04/04/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Maria Miller has

been ordered to repay thousands of pounds in expenses and told to

apologise. The view from Fleet Street this morning is that the

punishment doesn't fit the crime. So has she been let off with a slap on

the wrist, or are the papers just unhappy about plans for press

regulation? The polls say Nigel picnic by a big margin. Just how

Eurosceptic is the British public? People of Quebec know a thing or two

about independence referendums. They have had two. There are some

surprising similarities with this year's vote in Scotland. And in this

week's least shopping News, David Cameron shops at Waitrose, which is

your choice of supermarkets say about you?

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme today are

two journalists more likely to be found in the aisles of a pound shop

than a super-market for the well-heeled - it's Anne McElvoy from

the Economist and Kevin Maguire from the Mirror. Well it's true of one of

them anyway, I'll let you decide which. Let's start with Maria

Miller. After a 14-month investigation into expenses claimed

on her London home, the culture secretary was told yesterday she had

to repay ?5,800 and apologise for her "attitude" during the inquiry.

The Commons Committee on Standards, that's made up of MPs, cleared her

of making false expenses claims but said she'd overclaimed on her

mortgage payments. It did so by a lot less than the commission had

conceded. The papers this morning are far from happy, making the

familiar claim that when it comes to expenses, MPs still don't get it.

And the apology itself hasn't gone down well. Here it is in its

entirety. It's not that long! With permission, I wish to make a

personal statement in Russian to today's report. The report resulted

from an allegation made by the member for Bassetlaw. The committee

has dismissed his allegation. The committee has recommended that I

apologised to the house for my attitude cheering the

commissioners's enquiries and I of course unreservedly apologise. I

fully accept the reconditioned of the committee and thank them for

bringing this matter to an end. -- accept the recommendations.

That was Maria Miller apologising to the Commons yesterday. We're joined

now by our political correspondent Iain Watson. How strong is the

feeling in Westminster and the media that the punishment hasn't fitted

the crime? It's pretty strong in the media. Not quite as strong at

Westminster, as you can imagine, Labour MPs are bee sting in, the man

who made the original complaint is criticising the committee on

standards because in their weighty tome, this report, most of it is

made up of correspondence between her and the parliamentary standards

Commissioner, the person who carries out the initial enquiry. The

Commissioner said she should pay back ?45,000, in the end of the

committee, made up largely of MPs, decided she should pay back only

?5,800, the amount she identified as an administrative error on her

mortgage. They are saying this is a cover-up for MPs, marking their own

homework, another Labour MP is saying the police should look into

the matter. When it comes to her own colleagues, they are saying, she

should have handled this better perhaps, the brevity of this apology

was inappropriate, nonetheless the key, central allegation that she is

using taxpayers money to fund a home for her parents was disproved, and

because that was the case, there are not huge to see Asians for her. When

she was asked a second time, in the wake of the report, in the wake of

that apology, the Prime Minister gave his backing to Maria Miller.

But apprentice delay was that Maria Miller was cleared of the original

charge made against -- what happened yesterday. She made mistakes, except

that, repaid the money, apologised unreservedly to the House of

Commons, so we should leave it there. Denning Street are sticking

by them, what happens next? If there is a reshuffled post, the rumours

are that she might be heading west rather than South, Cardiff, becoming

the next Secretary of State for Wales. But certainly, David Cameron

is keen to keep women at the Cabinet table but perhaps not in that

current role. The reason she might not stay in that is she's normally

in charge of the writers of regulating the press as culture

secretary and many are saying that Westminster are much more hostile

does smaller, about MPs covering this up, the reaction was perhaps

driven by the fact that she agreed with other politicians, in setting

up his royal charter on present regulation. Not much has happened

since and most of the press have been able to do their own thing. The

press themselves have been critical, not just of Maria Miller, what some

are calling her arrogance, but also suggesting that MPs expenses could

be back on the agenda again. Her political career isn't over but she

may be up for a change sometime soon. I'm sure that has cheered up

the people of Wales this morning! The former Telegraph editor Tony

Gallagher was on the Today programme this morning. He accused Maria

Miller of "breathtaking arrogance", and he repeated his claim that David

Cameron's Director of Communications, a man called Craig

Oliver, of personally putting pressure on Tony Gallagher not to

publish a story about Maria Miller's expenses. Craig Oliver reacted

angrily to that allegation, he said: "'It is utterly false for Tony

Gallagher to suggest he was threatened over Leveson by me in any

way. That was a reference to Maria

Miller's parents, who were at the centre of the original Telegraph

story. They were in the house that she was claiming for. So let's talk

to the man who's made the allegation, former Telegraph editor

Tony Gallagher, he joins us now from North London. Craig Oliver, saying

that you are lying, in effect. Can you hear me? OK. We usually get live

to Baghdad without a problem, but getting to North London is defeating

the gremlins... Or at least the gremlins are defeating us! We were

trying to get that line back to Mr Gallagher.

