be a problem.
:20:10. > :20:16.There was a resignation due to the fact that 9/11 was called a good day
:20:17. > :20:20.to bury bad news. It is about Maria Miller expenses and relations with
:20:21. > :20:23.the press. I feel uncomfortable about getting into conversations
:20:24. > :20:30.with advisers, important as they are. One thing I do want to know...
:20:31. > :20:38.Miss Hindley was not acting on behalf of the minister. We have
:20:39. > :20:42.every reason to believe she was. Do not be wary of that. Let's Maria
:20:43. > :20:49.Miller say, my special adviser was acting without my knowledge and
:20:50. > :20:54.approval. Is she still special adviser? I believe she has left. It
:20:55. > :21:02.is about Tony Gallagher saying, stories like this would never happen
:21:03. > :21:07.if we had Leveson. There is now a suspicion that would be the case. If
:21:08. > :21:12.he was able to run a leader on that day... There is a big worry. You
:21:13. > :21:15.have a worrying story in the newspaper about journalists in
:21:16. > :21:21.Croydon being threatened by police for doing the job of good
:21:22. > :21:24.journalism. On both sides, let's not say it would stop any story about
:21:25. > :21:33.expenses being published, of course it should. Every Tom, Dick and Harry
:21:34. > :21:37.it was sending letters citing Leveson. Some people who are now
:21:38. > :21:43.facing very serious trials and I will not name them for reasons of
:21:44. > :21:46.contempt. It seems here, the Culture Secretary, the message was comic you
:21:47. > :21:50.investigate my expenses collect you expose what I have been doing and
:21:51. > :21:56.press revelation will come down tough on you. That is a very serious
:21:57. > :21:59.threat. The wider story in there is about expenses is that the
:22:00. > :22:05.independent investigation is quite damning on Maria Miller. The MPs in
:22:06. > :22:09.The House water it down and she has too apologise for a matter of
:22:10. > :22:13.process, rather than expenses and pay a much smaller amount back. They
:22:14. > :22:19.are still marking their own homework, aren't they? They are.
:22:20. > :22:27.There is a big divide between the press and MPs, including some who
:22:28. > :22:30.are not involved in expenses scandal or alleged scandals. They do feel we
:22:31. > :22:34.have gone over the top. There is a myth that says, we have had enough
:22:35. > :22:40.of this. Maria Miller is lucky in her timing. Had it come out
:22:41. > :22:43.earlier, Tony McNulty had to resign en contra Bull situations. Some
:22:44. > :22:52.people will say the press has gone over the top. -- on comparable
:22:53. > :22:57.situations. I do not know whether to laugh or cry. One of the big,
:22:58. > :23:02.legitimate complaints about the old commission is that editors sat in
:23:03. > :23:07.judgment on editors. MPs would make that criticism. MPs are sitting in
:23:08. > :23:11.judgment on their own. I cannot remember a single case when they
:23:12. > :23:14.have come in with a heavier penalty after reading this report from their
:23:15. > :23:23.own commission. They always softened. They should have a voice
:23:24. > :23:28.in the system but they have to get away from the system of marking
:23:29. > :23:32.their own homework. If the Culture Secretary thought this would go away
:23:33. > :23:36.after her apology, she was sadly wrong. Now, did you think you'd get
:23:37. > :23:39.through the whole show without us mentioning Nick Clegg versus Nigel
:23:40. > :23:42.Farage? Well, how wrong you were. I've done it already. But whoever
:23:43. > :23:45.won, and the polls were united in giving it to Farage, Britain's
:23:46. > :23:49.relationship with the EU has been under the spotlight and that's going
:23:50. > :23:54.to continue to next month's European elections and beyond. So, what does
:23:55. > :23:57.the public think about the EU? Well, the Daily Politics has been working
:23:58. > :23:59.with the polling firm, Populus. They have been working on something
:24:00. > :24:08.called voter segmentation, which breaks the electorate down according
:24:09. > :24:12.to their values. This week they asked people their opinion of
:24:13. > :24:16.membership of the European Union. 28% of those asked said they were
:24:17. > :24:19.positive about the UK being in the EU but 30% said they felt negatively
:24:20. > :24:28.about membership of the EU and thought we would be better off out.
