13/05/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The American pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer has begun defending


its attempted takeover of Britain's AstraZeneca,


Scientists and unions have warned that


the move could lead to cuts in jobs, and a loss of UK research skills.


Heathrow and Gatwick want another runway, but which airport will win?


The bosses of both will be fighting it out in the studio.


Would you want this man to troubleshoot your business?


And, apparently, MPs don't like being seen at the opera.


So we thought we'd bring the opera to MPs.


And with us for the whole programme today is the


Digby served in Gordon Brown's government,


He is stuck in traffic but should be with us soon.


Martin Boon is with us, with a headline grabbing pole.


The rarest of things, as you say, March 2012 is the last time we saw a


small Conservative lead. Labour have been in charge in terms of the polls


since then. It suddenly feels like a little something is beginning to


happen. Lord Ashcroft had his own poll which reinforced what we had to


say, a two points Conservative lead.


The Lib Dems are even further down. You say this could be the start. We


have seen a pattern of the Labour lead being cut to five percentage


points over the last seven months. Is this really the start of


something? It could be. We clearly are in a


period of political flux. European elections next week. This is a


relatively unusual couple of weeks in British politics where we have a


new party emerging strongly, potentially winning those European


elections, dominating the media narrative. People are focusing on


what they can see, Nigel Farage and UKIP. That may be reversed after the


elections. But some are thinking a Conservative lead has been a long


time coming. Conservatives have been wondering


why, in their minds, the effect of improving economic news had not been


shown in the polls. Is this the start of that?


I have been saying, wrongly, as it turns out! The conditions are


therefore a Conservative lead. We have economic optimism. We have


David Cameron and George Osborne seeming competent than their Labour


counterparts in managing the economy. Positive approval ratings


for both those leading conservative politicians, not the case for Ed


Miliband and Ed Balls. And good news emerging. Conditions are therefore


the Conservatives to grab the polling lead, to build on it and


build the kind of numbers you might expect to see with those conditions.


All the talk will be whether there is panic at Labour HQ. Let us hear


Ed Miliband when he was asked about the polls.


Polls go up and down. That is always what you say when you wear down. I


have seen that in three and a half years in this job.


have seen that in three and a half What matters is the bread and butter


issues, energy prices, childcare, NHS, improving GP access, something


which Labour is leading the other parties on. We will focus on those


questions. The people will make the decisions. Putting a brave face on


it, he has too. No doubt, psychologically, this will be a


boost for Tory MPs. Let us look at the reliability of the polls.


Michael Ashcroft's poll also had a two point lead for the


Conservatives, how reliable is that? They are standard classic opinion


polls. They were both conducted by telephone which dishes nearly have


excellent records. So there is that. Every opinion poll, Ed


Miliband is right, there are ups and downs. But they are correct


generally two plus or -3%. It is fair to say the parties are running


neck and neck. Was about the polls showing the


Tories are narrowly first in the European elections bearing in mind


most of those polls have put the Tories in third place behind Labour


and UKIP? How reliable would that be? I will


be the rarest of beasts, a pollster who will not stand. Behind an


opinion poll. I am cautious about that. And it comes to European


elections, we expect a turnout of 30% which means we are taking out a


chunk of our poll sample for a start. When we have fewer numbers to


play with, we have wider margins of error so there will be some flux in


terms of the shares of the vote. The Tories in the lead in the European


elections? Possibly. Possibly not stop briefly, the marginals are


where the big battles. I would be interested to see which


particular marginals have been polled or whether it is one pole


across specific types of marginal areas. Those are confiscated polls


to undertake. The devil is in the detail. We need more evidence.


Who are these MPs, and who are they pretending to be?


At the end of the show, Digby will give us the correct answer.


The head of the American drugs company Pfizer faces


tough questioning by MPs over the next two days,


about the proposed purchase of its British rival, AstraZeneca.


before the Business Committee this morning,


and he'll appear in front of the Science Committee tomorrow.


The MPs want to test Pfizer's claims that it's committed to safeguarding


Let's get a flavour of this morning's events.


Combined budget of AstraZeneca and Pfizer would not be reduced as a


result of this taking over? I mean in this country. Can you just


clarify? Yes, our commitment is to 20% of our global RND numbers


worldwide would be in the UK. So you're not making that commitment?