We're joined now by Shaun Kemp, he worked for the Lib Dems and was

deputy head of press at Downing Street. What do you make of these

claims? Craig Oliver said he made no threats. I remember when this was

going on, the account of the conversation was not true. We will

hear what Tony says in an Quebec, but I had no idea he was such a

sensitive flower, that one phone call could upset him to that extent,

that is not quite the reputation he has had more generally. I think it

is a comfortable for our press person to ring up a newspaper when a

family is being approached by a newspaper. The press officer is then

entitled to say, the family are distressed, they don't want to speak

to you, please speak to be MP's office. Let's see if we have made

contact now. Can you hear me now? Very well. I apologised to the

technical glitch. We quoted Craig Oliver's statement there, saying it

is utterly falls, his words, for you to suggest that he threatened you

over Leveson in any way. He's effectively accusing you of lying.

I'm very happy to discuss Craig Oliver all day, but he hasn't really

addressed the key issue and in rushing out a denial, he has made

the story about Craig Oliver Rather than the more substantive point that

this is all about press freedom and the threats to them. He was only the

third call that the Telegraph call. The first, more sinister call, was

made by Maria Miller's special adviser to my reporter, essentially

to warn her of the story. "Maria Miller has been having a lot of

meetings around Leveson, you might want to talk to people higher up

your organisation. " Miss Hindley then spoke to an executive at the

Telegraph to point that out, we then got a third call from Craig Oliver

who pointed out, " she is looking at Leveson, the call is badly timed".

If you are making a series of phone calls to a newspaper investigating

the conduct of a Cabinet minister, that comes close to menace. Bear in

mind, there was quite a climate of anti-press hysteria in the aftermath

of Leveson, so when a cabinet minister's advises ring up

newspapers in that fashion and warned them in that fashion, they

are bound to take the threats seriously. Happily, we decided we

would publish. I will come back to Mr Oliver, there is a very

interesting set of examples you have given their of pressure being put on

the newspaper in the context of Leveson. What evidence can you offer

to substantiate these claims? Reported most of this at the time. I

don't think it's disputed that Joanna Hindley rang the Daily

Telegraph and was recorded making those threats. The fact we are

debating it now is really in the aftermath of the report. It was all

debated fully at the time. So if need be, you could furnish the

evidence to substantiate that, including recordings? Yes, I think

we could. More broadly, of course... Craig Oliver says he spoke to you

because your journalists were harassing members of Miss Miller's

family, is that true? It's a bit late to be raising the spectre of

harassment of a family, 16 months after the event. I would suggest it

is a smoke screen. It is a Cabinet minister who wanted to muzzle the

freedom... I don't recall that at all. If we want to discuss that

issue, it should be pointed out that the reporter in question had an

amicable conversation lasting under ten minutes with Maria Miller's

father on the doorstep. He was even a Telegraph reader. He was not in

any way distressed commie didn't seem harassed, and she left after he

didn't want to talk about it in detail. So there was no question of

harassment. Just to clarify, are you saying that Craig Oliver at the time

did not raise concerns about the behaviour of the Daily Telegraph

towards the Miller family? The point of his phone call and my clear

recollection of this was that it was in the context of Leveson. Bear in

mind the climate of anti-press hysteria at the time, every

newspaper was super-sensitive about the prospect of Leveson proposals

being implement it and being caught up in a scandal in the wake of the

report. In mind that both newspapers and editors can recount similar

conversations with government spin doctors over the past 12 months.

MPs, officials, businessmen, will always the spectre of newspapers.