:24:29. > :24:33.16% said that they were negative about membership of the EU, but felt
:24:34. > :24:39.that we would be worse off if we left. 26% didn't feel strongly
:24:40. > :24:42.either way. We then asked our polling group how they would vote if
:24:43. > :24:48.there was a referendum on our membership of the EU. 32% said they
:24:49. > :24:52.would vote to leave, 35% said they would vote to stay, 27% said they
:24:53. > :25:06.didn't know how they would vote, and 6% said they wouldn't vote at all.
:25:07. > :25:11.They could not have been watching the debate. To steer us through
:25:12. > :25:18.this, we're joined by Rick Nye from Populus. Am I right in thinking this
:25:19. > :25:23.poll shows the in/out difference rather more finely balanced than
:25:24. > :25:28.previous polls. The last time we asked it, back in the autumn of last
:25:29. > :25:31.year, it was roughly the same. A third saying stay in, a third saying
:25:32. > :25:35.come out and a quarter saying they do not know. What is interesting is
:25:36. > :25:39.how the different voter types breakdown. When you look at some of
:25:40. > :25:46.those figures, you understand why it is that Nick Clegg and Nigel for Raj
:25:47. > :25:52.agreed to debate one another. You have segmented society into six
:25:53. > :25:57.different groups. -- Nigel Farage. On the in /out referendum, how do
:25:58. > :26:02.these groups break out? When I look at it, it is long-term despair and
:26:03. > :26:09.hard-pressed anxiety, people who most want to leave. And comfortable
:26:10. > :26:15.list out. The point about it is, if you are Nigel for Raj may you have
:26:16. > :26:25.already made significant inroads into comfortable nostalgia. -- Nigel
:26:26. > :26:29.Farage. You now want to make inroads into Labour territory. If you are
:26:30. > :26:33.Nick Clegg, you want to establish your left of centre credibility with
:26:34. > :26:37.the cosmopolitan critics who may have voted for you in 2010 but have
:26:38. > :26:45.not forgiven you for putting in the Tories thereafter. Who would be the
:26:46. > :26:49.swing demographic? Two really. Optimistic contentment, who tend to
:26:50. > :26:52.be more pro-European even though conservatives do better in that
:26:53. > :26:57.group because of the higher income and higher social grade. As ever,
:26:58. > :27:01.calm persistence, who are least engaged. A third of them say they do
:27:02. > :27:06.not know what they would do will stop they are evenly divided between
:27:07. > :27:11.in and out after that. When you look at the biggest group, comfortable
:27:12. > :27:15.list out, hard-pressed anxiety, long-term despair. They are the
:27:16. > :27:21.biggest groups that would vote to leave. You get a sense that Nigel
:27:22. > :27:26.Farage knew what he was doing in the debate because he pressed their
:27:27. > :27:36.batons. Calm persistence makes up one in three voters. Optimistic
:27:37. > :27:42.contentment with bowed to stay in and calm persistence would vote to
:27:43. > :27:47.come out. -- would vote. Should he have been doing more to try to get
:27:48. > :27:54.them rather than pressing the buttons of those he has either
:27:55. > :27:58.already got or are not huge demographics in society? That is a
:27:59. > :28:02.dilemma for Nigel Farage. He could throw me to people who are inclined
:28:03. > :28:07.to buy his vision of Britain out of Europe. They are comfortable list
:28:08. > :28:16.out on the one hand or people who feel most hard-pressed, economically
:28:17. > :28:21.or access to income. All comic you try a generally more soft message to
:28:22. > :28:25.woo those people who are better off feel less threatened but still have
:28:26. > :28:29.issues with the European Union. At the moment he has chosen a Rather
:28:30. > :28:35.than being. If you are on the side of wanting to get out, this poll is
:28:36. > :28:40.not great news for you. You would want to go into a referendum
:28:41. > :28:47.campaign with quite a big lead. It is the establishment of eye Joe
:28:48. > :28:55.Farage. The weight of them will have narrowed down any leader you may
:28:56. > :28:58.have. -- Nigel Farage. It is about how fragmented the picture is one
:28:59. > :29:04.thing about breaking it down, between the social groups, it is
:29:05. > :29:08.such the shifting picture. I think the difficulty then is it you are
:29:09. > :29:13.running a no campaign, how do you pitch it? Do you go with Nigel
:29:14. > :29:21.Farage as counter revolutionary zeal? That will put off the calm
:29:22. > :29:31.persistence and people who do not want to be unstable. I think it is a
:29:32. > :29:36.challenge. The devil has the best tunes. He can shout and shout. Most
:29:37. > :29:46.people approach it in a more practical way. They may not say, I
:29:47. > :29:52.want to seeing Ode to Joy that they see the practical reasons. When he
:29:53. > :29:58.needs to make a more positive case, that is when he full stamp. I was in
:29:59. > :30:08.the minority last night on that debate. That's because you are a
:30:09. > :30:27.cosmopolitan cryptic! Provincial, living in the suburbs! Music to my
:30:28. > :30:34.is! -- my ears. How big is the cosmopolitan critic, only 14% of
:30:35. > :30:38.them would bow to leave. They are only about one in ten of all voters.