20% of the headcount of Pfizer in the UK. The Swedish experience is


rather concerning and you can understand why people feel this.


When the Prime Minister of Sweden said that, following the purchase


there, they have had a negative experience, there were promises it


would mean jobs and operations in Sweden that we don't think were


honoured, it makes us feel great concern for jobs and resources for


research. Does that bother you? Let me... No, answer my question is not


your question. Does that bother you was my question? I am worried the


facts are incorrect. That the Prime Minister is wrong? This is about


limiting your tax to give to any government in the business model of


your company. 80,000 people. It has produced innumerable numbers of


great projects. Our purpose is to bring life changing products... Let


me finish. Two patients. The way we will do that is by putting together


the pipelines and scientists, being more efficient and gaining tax


advantages. What are the drawbacks? Exactly what I was getting at. The


disruption. What will we tell the person whose father died from lung


cancer, because one of our medicines was delayed because, in the


meantime, our two companies were involved in selling costs? Would


your attitude change if there was a longer time frame?


We have a 20, 30, 50 year commitment to this country.


With us now is former Chancellor and now Conservative peer Nigel Lawson.


And Labour's Shadow Minister For Industry, Iain Wright.


I am pleased to say Digby Jones has made it.


Were you reassured by what you heard? No, I wasn't, there was an


admission that research and government spending could go down.


What is the central element regarding British industrial


competitiveness? We are very strong in science and research and we have


to maintain that as a means of paying our way in the world. We


didn't get those reassurances. Pfizer said its commitment to


preserve UK site jobs are legally binding. They said that and promised


to complete an AstraZeneca research Centre in Cambridge, and place 20%


of research staff in the UK. Do you not believe them?


Subject to circumstances, was the phrase used, the get out of jail


card. That is not defined. They have previous on this. They have a


business model that often produces acquisitions and has cost cutting at


the expense of research and treatment. Digby Jones, it is their


history of being asset strippers which has made people nervous at a


time when Britain is very proud of its research and advancement.


I can see why people are nervous. AstraZeneca, a lot of their research


and investment is in Bangalore, and in the States. It is the product of


a transnational merger acquisition. ICI bought a Swedish company. It is


easy to polarise this. We should elevate the debate into saying the


best way to keep research and develop


elevate the debate into saying the best way to keep research and meant


and highly skilled jobs is an education system that works, and


produce people for business. A transport system which gives us a


runway at Heathrow. A competitive tax regime. Then there wouldn't be


any argument about legal obligations. It would be so good


here they would not want to leave. What we should be doing as


politicians, you should be saying to the American government, not Pfizer,


could AstraZeneca do this in America? The answer is, no, they are


a protectionist country. You should be saying, they are very welcome.


It seems, Nigel Lawson, the whole of British science is against this


takeover, despite the investment it would bring, according to Pfizer.


The award against this takeover as it currently stands.


Look, in my experience, they are almost invariably wrong. Whether


they are or not, I don't know. I am completely neutral. I am concerned


whether the British government should block this. I don't think it


is in our interest that they do. I think it is in our fundamental


interest we are an open country, open for business, welcoming inward


investment. Pfizer are a perfectly respectable company, not crooks. I


welcome the fact that assurances are sought. But at the end of the day,


it is not in our interest the government should step in and block


this bid. With Labour block this if they were


in a position to do so? Can I respond by saying I agree with


having an open economy. In my own region, Nissan has been a massive


success. What the Shadow Business Secretary has done is said, why


don't we extend as is legal and reasonable the enterprise act to


ensure we have an additional category beyond media plurality to


ensure the maintenance of the science and development base. That


will help us pay our way in the future.


want to get cast iron assurances. , you would say no at the moment, but


if you had the so-called cast iron agreements, you would go ahead. At


the moment I am worried this would not be in our interest. When the


enterprise act was in an enterprise Bill, in the CBI we campaigned


hugely to say to Gordon Brown and Patricia Hewitt, please let the


maintenance of our RND science bases be one of the tests. I would have


that as one of the tests, but that does not mean I have got the bid.