Special advisers regularly have conversations with journalists and

editors, we speak to them, they are always private conversations stop

why did you decide to break the privacy and publish the Hindley

conversations? We decided to do that because they were calling into

question the veracity of what the reporters had said, and we wouldn't

have otherwise made those conversations public. But they lied

about the nature of what it was that we were attempting to prove. They

were trying to throw up a smoke screen around the important fact

that Maria Miller had wrongly claimed expenses and they told lies

about my reporters, and I wasn't there to have their integrity

challenged. Once they came the integrity of the staff, I will

afraid we decided that the convention by which we wouldn't

publish the conversations was abandoned. Did it also play to your

anti-medicine agenda as well? You could say that. Undoubtedly, we have

a dog in the fight. Maria Miller, in many ways, has done us a tremendous

favour. Her conduct and that of her advisers has shown very clearly why

no politician should ever be allowed near the press. Once they get their

hands on the press, it will only go one way. They cannot resist keeping

their hands off the press. You saw how the House of Commons voted

overwhelmingly in favour of a Royal Charter. MPs hate us for the fact

they exposed our expenses troubles back in 2009 and they are desperate

to get one over us and ensure, in one way, there's that is on our

throats. Given your experience with the special adviser of Maria Miller

and what we have now seen the Parliamentary Commissioner has said

about the expenses. I put aside happy MPs voted. Do you believe

Maria Miller is fit to be Culture Secretary? I do not have a view, one

way or another, as to whether Maria Miller should resign. That is a

matter for David Cameron and the Government. What I should say is I

think she got off extraordinary lightly, which is perhaps inevitable

given there are 13 MPs mocking their own homework and defending one of

their own. The language in the report is extraordinary. If similar

language when used about a newspaper editor, that person would be out on

their ear by close of play. Another thing, if this was a benefit

claimants, that benefit claimant would have had police involved very

quickly. I am rather surprised that we do not yet have the spectre of a

police enquiry into this matter. It seems to me, at the very least,

there is something worth investigating about her conduct. I

am sorry about the sound problems we had at the beginning of the

interview. What do you make of what you have just heard? I can

understand if the Joanna Hindley Frenkel is as described. They said

they had a recording of it. -- phone call is as described. I do not think

it is true there are numerous conversations threatening Leveson..

It is a full to go around suggesting you can threaten journalists. She

really tried to warn the Telegraph of the expenses story, Maria Miller.

Not by saying it is not true or this is outrageous, or we will see you,

saying, we would like to point out that Miss Miller is in charge of the

Leveson process. Sign that is not a conversation that should happen.

Should that not be a resignation? She threatened the press. You are

the minister responsible for some new press regulation system. Because

they have a story which is unpalatable to you, you don't

threaten the press with this new regulation system. It is something

special adviser should not be doing. Sky it is something a special

adviser should not be doing. -- it is something a special adviser

should not be doing. With Maria Miller, based on what we have heard

from Tony Gallagher, and assuming this tape of the conversation

exists, I think that creates a very grave problem. To make the linkage

at the time after Leveson, when there was a particularly sensitive

mood, not enough weight has been put upon the statement that reporters

should be aware. To my ears, people bend my ear and say they will talk

to... Editors, the proprietor, all the rest of it. Sign it is intended

to back off. Maria Miller, we have not really heard in that brief

apology, anything what she thinks about the behaviour. As we had been

on air, Craig Oliver has been watching our interview and e-mail is

to say, I am very clear I had a conversation about an old man who

was distressed. That was the father of Miss Miller. There was no threat

in any way over Leveson. Tony Gallagher is talking rubbish about

me and you can use that. I was there at the time and I remembered the

reaction of Craig on the day and it was as he described. I will find

Maria Miller behind her elderly parents and add that to hire charge

sheet. She has taken thousands and thousands of pounds of taxpayers

money. All lies and threat should be on the record. I would love the

Telegraph to put that recording on the website. We should all listen.

Remember, Vince cable, when he was recorded by the Daily Telegraph,

although it leaked out in an odd way, he was making threats about

BSkyB and the Murdoch takeover. He had responsibility for that removed.

Why was the responsibility for press regulation removed from Maria Miller

when she is making threats, or her special adviser is making threats

about Leveson and press regulation because of the own behaviour of her

family? She went higher up the chain. That seems to be a problem.

There was a resignation due to the fact that 9/11 was called a good day

to bury bad news. It is about Maria Miller expenses and relations with

the press. I feel uncomfortable about getting into conversations

with advisers, important as they are. One thing I do want to know...