:30:39. > :30:49.They may include all media types but only one in ten. You are still in
:30:50. > :30:54.favour of staying in. But don't feel good about it. That's probably where
:30:55. > :31:00.I am. That's interesting in terms of your question, how do those voters,
:31:01. > :31:07.had of a breakdown? Governorate is interesting regionally, in the
:31:08. > :31:15.populace, the Northwest is much more sceptical than the south-east. Quite
:31:16. > :31:23.wide reaching the regional variations. Scotland tends to be
:31:24. > :31:26.more prone. But what you get overtime is a lot more of those
:31:27. > :31:31.Labour voting segments north of the border. It is safe so the Tories
:31:32. > :31:37.don't do well up there. Some of those segments are beginning to get
:31:38. > :31:43.sceptical about union membership. Thank you very much, fascinating.
:31:44. > :31:46.Good to aggregate these voters into different groups, you see what both
:31:47. > :31:53.sides of the argument have two target.
:31:54. > :31:56.A left-wing nationalist party comes to power. They decide to hold a
:31:57. > :31:59.referendum on independence. The no campaign is ahead but their lead
:32:00. > :32:02.starts to dwindle. Sound familiar? It's basically what's happening in
:32:03. > :32:10.Scotland but also how things played out in Quebec - where a vote on
:32:11. > :32:13.separation was held in 1995. Adam pushed the Daily Politics travel
:32:14. > :32:26.budget to breaking point to see if there are any parallels.
:32:27. > :32:31.No, not Montreal, Vancouver, it is a Canadian themed park up the road
:32:32. > :32:34.from the office, where I'm going to ponder the 1995 independent
:32:35. > :32:42.referendum in Quebec, the bit of the country that looks and sounds ever
:32:43. > :32:46.so is French. Get a load of the question! Even in English, it is a
:32:47. > :32:52.bit long and exceptionally complicated. The no camp were known
:32:53. > :32:55.as the Federalists because they wanted to maintain a federal Canada,
:32:56. > :32:58.the yes camp were known as the sovereignists, because they wanted
:32:59. > :33:02.Quebec to be sovereign. The yes, or oui, campaign was a bit vague with
:33:03. > :33:05.lots of questions about what independence really meant and what
:33:06. > :33:10.would happen to state assets like the post office. The no campaign
:33:11. > :33:14.started with a big lead but then the polls narrowed, narrowed and
:33:15. > :33:19.narrowed again. Those who have studied it say the Federalists
:33:20. > :33:22.emphasised too many negatives. You talk about one risk, people pay
:33:23. > :33:27.attention. You talk about two risks, people pay attention. You start to
:33:28. > :33:31.talk about three, or four or five, then either people start to say,
:33:32. > :33:34.well, this just isn't credible any more and stop paying attention, or
:33:35. > :33:38.it starts to annoy them so much it has a counter intuitive effect and
:33:39. > :33:44.pushes them towards the very side you are trying to draw them away
:33:45. > :33:47.from. Right at the last minute, the no campaign brought in loads of
:33:48. > :33:51.Canadians for a rally where they pleaded with the Quebeckers to stay,
:33:52. > :33:58.much to the annoyance of the sovereignists. We had train
:33:59. > :34:03.companies and air companies subsidising travel on that date in
:34:04. > :34:07.Montreal. People were saying, that does kind of count as a referendum
:34:08. > :34:12.contribution, or engagement in a referendum campaign. You cannot do
:34:13. > :34:21.that. It did work and the final result was really close. 50.6% to
:34:22. > :34:24.the noes and 49.4% of the yeses, a margin of just over one percentage
:34:25. > :34:28.point. I wonder if they celebrated with the national dish, served by a
:34:29. > :34:35.genuine Quebecker. Have the SNP been ingesting anything Canadian? I was
:34:36. > :34:38.chatting to a senior figure in the yes campaign, who said they have
:34:39. > :34:41.imported three lessons from Canada. Prepare for dirty tricks, get
:34:42. > :34:48.started campaigning early and, most importantly, do not lose. The last
:34:49. > :34:50.one seems obvious but it is a reference to what happened
:34:51. > :34:52.afterwards. Canada passed the Clarity Act, legislation which makes
:34:53. > :34:59.separation in future much, much trickier.