Even if Pfizer failed a strengthened public interest test, could the


Government blocked this? If the shareholders said it was a good


deal? In legal terms, they could, it is in the statute. But that is not


the point. But with respect to you, some are in agreement. That is


posturing. No, it is not. In a global economy you cannot say,


AstraZeneca do it in Britain because they do it everywhere. Both of them


joined together are doing more in India than they are doing in America


or Britain. You cannot distil it down to yes or no. You have to say


where does this work to create wealth and be attractive for other


investors. ? You do not want a storm on television about why we suddenly


do not like inward investment. You do not want that. What reassurances


would you want? I would go to Congress in Washington and say,


would you let this happen in America. They will say no. Then we


should say why should an American company do it anywhere else in the


world? What about the issue of the taxpayer. It would reduce the amount


they would have to pay in tax. That is seen as a cynical reason for the


takeover. It was designed deliberately by the present


Government to be friendly to business and to encourage enterprise


and that includes companies from other countries which have a higher


tax rate tend to come here. Although that is a consideration, there is no


way Pfizer would want to take over AstraZeneca just for the tax. Why do


you disagree? It is going down from 38% to 21%. It is a big drop. The


shift in Pfizer's argument seems to have changed. It was about


repatriation of tax to the US. This was a tax deal rather than becoming


a science powerhouse. It seems to be because of tax reasons. When the


board at Pfizer was sitting there deciding, do we go for this? The


finance director would have said, there is a nice tax regime and


Britain is attractive. But you do not at that level make decisions


like this just for tax. It helps gild the decision. You are stepping


up the card against the company on the basis of tax and whether it will


be committed to keeping Britain as a research and development Centre and


jobs, but do you see it looks as if there is a block to this bid coming


in? The wriggle room has circumstances changing and the


wording of the letter is too vague. The commitment of five years, given


the life sciences sector, is too short. We are thinking about the


next 15 or 20 years. AstraZeneca, unlike Glaxo Smith Kline which is


bigger and British, and Pfizer at the top, where you are onto


something is AstraZeneca's pipe line of patented discovery, which is not


going to go generic to anybody, that pipeline is very small. You need to


have ten or 15 years out and it is diminishing by the day. To have a


longer term commitment to research and development needs more time. Do


you think it will go ahead? There is a general expectation that Pfizer


are going to make a bid, which technically they have not yet done.


That bid will be something higher than the price they indicated


originally. Then each company will be making its own pitch. And of


course there is the scrutiny, which is quite right, I am in favour of


that and the Government will get undertakings. But let me add one


thing, I am neutral, but I do not believe it is in our interests to


block this bid. As far as Pfizer is concerned they know it is not in


their long-term interest to alienate the British Government. Will they


really care about that in the future? Why is it not in their


interest? Because it is in our interests to make it clear that we


are an open economy and we welcome inward investment. That looked at


Kraft's takeover of Cadbury. There are always arguments on both sides,


but overwhelmingly we are benefiting from inward investment. Kraft's


takeover of Cadbury went down badly. It went down badly and basically


they were never going to do what they said. That is not the point.


Kraft's and Cadbury make a commodity. AstraZeneca and Pfizer


need a very strong university-based to help with research and


development and the second strongest university based in the world is in


this country. If you put a sign up saying, we don't like other


countries coming in, look at Jaguar Land Rover, Indian money, the


biggest market China. Welcome to globalisation. Nissan, welcome to


globalisation. Very briefly, you are reported as saying you would like


the top rate of tax to come down to 40p. Would you like that in the


manifesto? They do not need it in their manifesto, they will do it


when the time is right. He's been the head of the CBI. He's


been a government minister. He's in the House of Lords. And now it looks


like Digby Jones is after my job as a top broadcaster! He's just


finished a series of programmes for BBC2 where he visits businesses


and solves their problems. But does the Digby dust really rub off?


Adam's been to a firm that starred Tonight, Digby Jones tries to help


one company take a radical change in direction. They made dehumidifiers


in County Durham and spent ?1 million by a chest freezer firm in


Scotland and were moving it down south,


million by a chest freezer firm in Scotland and were moving it down but


it did not end well. They planned to be making freezers by Christmas, but


they missed that deadline and the next, much to his disappointment.