Miss Hindley was not acting on behalf of the minister. We have

every reason to believe she was. Do not be wary of that. Let's Maria

Miller say, my special adviser was acting without my knowledge and

approval. Is she still special adviser? I believe she has left. It

is about Tony Gallagher saying, stories like this would never happen

if we had Leveson. There is now a suspicion that would be the case. If

he was able to run a leader on that day... There is a big worry. You

have a worrying story in the newspaper about journalists in

Croydon being threatened by police for doing the job of good

journalism. On both sides, let's not say it would stop any story about

expenses being published, of course it should. Every Tom, Dick and Harry

it was sending letters citing Leveson. Some people who are now

facing very serious trials and I will not name them for reasons of

contempt. It seems here, the Culture Secretary, the message was comic you

investigate my expenses collect you expose what I have been doing and

press revelation will come down tough on you. That is a very serious

threat. The wider story in there is about expenses is that the

independent investigation is quite damning on Maria Miller. The MPs in

The House water it down and she has too apologise for a matter of

process, rather than expenses and pay a much smaller amount back. They

are still marking their own homework, aren't they? They are.

There is a big divide between the press and MPs, including some who

are not involved in expenses scandal or alleged scandals. They do feel we

have gone over the top. There is a myth that says, we have had enough

of this. Maria Miller is lucky in her timing. Had it come out

earlier, Tony McNulty had to resign en contra Bull situations. Some

people will say the press has gone over the top. -- on comparable

situations. I do not know whether to laugh or cry. One of the big,

legitimate complaints about the old commission is that editors sat in

judgment on editors. MPs would make that criticism. MPs are sitting in

judgment on their own. I cannot remember a single case when they

have come in with a heavier penalty after reading this report from their

own commission. They always softened. They should have a voice

in the system but they have to get away from the system of marking

their own homework. If the Culture Secretary thought this would go away

after her apology, she was sadly wrong. Now, did you think you'd get

through the whole show without us mentioning Nick Clegg versus Nigel

Farage? Well, how wrong you were. I've done it already. But whoever

won, and the polls were united in giving it to Farage, Britain's

relationship with the EU has been under the spotlight and that's going

to continue to next month's European elections and beyond. So, what does

the public think about the EU? Well, the Daily Politics has been working

with the polling firm, Populus. They have been working on something

called voter segmentation, which breaks the electorate down according

to their values. This week they asked people their opinion of

membership of the European Union. 28% of those asked said they were

positive about the UK being in the EU but 30% said they felt negatively

about membership of the EU and thought we would be better off out.

16% said that they were negative about membership of the EU, but felt

that we would be worse off if we left. 26% didn't feel strongly

either way. We then asked our polling group how they would vote if

there was a referendum on our membership of the EU. 32% said they

would vote to leave, 35% said they would vote to stay, 27% said they

didn't know how they would vote, and 6% said they wouldn't vote at all.