:35:00. > :35:03.And we can speak now to the Telegraph's Scottish editor Alan
:35:04. > :35:10.Cochrane, and Joyce McMillan from the Scotsman - they're both in
:35:11. > :35:13.Edinburgh. Alan, I have got to come to you first because we may lose the
:35:14. > :35:19.line shortly. What lessons would you draw from the Quebec campaign? Not
:35:20. > :35:24.very many. I was in Canada at the end of the year, sitting next to a
:35:25. > :35:29.French Canadian who was aghast at the prospect of another referendum.
:35:30. > :35:32.The separatists are not very sure they should have a referendum
:35:33. > :35:35.because they think they will get hammered. The one lesson that the
:35:36. > :35:41.yes campaign in Scotland could take is, the simple reason that the
:35:42. > :35:46.separatists got so close in 1995 is they changed their leader. They were
:35:47. > :35:49.miles behind until they got rid of their leader, so there is a message
:35:50. > :35:57.for the Nationalists, dump Alex Salmond. Joyce, I have a feeling
:35:58. > :36:00.that isn't going to happen? No, I get the feeling that Alex Salmond is
:36:01. > :36:04.an effective and popular leader as far as most Scottish voters are
:36:05. > :36:10.concerned. The comparison is interesting but I think we are
:36:11. > :36:15.living in different times from 1995. Although that's only 19 years ago,
:36:16. > :36:19.the processes of globalisation and so on have shifted a long way.
:36:20. > :36:26.Britain is part of the new which changes the whole and additional
:36:27. > :36:30.structure anyway. -- part of the EU. But the outcome may well be similar,
:36:31. > :36:38.I would be surprised if the SNP were as close as 49% that they might be
:36:39. > :36:46.in the 40s. Is it your view that they are going to lose? Well, I
:36:47. > :36:53.think if you look at the balance of the polls, it is still likely that
:36:54. > :36:58.the no campaign will age it. I would say so. There's been sign of any
:36:59. > :37:02.poll in which the yes campaign has been ahead. But it certainly has the
:37:03. > :37:06.momentum. We don't know what will happen over the next few months, I
:37:07. > :37:11.would be surprised if they made it to a majority, but the fact is, if
:37:12. > :37:16.they lose, that momentum is not entirely going to go away and what
:37:17. > :37:21.people not in Scotland sometimes can't be aware of because they don't
:37:22. > :37:24.get the press coverage is just how dominant the SNP has become in
:37:25. > :37:30.Scottish politics, and not entirely in a bad way. They have the
:37:31. > :37:33.grassroots strength that a lot of other political parties would give
:37:34. > :37:38.their right arm for and that will not vanish. If we have a vote in
:37:39. > :37:42.which the independence campaign loses by a small amount, will they
:37:43. > :37:47.be pressure to have another referendum sooner rather than later?
:37:48. > :37:51.There might well be but much more worrying is the bitterness that this
:37:52. > :37:57.campaign is engendering on a daily basis. I can't see the nationalist
:37:58. > :38:03.community accepting defeat wastefully, and I'm not sure that I
:38:04. > :38:08.would accept a vote for separation very well either -- gracefully. This
:38:09. > :38:13.is a campaign that is getting more bitter all the time and I have real
:38:14. > :38:17.worries about how we are going to get this country back together after
:38:18. > :38:25.the referendum. It is a very divided society right now. More bitter? I
:38:26. > :38:28.know there are a lot of people on the no side, who perceive a huge
:38:29. > :38:35.level of bitterness, I must say that is not my perception. I never read
:38:36. > :38:40.the bottom half of the Internet, but you don't need to pay any attention
:38:41. > :38:43.to that, most of it is anonymous. If you focus on the yes campaign, which
:38:44. > :38:52.is tremendously inventive and great fun, it has the rather enjoyable.