You promised me. The boss was the one on the receiving end. I went to


meet her this week. one on the receiving end. I went


What is it do you like about him coming in? Most of it happened in


such a world you do not know what is going on at the time. We always used


to have a debrief at the end of the filming. The place looks pretty


shipshape, full of gadgets and robots, but... They are not doing


anything. No, we are about a few weeks away from being able to hit


the button and this process being able to join up and work. What would


he say if he was here today? He knows where we are on the dates and


the one thing he really did admire is we took the decision to make the


right decision for the business and not to get into the documentary.


Digby taught her the importance of marketing and leadership, but you


read that moment was a visit to the Nissan plant in Sunderland. It was a


light bulb moment for me where they are making half a million cars and


you think it looks amazing. But in a few years time we could be making


half a million appliances across these factories, so we have to plan


for the future and the big scale. But there is one thing in particular


that made it all worth it. The response we had from the British


public that really want to see you succeed and value manufacturing


jobs. Maybe that is an older generation, they remember when we


used to make things. But even the youth of today, we get students on


placement and they thought places like this did not exist any more.


And his lordship is not the only one who has been helping out. They have


received cash from the regional growth fund which they are using to


develop the only made in Britain washing machines.


Digby Jones is still here as is Iain Wright. How long do you spend


generally with a company? For an hour's programme you do ten days.


That is the filming. Behind that is the research, the chatting and all


of that all to distil down. What my vision was, and the BBC approached


me, I had said we have a generation of kids coming out of school who


think business is about a rich man getting out of a Rose Royce. It is


about somebody selling in a kitchen with a trainee cook and screaming


the F word. The average businesswoman and businessman in


this country do not identify with that at all. I said if you want me,


you are not going to get reality television. She said she was not


going to switch the on button to give a happy ending. She said, I am


not going to produce a freezer for you because it is the end of the


series. Yes, we missed our date and these are the reasons and we do


something about it. Are you confident about that business? Of


the three, I think the middle one will always exist, it is a question


of whether it will fulfil its potential. This one are so utterly


part of their community in the North East, I think they will succeed. I


was privileged. I was so lucky to work with this great organisation


called the Beeb and at the same time working with wealth creation and job


creation in the country. I have a more confident generally? If you


look at the current economic indicators, Labour look at it


differently, but do you think the businesses you talk to are feeling


more optimistic than they were? I hate to say to an opposition, it


doesn't matter which side it is, it is very difficult to start picking


holes in a sustainable recovery. I dare holes in this recovery? Loo-mac


I am not going to criticise backing British business and this is


fantastic and for too long there has been petty party politics. But my


constituents and others around the country do not feel the effects of


recovery. I do not feel it in my wage packet. I feel like I am


struggling week in, week out. We have to make sure we have a real,


sustainable recovery and that means emphasising the importance of


manufacturing and real wealth creation that is not at the very top


but has to go all the way through. Do you accept that? I do not think


there is a disconnect between the wealth creation and its


constituents, I think it is between the metropolitan elite of South East


England and they constituents. Which it is becoming. It is like an


Italian citystate of the 14th century. That has a property bubble


aspect to it. But your constituents and the guys I advised around the


Midlands believe me do not see a house price bubble in this. They


need to feel their jobs are safe and they are better off because of this


constant increase in the wealth creating, tax paying side of the


economy. You used to work for a Labour Prime Minister. Do you think


this current Labour leadership and Iain Wright are business friendly


with the policies they are putting out? You included the Labour


leadership and Iain Wright. Iain Wright has a different dimension in


many ways and he will be loyal. If you are a North East MP you look at


life a little differently to the Labour leadership. I think the


Labour leadership is one of the least business friendly I have seen.


Why do you think Labour is business friendly when the policies you have


made quite a lot of political weather on has been the proposed


intervention in the energy market, rents and trying to catch them and


railways, why are business friendly? Markets need to function efficiently


and some segments do not. I have been at an event with


manufacturers, energy producers, who has said in terms of cutting


business rates, that is what we need for manufacturing to thrive. A good


example of what a Labour business policy is. That longer term view,


that is best for wealth creation. The last people who should plan


anything for business is a politician of any party at any time.


