04/04/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/04/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.




Download Subtitles