:38:53. > :38:59.That is not having industrialists feel, when the travel agent this
:39:00. > :39:05.week said to his employees, I don't believe in independence can but
:39:06. > :39:09.absolutely hammered... People are allowed to say they don't agree with
:39:10. > :39:16.him and they are allowed to say he shouldn't be abusing his position as
:39:17. > :39:24.a boss. He was subject to a vicious campaign. Read the online site and
:39:25. > :39:28.see what they say to people in the Scotsman who dare to say they
:39:29. > :39:33.disagree with the Nationalists. Why do I need to read the voices of a
:39:34. > :39:41.few sad cases in front of the machine? Allen, we are going to lose
:39:42. > :39:45.you, don't ask you, the rest of Canada piled into Quebec just before
:39:46. > :39:50.the referendum with a big message, don't go we want you to stay. Should
:39:51. > :39:55.the rest of Britain who want to keep the union together be doing the same
:39:56. > :39:58.in Scotland? I hope they did. I think there is a press conference up
:39:59. > :40:06.the road, and they are saying much the same, from England, Wales,
:40:07. > :40:11.Northern Ireland, please stay, I welcome the support from everyone.
:40:12. > :40:17.There are too many appear querying the pitch for the rest of us. There
:40:18. > :40:24.was this unnamed Cabinet minister who talked about a deal that could
:40:25. > :40:29.be done whereby Scotland would get monetary union in independence, but
:40:30. > :40:36.it would involve holding on to the nuclear submarines for an
:40:37. > :40:39.unspecified time and the warheads. How would that go down with Alex
:40:40. > :40:45.Salmond's supporters of a deal like that were done? The secret was in
:40:46. > :40:49.your last half sentence. If they could find a way of moving the
:40:50. > :40:54.warheads out of Scotland, then the deal could be done. That's more
:40:55. > :41:02.difficult than moving the submarines. Possibly, I don't know,
:41:03. > :41:09.the submarines are very large. I think that the SNP, removal of the
:41:10. > :41:12.nuclear weapons such is pretty well non-negotiable. But everything else
:41:13. > :41:15.about those bases is negotiable including the physical presence of
:41:16. > :41:22.the submarines and the maintenance of them. That would be my guess. We
:41:23. > :41:26.are assuming that the boat is yes on September we don't know that, but if
:41:27. > :41:29.Mr Salmond was to say to his people, the only way we can get
:41:30. > :41:38.monetary union, which is popular in Scotland, is we have to allow the
:41:39. > :41:45.space to this base to stay for ten, 20 years. That would be a problem,
:41:46. > :41:48.you think? It would depend on the timespan. 20 years sounds long.