They could not have been watching the debate. To steer us through

this, we're joined by Rick Nye from Populus. Am I right in thinking this

poll shows the in/out difference rather more finely balanced than

previous polls. The last time we asked it, back in the autumn of last

year, it was roughly the same. A third saying stay in, a third saying

come out and a quarter saying they do not know. What is interesting is

how the different voter types breakdown. When you look at some of

those figures, you understand why it is that Nick Clegg and Nigel for Raj

agreed to debate one another. You have segmented society into six

different groups. -- Nigel Farage. On the in /out referendum, how do

these groups break out? When I look at it, it is long-term despair and

hard-pressed anxiety, people who most want to leave. And comfortable

list out. The point about it is, if you are Nigel for Raj may you have

already made significant inroads into comfortable nostalgia. -- Nigel

Farage. You now want to make inroads into Labour territory. If you are

Nick Clegg, you want to establish your left of centre credibility with

the cosmopolitan critics who may have voted for you in 2010 but have

not forgiven you for putting in the Tories thereafter. Who would be the

swing demographic? Two really. Optimistic contentment, who tend to

be more pro-European even though conservatives do better in that

group because of the higher income and higher social grade. As ever,

calm persistence, who are least engaged. A third of them say they do

not know what they would do will stop they are evenly divided between

in and out after that. When you look at the biggest group, comfortable

list out, hard-pressed anxiety, long-term despair. They are the

biggest groups that would vote to leave. You get a sense that Nigel

Farage knew what he was doing in the debate because he pressed their

batons. Calm persistence makes up one in three voters. Optimistic

contentment with bowed to stay in and calm persistence would vote to

come out. -- would vote. Should he have been doing more to try to get

them rather than pressing the buttons of those he has either

already got or are not huge demographics in society? That is a

dilemma for Nigel Farage. He could throw me to people who are inclined

to buy his vision of Britain out of Europe. They are comfortable list

out on the one hand or people who feel most hard-pressed, economically

or access to income. All comic you try a generally more soft message to

woo those people who are better off feel less threatened but still have

issues with the European Union. At the moment he has chosen a Rather

than being. If you are on the side of wanting to get out, this poll is

not great news for you. You would want to go into a referendum

campaign with quite a big lead. It is the establishment of eye Joe

Farage. The weight of them will have narrowed down any leader you may

have. -- Nigel Farage. It is about how fragmented the picture is one

thing about breaking it down, between the social groups, it is

such the shifting picture. I think the difficulty then is it you are

running a no campaign, how do you pitch it? Do you go with Nigel

Farage as counter revolutionary zeal? That will put off the calm

persistence and people who do not want to be unstable. I think it is a

challenge. The devil has the best tunes. He can shout and shout. Most

people approach it in a more practical way. They may not say, I

want to seeing Ode to Joy that they see the practical reasons. When he

needs to make a more positive case, that is when he full stamp. I was in

the minority last night on that debate. That's because you are a

cosmopolitan cryptic! Provincial, living in the suburbs! Music to my

is! -- my ears. How big is the cosmopolitan critic, only 14% of

them would bow to leave. They are only about one in ten of all voters.

They may include all media types but only one in ten. You are still in

favour of staying in. But don't feel good about it. That's probably where

I am. That's interesting in terms of your question, how do those voters,

had of a breakdown? Governorate is interesting regionally, in the

populace, the Northwest is much more sceptical than the south-east. Quite

wide reaching the regional variations. Scotland tends to be

more prone. But what you get overtime is a lot more of those

Labour voting segments north of the border. It is safe so the Tories

don't do well up there. Some of those segments are beginning to get

sceptical about union membership. Thank you very much, fascinating.

Good to aggregate these voters into different groups, you see what both

sides of the argument have two target.

A left-wing nationalist party comes to power. They decide to hold a

referendum on independence. The no campaign is ahead but their lead

starts to dwindle. Sound familiar? It's basically what's happening in

Scotland but also how things played out in Quebec - where a vote on

separation was held in 1995. Adam pushed the Daily Politics travel

budget to breaking point to see if there are any parallels.

No, not Montreal, Vancouver, it is a Canadian themed park up the road

from the office, where I'm going to ponder the 1995 independent

referendum in Quebec, the bit of the country that looks and sounds ever

so is French. Get a load of the question! Even in English, it is a

bit long and exceptionally complicated. The no camp were known

as the Federalists because they wanted to maintain a federal Canada,

the yes camp were known as the sovereignists, because they wanted

Quebec to be sovereign. The yes, or oui, campaign was a bit vague with

lots of questions about what independence really meant and what

would happen to state assets like the post office. The no campaign

started with a big lead but then the polls narrowed, narrowed and

narrowed again. Those who have studied it say the Federalists

emphasised too many negatives. You talk about one risk, people pay

attention. You talk about two risks, people pay attention. You start to

talk about three, or four or five, then either people start to say,

well, this just isn't credible any more and stop paying attention, or

it starts to annoy them so much it has a counter intuitive effect and

pushes them towards the very side you are trying to draw them away

from. Right at the last minute, the no campaign brought in loads of

Canadians for a rally where they pleaded with the Quebeckers to stay,

much to the annoyance of the sovereignists. We had train

companies and air companies subsidising travel on that date in

Montreal. People were saying, that does kind of count as a referendum

contribution, or engagement in a referendum campaign. You cannot do

that. It did work and the final result was really close. 50.6% to

the noes and 49.4% of the yeses, a margin of just over one percentage

point. I wonder if they celebrated with the national dish, served by a

genuine Quebecker. Have the SNP been ingesting anything Canadian? I was

chatting to a senior figure in the yes campaign, who said they have

imported three lessons from Canada. Prepare for dirty tricks, get

started campaigning early and, most importantly, do not lose. The last

one seems obvious but it is a reference to what happened

afterwards. Canada passed the Clarity Act, legislation which makes

separation in future much, much trickier.

And we can speak now to the Telegraph's Scottish editor Alan

Cochrane, and Joyce McMillan from the Scotsman - they're both in

Edinburgh. Alan, I have got to come to you first because we may lose the

line shortly. What lessons would you draw from the Quebec campaign? Not

very many. I was in Canada at the end of the year, sitting next to a

French Canadian who was aghast at the prospect of another referendum.