Has this government rebalanced the economy? It promised to have a


long-term industrial strategy. To move away from a housing bubble. You


have to understand, you need an environment to create wealth. The


Labour government before 2010 invested in apprenticeships. This


government has carried it on. That is excellent for manufacturing and


business. You need a competitive tax regime, runways, railways. And if it


depends tax rate would not be. If you go to that lady up in Newton


Aycliffe, is small businesswoman today shall we pick in Exeter, they


will say the same thing. They can't get enough skilled people. If you


have an education system, both parties for 30 years have produced


kids who can't read or write. Which businesses are backing Labour? We


are making sure our business policies are pro-business. Big


business hasn't come out for Labour yet. That must be worrying for Ed


Miliband if you cannot cite big business there for Labour. Let me


help him. You have a Business Secretary, his opponents, Vince


Cable, he bought his trains from dust and off, his cars from Tokyo.


This is not about labour, but about politicians as a whole. Everyone


tried the lies of it. I agree that is one policy that is good for


business, but there are loads that aren't.


I don't think politicians should plan, but having a vision and making


sure industry can lead where it needs to. The automotive industry


has been rejuvenated through long-term policies. Would you be a


trade and industry blister under a Labour government? You would, with


their policies? I would serve my country. I wouldn't serve a


political party. If Ed Miliband did ask Digby Jones? With no tribal


political party strings attached. Including not taking the whip. And


David Cameron? I really do treat them all the same. Business will


work with any democratically elected government. You have to get away


from party politics. Now to the long-running saga


of airport expansion. Detailed proposals


to increase capacity in the south east of England have


been delivered today to the body set up


to select the best location. So, what's happening with


the incredible expanding airport? Captain Howard Davies was charged


with deciding which of Britain's major airports


should be allowed to grow. The captain has landed the two


leading contenders, both of whom


have revealed their plans today. Big old Heathrow


wants to make room for over 200,000


extra flights every year. The captain has been studying


plans to add a third runway. Some would prefer Heathrow


to extend an existing one. Meanwhile, plucky Gatwick hopes


its second runway will be granted Last year, Captain Howard's Airport


Commission threw out plans by other airports, including


Birmingham and Stansted, to expand. And said, for the moment, he would


not consider as suggested by a certain


blond-haired wing commander. The Government has asked


Captain Howard to make a final recommendation


after next year's general election. Ministers will then decide


which scheme to back. Well, we're joined now by


the big hitters from both airports. The chief executive of Gatwick,


Stewart Wingate. And the newly-appointed chief exec


of Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye. Why would a Gatwick second runway be


better than expansion at Heathrow? There are two reasons why Gatwick


would be better. The first is the case for Gatwick is very strong. The


second runway would get more connections to more destinations


worldwide. It would open five years faster than a new runway at


Heathrow. It would seem more passengers utilise the runway


because being south of the city we could use the full capability of the


runway. Gatwick is an opportunity to have a runway finally delivered. I


have been talking to different businesses, some in the north-east.


What I hear is we need this to be delivered. Heathrow is politically


toxic. Your turn, why would an expanded Heathrow be better?


Heathrow and Gatwick are different. Gatwick is a very good at what the


serving low-cost markets and long haul leisure destinations. Heathrow


Connect businesses with the world. We serve network areas pulling


together the demand for remote markets and growth markets in Asia,


China, the Americas. If we want to deliver the ?100 billion of economic


growth, only Heathrow can get us to those local markets. Who would you


go for? I would go for both. Because you


both have done it really well. You best highlighted why you are both


good. You can both serve the country in a different way. We have to stop


internal flights going to Scotland and getting the railway up there. We


need to get to Brazil, China, India. An awful lot of traffic


doesn't generate and originate in London. You need to have a hub to


justify the cost. You need Gatwick because you can't have it, to make


sure the government can cope for the next 50 years in the south-east of


England. The problem is for Gatwick is this


hub issue. The strongest argument it seems for Heathrow, that people


coming into London will want to use Heathrow as it is the most connected


airport. This is a choice between the competitive airports market, and


going back to a monopoly situation. Gatwick was sold by Heathrow


following the forced break-up of the monopoly, to create competition. In


four years we have already connected to 50% of high-growth markets


globally with a European network. If we are going to have a market, let


it be a competitive market with affordable fares, and connectivity


worldwide. It is politically toxic, expanding


Heathrow, which is why a decision has been made on airport expansion.


