:00:36. > :00:41.It's set to be one of the hottest days of the year.
:00:42. > :00:44.But the temperature ahead of next week's European and local election
:00:45. > :00:48.Most MPs are off on the campaign trail.
:00:49. > :00:51.But back here at Westminster, one senior MP tells us he's fed up
:00:52. > :00:56.of waiting for the Iraq War inquiry, now four years overdue.
:00:57. > :01:03.The Police Federation is also getting it in the neck over claims
:01:04. > :01:09.How much damage have they done to the reputation of the Old Bill?
:01:10. > :01:13.It's the live TV debate that electrified Europe.
:01:14. > :01:17.The main candidates to be European Commission President have been
:01:18. > :01:25.And, speaking of voters, just how much does anyone really
:01:26. > :01:36.And with us for the duration, two top political columnists.
:01:37. > :01:41.Sue Cameron from the Telegraph and Zoe Williams from the Guardian.
:01:42. > :01:44.Sue specialises in writing about the civil service.
:01:45. > :01:48.Zoe also gets to review restaurants for one of the Sunday magazines.
:01:49. > :01:52.I'll leave you to decide whose job is more fun.
:01:53. > :01:54.Let's start with the Police Federation.
:01:55. > :01:57.That's the group that represents rank and file police officers
:01:58. > :02:00.It's the subject of a scathing select committee
:02:01. > :02:03.report this morning, with the Home Affairs committee saying it's
:02:04. > :02:09.accused of levels of bullying to rival any popular soap opera.
:02:10. > :02:12.And urgently needs reform, including full disclosure of its finances.
:02:13. > :02:15.MPs also criticised the role of the Police Federation in the Plebgate
:02:16. > :02:18.affair which led to the resignation of chief whip Andrew Mitchell.
:02:19. > :02:28.Here's committee chairman Keith Vaz speaking earlier.
:02:29. > :02:35.This is a big opportunity at Bournemouth for the federation to
:02:36. > :02:39.move on if they change the way in which they have been doing their
:02:40. > :02:44.business. We want an end to the bullying that we were shocked to
:02:45. > :02:47.hear was happening at national headquarters. We want full
:02:48. > :02:51.transparency. Every police officer in England and Wales to get a rebate
:02:52. > :02:56.for their subscriptions and we want this to be what it should be. The
:02:57. > :03:00.representatives of the finest police force in the world.
:03:01. > :03:03.We asked to speak to the Police Federation this morning
:03:04. > :03:09.He was giving PR advice to local police federations at the time
:03:10. > :03:12.He's been singled out by the select committee.
:03:13. > :03:15.It said he cynically tried to exploit the allegations
:03:16. > :03:17.against Andrew Mitchell to publicise the Police Federation's campaign
:03:18. > :03:21.And the MPs said "the consequence was a lowering of
:03:22. > :03:34.Welcome back. You are paid by the Police Federation to advise three
:03:35. > :03:39.officers now under investigation for stitching up a Cabinet Minister. Did
:03:40. > :03:43.you know, did you encourage them to be economical with the truth? No, I
:03:44. > :03:47.wasn't paid to advise them to stitch of a Cabinet minister. I was paid by
:03:48. > :03:52.Police Federation in the Midlands and across the country as well as
:03:53. > :03:55.being paid by the National Federation. Coming to the Midlands,
:03:56. > :03:59.they'd already planned them are going to have a campaign during the
:04:00. > :04:02.Tory conference full for the Andrew Mitchell things fell into their lap.
:04:03. > :04:06.I gave the media training and got involved in that as well. When it
:04:07. > :04:09.comes to the meeting you are referring to, you must remember, of
:04:10. > :04:14.course, all three of them are now having a review about whether they
:04:15. > :04:17.can reopen the case, but no, I didn't advise them to stitch up
:04:18. > :04:21.Andrew Mitchell. Andrew Mitchell wasn't the target for the digital
:04:22. > :04:27.they were providing misleading evidence? No, I wasn't in the
:04:28. > :04:33.meeting. No, but you practice for it. Personally, I was amazed Andrew
:04:34. > :04:39.Mitchell accepted invitation. I was asking about the evidence to the
:04:40. > :04:42.Home Affairs Select Committee. No, I was no longer working for them. You
:04:43. > :04:51.prepped them for the Andrew Mitchell meeting? What do do for your money?
:04:52. > :04:53.Lots, caps on the front page of newspapers for four weeks. Now
:04:54. > :04:59.coming back to haunt you. The reputation the Police Federation...