The separatists are not very sure they should have a referendum

because they think they will get hammered. The one lesson that the

yes campaign in Scotland could take is, the simple reason that the

separatists got so close in 1995 is they changed their leader. They were

miles behind until they got rid of their leader, so there is a message

for the Nationalists, dump Alex Salmond. Joyce, I have a feeling

that isn't going to happen? No, I get the feeling that Alex Salmond is

an effective and popular leader as far as most Scottish voters are

concerned. The comparison is interesting but I think we are

living in different times from 1995. Although that's only 19 years ago,

the processes of globalisation and so on have shifted a long way.

Britain is part of the new which changes the whole and additional

structure anyway. -- part of the EU. But the outcome may well be similar,

I would be surprised if the SNP were as close as 49% that they might be

in the 40s. Is it your view that they are going to lose? Well, I

think if you look at the balance of the polls, it is still likely that

the no campaign will age it. I would say so. There's been sign of any

poll in which the yes campaign has been ahead. But it certainly has the

momentum. We don't know what will happen over the next few months, I

would be surprised if they made it to a majority, but the fact is, if

they lose, that momentum is not entirely going to go away and what

people not in Scotland sometimes can't be aware of because they don't

get the press coverage is just how dominant the SNP has become in

Scottish politics, and not entirely in a bad way. They have the

grassroots strength that a lot of other political parties would give

their right arm for and that will not vanish. If we have a vote in

which the independence campaign loses by a small amount, will they

be pressure to have another referendum sooner rather than later?

There might well be but much more worrying is the bitterness that this

campaign is engendering on a daily basis. I can't see the nationalist

community accepting defeat wastefully, and I'm not sure that I

would accept a vote for separation very well either -- gracefully. This

is a campaign that is getting more bitter all the time and I have real

worries about how we are going to get this country back together after

the referendum. It is a very divided society right now. More bitter? I

know there are a lot of people on the no side, who perceive a huge

level of bitterness, I must say that is not my perception. I never read

the bottom half of the Internet, but you don't need to pay any attention

to that, most of it is anonymous. If you focus on the yes campaign, which

is tremendously inventive and great fun, it has the rather enjoyable.

That is not having industrialists feel, when the travel agent this

week said to his employees, I don't believe in independence can but

absolutely hammered... People are allowed to say they don't agree with

him and they are allowed to say he shouldn't be abusing his position as

a boss. He was subject to a vicious campaign. Read the online site and

see what they say to people in the Scotsman who dare to say they

disagree with the Nationalists. Why do I need to read the voices of a

few sad cases in front of the machine? Allen, we are going to lose

you, don't ask you, the rest of Canada piled into Quebec just before

the referendum with a big message, don't go we want you to stay. Should

the rest of Britain who want to keep the union together be doing the same

in Scotland? I hope they did. I think there is a press conference up

the road, and they are saying much the same, from England, Wales,

Northern Ireland, please stay, I welcome the support from everyone.

There are too many appear querying the pitch for the rest of us. There

was this unnamed Cabinet minister who talked about a deal that could

be done whereby Scotland would get monetary union in independence, but

it would involve holding on to the nuclear submarines for an

unspecified time and the warheads. How would that go down with Alex

Salmond's supporters of a deal like that were done? The secret was in

your last half sentence. If they could find a way of moving the

warheads out of Scotland, then the deal could be done. That's more

difficult than moving the submarines. Possibly, I don't know,

the submarines are very large. I think that the SNP, removal of the

nuclear weapons such is pretty well non-negotiable. But everything else

about those bases is negotiable including the physical presence of

the submarines and the maintenance of them. That would be my guess. We

are assuming that the boat is yes on September we don't know that, but if

Mr Salmond was to say to his people, the only way we can get

monetary union, which is popular in Scotland, is we have to allow the

space to this base to stay for ten, 20 years. That would be a problem,

you think? It would depend on the timespan. 20 years sounds long.