:41:49. > :41:56.People in Scotland are expecting that there would ten years of
:41:57. > :41:59.negotiating various things. I don't think it could all be done within a
:42:00. > :42:10.decade, people might find that acceptable, but I'm only guessing
:42:11. > :42:17.here. Final word. Is the better better campaign in trouble? The fact
:42:18. > :42:21.that all the parties hate each other, there have been problems. The
:42:22. > :42:29.yes campaign has dismissed all of their original directors. The better
:42:30. > :42:36.today -- better together campaign has been... We have had one idiot
:42:37. > :42:42.sniping this week. He is obviously in the frame. I don't think, one of
:42:43. > :42:53.the Berlin din chats wouldn't say... I am paraphrasing. Just so
:42:54. > :42:56.you would understand. We have got the subtitles up. Thanks very much
:42:57. > :43:06.to both of you, come back and mark our cars again. We didn't lose him
:43:07. > :43:10.in the end. Our next guest is the only
:43:11. > :43:14.politician of Chinese descent in any UK legislature and one of only a few
:43:15. > :43:16.in Europe. She's a member of the legislative assembly in Northern
:43:17. > :43:22.Ireland, where the Chinese community is the largest ethnic minority
:43:23. > :43:26.group. She received a barrage of racist abuse online earlier this
:43:27. > :43:29.year, and that came up at Prime Minister's Questions when Nick Clegg
:43:30. > :43:39.was standing for David Cameron last month. -- standing in. I was deeply
:43:40. > :43:42.saddened and shocked to read about the incident of what happened to
:43:43. > :43:45.members of the Polish and Chinese community in her constituency and
:43:46. > :43:51.even more so, what has happened to her colleague, Anna Lo MLA, the
:43:52. > :43:57.first member of Chinese descent in any legislature in Europe, being
:43:58. > :44:01.subjected terrible abuse by bullies and racists. I rang her arguments go
:44:02. > :44:09.to express my own support what she's doing to stand up that terrible
:44:10. > :44:15.treatment. Anna Lo joins us now. Let's take this bit about, you are
:44:16. > :44:18.the only UK parliamentarian either in Westminster or in the devolved
:44:19. > :44:29.parliaments, from the Chinese community. Why do you think Chinese
:44:30. > :44:32.representation is so small? Yes, I think may the short history of
:44:33. > :44:38.Chinese people coming into the UK, when we have seen maybe Indian or
:44:39. > :44:44.Pakistani politicians coming forward, also the majority of
:44:45. > :44:51.Chinese people here came from Hong Kong, where there was little cortex.
:44:52. > :44:57.So they were not may be used to being in politics or being active in
:44:58. > :45:03.politics. Their priority coming into the UK is very much establishing
:45:04. > :45:08.themselves in businesses, rather than to come into Quebec life. But
:45:09. > :45:23.you never know, second and third generation. You have paid the way.
:45:24. > :45:27.The Chinese community in Britain has tended not to go into politics. It
:45:28. > :45:32.has been more likely to go into business or the professions or
:45:33. > :45:39.academia. In many ways, many years ago, the Jewish community also went
:45:40. > :45:44.that route to begin with as well. That is very much maybe the
:45:45. > :45:48.influence from the parents. Parents all went into businesses so they
:45:49. > :45:55.tend to gravitate towards accountancy and things like that.
:45:56. > :46:00.But, I think, it is important for the political parties to involve
:46:01. > :46:05.them as well. In Northern Ireland, we do not see many political parties
:46:06. > :46:10.going out deliberately to woo the potential ethnic minority
:46:11. > :46:19.communities to be participating in politics. Many would mention what
:46:20. > :46:24.they would do for ethnic minorities. They are kind of used to being
:46:25. > :46:27.sidelined. They do not feel they have a say in politics. It is
:46:28. > :46:32.important that they are involved. They are very much part and parcel
:46:33. > :46:37.now of our society and they have a lot to contribute. You have been
:46:38. > :46:42.saying, and some others have been saying, that in Northern Ireland,
:46:43. > :46:47.racism is taking over from sectarianism as a major problem.
:46:48. > :46:53.Explain what you mean and what happened to you. Well, I think, if
:46:54. > :46:58.you asked any sociologist, they would say to you sectarianism and
:46:59. > :47:04.racism are two sides of the same coin. I think if people are
:47:05. > :47:11.sectarian, they can very easily jump from one prejudice to another. You
:47:12. > :47:18.suffered one abuse yourself, didn't you? I have received very bad racist
:47:19. > :47:22.comments from making some comments as a politician about taking down
:47:23. > :47:29.the Union flag hanging on a lamp post. That was hung up really over a
:47:30. > :47:35.year ago and many of the flags now tattered. I think it was a very
:47:36. > :47:49.legitimate proposal. This is for bringing them down during the race,
:47:50. > :47:53.the bike race. Millions of viewers watching the race across the world.
:47:54. > :48:01.I'd also called for the paramilitary mural is displaying violence, for
:48:02. > :48:08.them to be painted over, to give a good image of Belfast, Northern
:48:09. > :48:18.Ireland. Some folks found a sense of my proposal and so they put up a lot
:48:19. > :48:23.of racist, really foul messages. I am sorry you have had to withdraw
:48:24. > :48:27.this. You describe yourself as an anti-colonial. That is
:48:28. > :48:31.understandable. You said the partition of Ireland was superficial
:48:32. > :48:34.and Ireland would be better placed economically notionally and
:48:35. > :48:38.politically. I guess if you say that its segment of the loyalist
:48:39. > :48:47.community will abuse you. -- a segment. I got some abuse from them.