It will be extremely difficult to get past the politicians. I don't


agree. The politicians recognise the economic value that Britain needs to


connect to the world, to get to the growing markets in Asia and the


Americas. They can only do that through a hub airport. We have


listened to our local communities and business. We have changed our


plans. Tell us about that, is it, in terms of compensation, the issues of


noise and pollution are of concern. We have moved the location of the


runway and changed its alignment so it has less impact on noise. Reduced


the impact on the number of houses affected. Increasing the level of


compensation to people who lose their homes. A well thought through


town which reflects the feedback from local communities. And giving


respite to all people affected by Heathrow. Do we need it? Let us say


that Howard Davies recommends a second runway at Gatwick. Could we


survive? You have had Lib Dem politicians saying, don't want


anything. Tory, let us kick it in the long grass because it is toxic.


And labour saying, I am going to stop building this third runway


because it is not popular. A complete lack of leadership in this


issue for 20 years. Businesses are screaming for them to make a


decision and make it happen. On that basis, that is why I say both. If


you want to let Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, take the hub traffic, the


best thing is not to expand Heathrow. If you leave Heathrow on


its own, you really will choke it incredibly quickly because Gatwick


is an enormous asset for the nation serving a different market. We need


both. The most important thing is we deliver additional capacity.


Heathrow has failed. That is why we have improved our plan, listened to


business and local communities. More people in west London support the


expansion than oppose it. We heard about Heathrow planning to build


over the M25. The disruption costs are captivated at ?1 billion. Those


watching this in Essex or the West Midlands will be saying, what about


Stansted and Birmingham? This is not a South East exclusive argument. You


agree with that. What about campaigning together? Can you not


see eye to eye on this? We support expansion at Heathrow and Gatwick.


We want as much runway capacity for the UK we can. We are in a global


condition against the French and Germans. What we do need is


expansion at Heathrow well because we need something different. We are


at capacity. We need to unlock that. Would you support both of you


campaigning together? Sir Howard Davies has essentially said he will


come up with a recommendation for where the next runway goes. The


condition is between ourselves and Heathrow. Would you have competition


between the two of you if you had a choice? Would you choose only one


between the two of you if you had a runway? Or both? There needs to be


capacity at both airports in the fullness of time. That is a yes,


then. The demand must go to a runway where it can be delivered. Gatwick


is on the table for the first time in decades because we are in


separate ownership. We can connect to 60% of the demand in the European


market. And the emerging economies. You can have a strong Heathrow and a


strong Gatwick serving London, the London to compete with other cities


in Europe. What about the alternative of extending an existing


runway at Heathrow? We have looked at it. What put us off that idea is


it would mean there would be arrivals and departures on the


runways continually and those living in the flight


capacity to collect -- connect Britain and to the world. To boost


the British economy. Not rely on the Dutch, French or Germans.


What if politicians say they won't make a decision? Let us say they


don't do anything. Which is what they could do. By the way, I read an


article about this. The article was headed, no is an answer. Because the


nation, especially the airlines and business, will know where they


stand. The political class, because they want popularity, will have


basically said, OK, let's be a second rate nation, over to you,


Germany. Great to have you both on together, do come back again.


Our guest of the day Lord Digby Jones has been


a long-standing critic of the European Union.


He once said the EU creates a "staggeringly large pile


of regulation in virtually every part of our lives".


So you can see why UKIP might be trying to recruit him.


In a moment, we'll discuss the pros and cons of being in the EU


But, first, here's a flavour of their election campaign video.


And joining me now is leader of the four Freedoms Party, Dirk Hazell,


the UK version of the European people's party. Welcome to the


programme. When you go to the doorsteps, have people heard of you?


Honestly? Our party is not on the tip of everybody's tongue, but the


voters at the back of their minds no Mr Cameron left the big party for a


funny, small one. People know that and there is recognition for that


and when you start to discuss it, they know the Tories chose to take


the people out of the leading party with the Chancellor Angela Merkel.