People in Scotland are expecting that there would ten years of

negotiating various things. I don't think it could all be done within a

decade, people might find that acceptable, but I'm only guessing

here. Final word. Is the better better campaign in trouble? The fact

that all the parties hate each other, there have been problems. The

yes campaign has dismissed all of their original directors. The better

today -- better together campaign has been... We have had one idiot

sniping this week. He is obviously in the frame. I don't think, one of

the Berlin din chats wouldn't say... I am paraphrasing. Just so

you would understand. We have got the subtitles up. Thanks very much

to both of you, come back and mark our cars again. We didn't lose him

in the end. Our next guest is the only

politician of Chinese descent in any UK legislature and one of only a few

in Europe. She's a member of the legislative assembly in Northern

Ireland, where the Chinese community is the largest ethnic minority

group. She received a barrage of racist abuse online earlier this

year, and that came up at Prime Minister's Questions when Nick Clegg

was standing for David Cameron last month. -- standing in. I was deeply

saddened and shocked to read about the incident of what happened to

members of the Polish and Chinese community in her constituency and

even more so, what has happened to her colleague, Anna Lo MLA, the

first member of Chinese descent in any legislature in Europe, being

subjected terrible abuse by bullies and racists. I rang her arguments go

to express my own support what she's doing to stand up that terrible

treatment. Anna Lo joins us now. Let's take this bit about, you are

the only UK parliamentarian either in Westminster or in the devolved

parliaments, from the Chinese community. Why do you think Chinese

representation is so small? Yes, I think may the short history of

Chinese people coming into the UK, when we have seen maybe Indian or

Pakistani politicians coming forward, also the majority of

Chinese people here came from Hong Kong, where there was little cortex.

So they were not may be used to being in politics or being active in

politics. Their priority coming into the UK is very much establishing

themselves in businesses, rather than to come into Quebec life. But

you never know, second and third generation. You have paid the way.

The Chinese community in Britain has tended not to go into politics. It

has been more likely to go into business or the professions or

academia. In many ways, many years ago, the Jewish community also went

that route to begin with as well. That is very much maybe the

influence from the parents. Parents all went into businesses so they

tend to gravitate towards accountancy and things like that.

But, I think, it is important for the political parties to involve

them as well. In Northern Ireland, we do not see many political parties

going out deliberately to woo the potential ethnic minority

communities to be participating in politics. Many would mention what

they would do for ethnic minorities. They are kind of used to being

sidelined. They do not feel they have a say in politics. It is

important that they are involved. They are very much part and parcel

now of our society and they have a lot to contribute. You have been

saying, and some others have been saying, that in Northern Ireland,

racism is taking over from sectarianism as a major problem.

Explain what you mean and what happened to you. Well, I think, if

you asked any sociologist, they would say to you sectarianism and

racism are two sides of the same coin. I think if people are

sectarian, they can very easily jump from one prejudice to another. You

suffered one abuse yourself, didn't you? I have received very bad racist

comments from making some comments as a politician about taking down

the Union flag hanging on a lamp post. That was hung up really over a

year ago and many of the flags now tattered. I think it was a very

legitimate proposal. This is for bringing them down during the race,

the bike race. Millions of viewers watching the race across the world.

I'd also called for the paramilitary mural is displaying violence, for

them to be painted over, to give a good image of Belfast, Northern

Ireland. Some folks found a sense of my proposal and so they put up a lot

of racist, really foul messages. I am sorry you have had to withdraw

this. You describe yourself as an anti-colonial. That is

understandable. You said the partition of Ireland was superficial

and Ireland would be better placed economically notionally and

politically. I guess if you say that its segment of the loyalist

community will abuse you. -- a segment. I got some abuse from them.

To be honest, it was a 35 minute interview I gave to the Irish News.

My understanding of it, it was going to be a feature of my European

election. I answer a lot of questions and that was one of the

last questions put to me. Are you in favour of a united Ireland? I am in

favour of the principle of consent. What I said was, I would like to see

a united Ireland. If the conditions are right, if it is the wish of the

majority of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not see anything wrong

with that. Thank you for joining us today, life from Belfast. Now we, at

the Daily Politics, are used to following minor political spats. In

fact, it is our life-blood. But who would have guessed that when David

Cameron told staff at John Lewis yesterday he shopped at Waitrose

he'd end up being accused of being stuck-up and out of touch. Who would

have thought that? It seems Mr Cameron's mistake, if indeed it was

a mistake, was to suggest that Waitrose customers were more

talkative, more engaged, than the customers of other supermarkets.

Labour said it was a bizarre and empty-headed intervention. I think

that is a bizarre and heavy headed response. Nick Clegg was asked where

he shopped. He said he goes to them all. He is a Lib Dem, obviously.

Where Ed Miliband shops is as yet unknown. We have teams of people

trying to find out. Well, politicians aren't usually shy of

being seen out connecting with the shoppers. Let's take a look. Next

time you are at the checkout, supermarket sweep.