:48:48. > :48:55.To be honest, it was a 35 minute interview I gave to the Irish News.
:48:56. > :49:00.My understanding of it, it was going to be a feature of my European
:49:01. > :49:06.election. I answer a lot of questions and that was one of the
:49:07. > :49:15.last questions put to me. Are you in favour of a united Ireland? I am in
:49:16. > :49:19.favour of the principle of consent. What I said was, I would like to see
:49:20. > :49:23.a united Ireland. If the conditions are right, if it is the wish of the
:49:24. > :49:30.majority of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not see anything wrong
:49:31. > :49:33.with that. Thank you for joining us today, life from Belfast. Now we, at
:49:34. > :49:36.the Daily Politics, are used to following minor political spats. In
:49:37. > :49:40.fact, it is our life-blood. But who would have guessed that when David
:49:41. > :49:43.Cameron told staff at John Lewis yesterday he shopped at Waitrose
:49:44. > :49:51.he'd end up being accused of being stuck-up and out of touch. Who would
:49:52. > :49:54.have thought that? It seems Mr Cameron's mistake, if indeed it was
:49:55. > :49:57.a mistake, was to suggest that Waitrose customers were more
:49:58. > :50:00.talkative, more engaged, than the customers of other supermarkets.
:50:01. > :50:07.Labour said it was a bizarre and empty-headed intervention. I think
:50:08. > :50:10.that is a bizarre and heavy headed response. Nick Clegg was asked where
:50:11. > :50:16.he shopped. He said he goes to them all. He is a Lib Dem, obviously.
:50:17. > :50:21.Where Ed Miliband shops is as yet unknown. We have teams of people
:50:22. > :50:24.trying to find out. Well, politicians aren't usually shy of
:50:25. > :50:32.being seen out connecting with the shoppers. Let's take a look. Next
:50:33. > :50:51.time you are at the checkout, supermarket sweep.
:50:52. > :51:04.# Will you dance with me? Take a chance with me. Do it one more time.
:51:05. > :51:10.Will you dance with me? Do it one more time with the music. Take a
:51:11. > :51:19.chance with me. Do it one more time.
:51:20. > :51:28.# Check it out, check it out, check it out. #
:51:29. > :51:40.Ed Miliband has been spotted, I am told, in a farmers market in
:51:41. > :51:43.Hampstead. There is a surprise. Joining me now to talk about the
:51:44. > :51:50.politics of supermarkets is psychotherapist Lucy Beresford. What
:51:51. > :51:54.can you tell us? What are you make of David Cameron saying Waitrose
:51:55. > :51:58.customers are more talkative? We have to remember the audience he was
:51:59. > :52:04.speaking to. He was speaking in a John Lewis environment. They are in
:52:05. > :52:08.a partnership together. There is a sense in which he could have been
:52:09. > :52:12.preaching to the converted. Not a particularly brave statement in that
:52:13. > :52:17.environment. Wouldn't you say, for me, if you told me the customers of
:52:18. > :52:22.a particular supermarket were more talkative, I would make sure I would
:52:23. > :52:30.not go? You would not want to be hassled. You would want to be
:52:31. > :52:41.focused on your trolley. The problem is AI am very methodical. -- the
:52:42. > :52:44.problem is... I am very methodical. Politicians feel obliged to go to
:52:45. > :52:48.the supermarket. They are probably the only meant in that environment
:52:49. > :52:54.who do go to the supermarket because the media expects them to play that
:52:55. > :53:00.role. Do you think going to the food hall at Harrods counts? I am not
:53:01. > :53:12.talking about myself. I thought he would have been a forged and Mason
:53:13. > :53:19.man. What do you make of this? -- Fortnum and Mason. Silently he knows
:53:20. > :53:31.he has this problem of being out of touch. I go to ASDA. A lot of men do
:53:32. > :53:35.go shopping. You have got it wrong. Like you, up and down, you know
:53:36. > :53:44.where everything is. Makes you do not miss things. The difficulties,
:53:45. > :53:48.going back to our conversation with raking down the population into
:53:49. > :53:53.groups, what he seemed to be saying is, you get a more kind of
:53:54. > :54:02.civilised, chatty bunch of people in Waitrose. No kidding! It did sound a
:54:03. > :54:06.bit like a cluster mark. He may also be more relaxed when he is in that
:54:07. > :54:12.environment, which makes him appear more approachable. In Budgens, he
:54:13. > :54:20.could be more shifty. He may not expect to be recognised. Is he being
:54:21. > :54:26.snooty? I do not think that was his intention. He earned a good whack. I
:54:27. > :54:34.go to ASDA because it is better value. It is not just the
:54:35. > :54:36.well-heeled who are shopping in Waitrose and M food. They were the
:54:37. > :54:44.stores that did much better over Christmas. Tesco did much worse.