Do they care? We had a 92% increase at the end of the meeting of people


who believed we could stake in Europe. The British people are the


most sophisticated electorate in the world and they know when they are


being sold out and they know by and large politicians are not telling


them the truth. I agree with what you say about training and


education. If people have an idea that David Cameron took to the


Conservative party out of this big, centre-right grouping to join a


group of mismatched other parties, some of whom have been making less


than desirable comets, was that a mistake? Yes. Why UKIP will have


disappointing news today is the chance of rejoining them are nil


because I believe the future of the nation is in Europe. But what I


believe passionately, and where I am is where most of the nation and


Europe is, is that I think there is a golden chance between Germany


within the Eurozone and Britain outside the euro zone, two big


economies, at a time when Italy and France have got the challenges, they


have got a golden opportunity to reform Europe into a point where it


delivers for the businesses and the people of our country. Cameron is


going to have a more difficult job doing that reform job when he has


left the grouping that Angela Merkel was in. That has hampered his


position? That does not mean we need to reform Europe. You said it made


his position more difficult. If he is not able to repatriate some of


those powers, will you be campaigning to stay in or pull out?


If we have the Europe of the day with no reform, I think our chances


are better off out than in. What are the responses on the doorstep? Are


people saying they have not seen a major change and so we should pull


out? We are going to get reform. The reason we are going to get reform is


because the European people's party is going to win this election and we


are committed to reform. Our presidential candidate could not


have made it clearer. The priority is to create massive new jobs for


talented youth in the digital economy, in London in that sector,


and we are going to get it. The Governments have got to work


together and also within the European Parliament we have to have


a British and a London voice inside. Can I ask you a question


about the core of reform? The taxes of the people spend more money on


subsidising a commodity called agriculture than they do on growing


and developing the education base of the European union. If you are one


of the 50% under 25s in Spain, you have more chance of getting a job if


you are skills that if you do not and we carry on spending more money


of my and your taxes on subsidising Spanish agriculture than we do on


Spanish education. Can they really change? I mean fundamental reform.


The European people's party is really serious. If we had in this


country full reports of what Angela Merkel said and other European


leaders said, you would see how serious our natural allies are. The


leader of Ireland, Sweden, Poland, Germany, all these people are


natural allies and who has our Prime Minister gone in with? Can they


deliver reform? The money that subsidises agriculture and


education, and even if every penny of it went to sort out unemployment


in Greece... This country has paid quite a high price for not being an


entry country into the European union and the Conservatives have


made decisions with serious consequences. The poll tax in


Scotland, a strategic long-term error. Leaving the European


people's party at precisely the time where there is the leadership in


Europe that can deliver this change. Yes, there should be more spent on


training. The European people's party has increased the training


budget 40%, but it is mostly member states' responsibility. I am a


school governor and the whole of our meetings are spent on rules and


regulations and not the pupils. These are problems made in Britain,


but not in Brussels. We have to leave it there.


Now, are politicians too scared to go to the opera?


Well, the Musical Director at the Royal Opera House,


Sir Antonio Pappano, thinks MPs are too frightened to


show their faces at the opera in case they're seen as too elitist.


In a moment we'll be discussing that, but first lets see what MPs


I am a slightly witless prints. Slightly in fortunate there. I am


joined by the Sun newspaper on Sunday political editor, and are you


an opera buff? Yes, I am. The Sun newspaper laid on tickets for the


Royal Opera and it was a sell-out. It is not elitist at all. But it is


normally very expensive. Blame politicians for that because they


should subsidise it more. Do you like opera? No, I like ballet, and I


go to ballet a lot. I like a June. At least I am honest. There is a


difference. Elitism is for a guy who buys a lottery ticket in Manchester


today to buy a very wealthy person to go to the opera in Covent Garden,


that is elitist. To take opera into schools, to take its ability and is


a participant of quality into schools all over Britain that cannot


be elitist. I do not think Opera is elitist. I think the Royal Opera


house might be. Our MPs embarrassed to be seen at the Opera? Yes, they


want to appeared to be cool. David Cameron says he likes the Smiths,


David Blair liked the Arctic monkeys. Nobody sees through that.


Anything a politician touches is not cool. They may as well go to the


opera. It is all about politics, with backstabbing, sex, and it is


all there. All the great figures end in tragedy. Why can't politicians be


genuine wine? People would respect them more. Do you think there are


people in politics who like it JENSON BUTTON: Yes,


Marvellous, well done. All the best Spanish music written


by French men! Right, any guesses? You were shaking


your head. I have no idea. Dom Pasquale.


Is it Mozart? Don Giovanni. Marvellous. Something nonparty


political. There's just time


before we go to find out The question was who are these MPs


and who are they pretending to be? And they are pretending to be from


the Eurovision Song Contest.


Download Subtitles