# Will you dance with me? Take a chance with me. Do it one more time.

Will you dance with me? Do it one more time with the music. Take a

chance with me. Do it one more time.

# Check it out, check it out, check it out. #

Ed Miliband has been spotted, I am told, in a farmers market in

Hampstead. There is a surprise. Joining me now to talk about the

politics of supermarkets is psychotherapist Lucy Beresford. What

can you tell us? What are you make of David Cameron saying Waitrose

customers are more talkative? We have to remember the audience he was

speaking to. He was speaking in a John Lewis environment. They are in

a partnership together. There is a sense in which he could have been

preaching to the converted. Not a particularly brave statement in that

environment. Wouldn't you say, for me, if you told me the customers of

a particular supermarket were more talkative, I would make sure I would

not go? You would not want to be hassled. You would want to be

focused on your trolley. The problem is AI am very methodical. -- the

problem is... I am very methodical. Politicians feel obliged to go to

the supermarket. They are probably the only meant in that environment

who do go to the supermarket because the media expects them to play that

role. Do you think going to the food hall at Harrods counts? I am not

talking about myself. I thought he would have been a forged and Mason

man. What do you make of this? -- Fortnum and Mason. Silently he knows

he has this problem of being out of touch. I go to ASDA. A lot of men do

go shopping. You have got it wrong. Like you, up and down, you know

where everything is. Makes you do not miss things. The difficulties,

going back to our conversation with raking down the population into

groups, what he seemed to be saying is, you get a more kind of

civilised, chatty bunch of people in Waitrose. No kidding! It did sound a

bit like a cluster mark. He may also be more relaxed when he is in that

environment, which makes him appear more approachable. In Budgens, he

could be more shifty. He may not expect to be recognised. Is he being

snooty? I do not think that was his intention. He earned a good whack. I

go to ASDA because it is better value. It is not just the

well-heeled who are shopping in Waitrose and M food. They were the

stores that did much better over Christmas. Tesco did much worse.

People are perhaps aspiring to having better quality food and

better engaged experiences. We have to remember it is the employees of

Waitrose, because they are part of a partnership, similarly engaged. What

you make about Nick Clegg saying he shops at every supermarket? I have

shopped at ASDA, Sainsbury's, Tesco. You have not put your finger on Ed

Miliband in the farmers market. I go to Tesco, where a lot of my target

voters go. Nobody is going to be Co-op. That is what we can see. I go

there sometimes. I have a membership card. We did not get it last year,

it was suspended. I suspect Nick Clegg is going around the shops

because things are not looking too good. Now, if you are anything like

me, by this stage in the week your attention span is pretty short. I

wonder where to have lunch today? Anyway, for all of you who feel the

same here's Alex Forsyth with our digest of all the big political

stories of the week in just 60 seconds. The Defence Secretary

unequivocally denied being the source of a storm on the possible

currency union with an independent Scotland. I do not think so. The

search for the leak goes on. There were claims the Royal Mail sale left

people short-changed. Not so much the wolf of Wall Street, more the

ducks of Downing Street. The Prime Minister hit back saying, I will

take advice from everyone but not the two Muppets who advise the

transfer of setting the goal. Also Nick against Nigel. The UKIP leader

was probably soon smoking a calming fag. There were fireworks from Len

McCluskey, who warned they could break links with Labour if the party

loses the next election. We finished on Len McCluskey. He spoke at the

press gallery for lunch. You were there. What was it like? I asked,

would you back another party? I did not expect an honest answer. I think

it was a serious threat. Very different from his position at the

special conference. He said, this is our party, we are going nowhere. If

Labour lose, unions are being pushed further and further out. Instead of

being pushed out, let's walk out. Labour losing is a little less

likely this week than it was a week ago. The budget bounce that Mr

Osborne got seems to have petered out. Fire immediate responses to

budgets do tend dissipate. -- immediate responses to budgets. Will

this be a decider? Not so much as some commentators were saying last

week. The problems by Mr McCluskey, there is no party on the left that

will overtake Labour. Labour is the only game in town. If you have

electoral reform, you might have otherwise. You are wasting your

money and you will damage Labour. That's all for today. Thanks to our

guests. The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now. I'll

be back on BBC One on Sunday with the Sunday Politics when I'll be

joined by Shadow Energy Secretary, Caroline Flint. We will be speaking

about the prospects of the Labour Party. I hope you can join me.

Bye-bye.