:54:45. > :54:49.People are perhaps aspiring to having better quality food and
:54:50. > :54:55.better engaged experiences. We have to remember it is the employees of
:54:56. > :55:01.Waitrose, because they are part of a partnership, similarly engaged. What
:55:02. > :55:08.you make about Nick Clegg saying he shops at every supermarket? I have
:55:09. > :55:16.shopped at ASDA, Sainsbury's, Tesco. You have not put your finger on Ed
:55:17. > :55:21.Miliband in the farmers market. I go to Tesco, where a lot of my target
:55:22. > :55:28.voters go. Nobody is going to be Co-op. That is what we can see. I go
:55:29. > :55:42.there sometimes. I have a membership card. We did not get it last year,
:55:43. > :55:45.it was suspended. I suspect Nick Clegg is going around the shops
:55:46. > :55:50.because things are not looking too good. Now, if you are anything like
:55:51. > :55:54.me, by this stage in the week your attention span is pretty short. I
:55:55. > :55:58.wonder where to have lunch today? Anyway, for all of you who feel the
:55:59. > :56:01.same here's Alex Forsyth with our digest of all the big political
:56:02. > :56:06.stories of the week in just 60 seconds. The Defence Secretary
:56:07. > :56:12.unequivocally denied being the source of a storm on the possible
:56:13. > :56:20.currency union with an independent Scotland. I do not think so. The
:56:21. > :56:30.search for the leak goes on. There were claims the Royal Mail sale left
:56:31. > :56:36.people short-changed. Not so much the wolf of Wall Street, more the
:56:37. > :56:41.ducks of Downing Street. The Prime Minister hit back saying, I will
:56:42. > :56:48.take advice from everyone but not the two Muppets who advise the
:56:49. > :56:52.transfer of setting the goal. Also Nick against Nigel. The UKIP leader
:56:53. > :57:02.was probably soon smoking a calming fag. There were fireworks from Len
:57:03. > :57:10.McCluskey, who warned they could break links with Labour if the party
:57:11. > :57:17.loses the next election. We finished on Len McCluskey. He spoke at the
:57:18. > :57:23.press gallery for lunch. You were there. What was it like? I asked,
:57:24. > :57:29.would you back another party? I did not expect an honest answer. I think
:57:30. > :57:33.it was a serious threat. Very different from his position at the
:57:34. > :57:38.special conference. He said, this is our party, we are going nowhere. If
:57:39. > :57:43.Labour lose, unions are being pushed further and further out. Instead of
:57:44. > :57:48.being pushed out, let's walk out. Labour losing is a little less
:57:49. > :57:52.likely this week than it was a week ago. The budget bounce that Mr
:57:53. > :58:03.Osborne got seems to have petered out. Fire immediate responses to
:58:04. > :58:09.budgets do tend dissipate. -- immediate responses to budgets. Will
:58:10. > :58:15.this be a decider? Not so much as some commentators were saying last
:58:16. > :58:27.week. The problems by Mr McCluskey, there is no party on the left that
:58:28. > :58:32.will overtake Labour. Labour is the only game in town. If you have
:58:33. > :58:35.electoral reform, you might have otherwise. You are wasting your
:58:36. > :58:38.money and you will damage Labour. That's all for today. Thanks to our
:58:39. > :58:42.guests. The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now. I'll
:58:43. > :58:46.be back on BBC One on Sunday with the Sunday Politics when I'll be
:58:47. > :58:52.joined by Shadow Energy Secretary, Caroline Flint. We will be speaking
:58:53. > :58:55.about the prospects of the Labour Party. I hope you can join me.
:58:56. > :58:58.Bye-bye.