:05:00. > :05:03.Do you want me to answer the question? The reputation of the
:05:04. > :05:06.police has never been poorer. The reason is because it's due to one
:05:07. > :05:09.police officer who lied. The reason is because it's due to one police
:05:10. > :05:15.officer who lied. He was there when he wasn't. I have never represented
:05:16. > :05:18.that police officer or the Metropolitan Police for that if I
:05:19. > :05:22.had done, I would've told him not to do it. He brought into disrepute and
:05:23. > :05:25.the leadership of the Police nationally, who were completely
:05:26. > :05:31.rudderless during this campaign, but going back to what I did, we kept on
:05:32. > :05:36.the front pages of newspapers for four weeks. I have absolutely no
:05:37. > :05:40.regrets about it. The target was not Andrew Mitchell. We were not trying
:05:41. > :05:43.to get rid of him. It was a political campaign and I think
:05:44. > :05:47.you'll find police officers in this country, unlike Ukraine, have
:05:48. > :05:52.exactly the same rights to free speech and expression as any other
:05:53. > :05:56.individual. They cannot strike, take industrial action, but they can
:05:57. > :05:59.protest and have their say if they feel these cuts were unjust and
:06:00. > :06:05.that's what my clients felt and my job was there to get it in the
:06:06. > :06:12.papers which I did successfully. The fact their reputation is in the dirt
:06:13. > :06:16.is all down to one person? Don't a three who gave misleading evidence
:06:17. > :06:19.to the home select committee? I'm glad you are so confident you think
:06:20. > :06:25.it's misleading information. I wasn't in the meeting, Andrew. The
:06:26. > :06:32.chair of the committee says it is now clear... If there is the same
:06:33. > :06:38.man who walked out of my evidence 50 minute into Keith Vaz? Have you
:06:39. > :06:43.watched the video? No. I will be happy to. I did ask your research is
:06:44. > :06:48.to ask you to watch it last night because 50 minute injured, Keith Vaz
:06:49. > :06:53.leaves. Yeah, yeah, yeah, never mind that. I'm asking you about the Home
:06:54. > :06:59.Affairs Select Committee. I'm talking about it. The chairman said
:07:00. > :07:01.it clear they missed that the committee, possibly deliberately,
:07:02. > :07:07.and if they don't come back and corrected, they will be in contempt
:07:08. > :07:13.of Parliament. You're saying it's all down to one man? If you let me
:07:14. > :07:15.answer the question, I think the Police Federation is the methods are
:07:16. > :07:22.now bigger of one police officer who and because it was legal and the
:07:23. > :07:31.present chairman, Mr Williams, invited me to work on it. The Home
:07:32. > :07:35.Affairs Select Committee, I don't know for the those officers went
:07:36. > :07:40.back and apologised. You now know the IPCC want to investigate them
:07:41. > :07:44.again. It's no subject to judicial review. We have to wait and see. I
:07:45. > :07:48.didn't brief them to go before the committee or had anything to do with
:07:49. > :07:55.it. The entire episode of the Federation no credit at all. It must
:07:56. > :07:58.think more carefully in the future mother nature of its public
:07:59. > :08:02.campaigning. We do not think this contract, the one I had with you,
:08:03. > :08:05.was appropriate, and don't think the work of the brothers Gaunt helped
:08:06. > :08:11.the police board the consequence was a lowering of the reputation for
:08:12. > :08:14.that. I can answer that, if Keith Vaz had listened to my evidence plea
:08:15. > :08:21.didn't, there was a conclusion at the end. The deputy chair said we
:08:22. > :08:25.have consulted on this. There was no time for consultation. They've
:08:26. > :08:28.clearly made their minds before I went in there. The report was
:08:29. > :08:32.clearly written before I gave my evidence but I will go back, the
:08:33. > :08:37.lowering of the Police Federation is down to the officer who lied not
:08:38. > :08:40.what we did. Keith Vaz and his committee have a perfect right to
:08:41. > :08:44.say they think my campaign wasn't very good but the timing of this
:08:45. > :08:48.report is very interesting. On the eve of the conference, this is a
:08:49. > :08:51.political move by the political establishment to cower the Police
:08:52. > :08:59.Federation. The leadership by the way, is rolling over and let them do
:09:00. > :09:02.it. How much did they pay you? It's all on the record if you want to go
:09:03. > :09:07.back to it, the interview you haven't watched. All the evidence is
:09:08. > :09:15.there, Andrew. I'm not going to go into it again. I'm asking you. You
:09:16. > :09:20.haven't done your research. The ?15,000 a month with other national
:09:21. > :09:27.contract. Individual contract... So you were on it? My company was, yes.
:09:28. > :09:31.Do you think they will ask for their money back given the reputation is
:09:32. > :09:36.on the debt now? I don't think so. Would you give it back to them? Of
:09:37. > :09:40.course not, what a ridiculous question. My job is to give the
:09:41. > :09:45.media training and I did it. I then worked with the regions. If you had
:09:46. > :09:51.watched the Home Affairs Select Committee, which you have failed to
:09:52. > :09:56.do. Let me bring in Zoe Williams. What is your view? The Police
:09:57. > :09:59.Federation is a union to represent its members so the idea it shouldn't
:10:00. > :10:04.be political and anything that goes against the government is political
:10:05. > :10:11.is really strange. It is there to lobby on behalf of its members. The
:10:12. > :10:15.Mitchell affair is unfortunate. What about you is that a to further its
:10:16. > :10:23.campaign? Jews think they were doing that? That's do you think? It was an
:10:24. > :10:28.open call, wasn't it? It was irresistible, that story. It
:10:29. > :10:32.should've been resisted. One of the problems with the police, it isn't
:10:33. > :10:38.just Plebgate. It is Mark Duggan, Hillsborough, it's that poor man who
:10:39. > :10:44.was bludgeoned to death. And the reputation of the police, all the
:10:45. > :10:48.police, is absolutely down. It's no good you being self-righteous and
:10:49. > :10:52.saying, Keith Vaz doesn't listen to my evidence. He couldn't read
:10:53. > :11:00.afterwards. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter? It doesn't matter
:11:01. > :11:06.they came to the conclusion? Let her finish. There were loads and loads
:11:07. > :11:12.of really good, hard-working and very, very courageous police
:11:13. > :11:18.officers who don't support the report. 91% of police officers...
:11:19. > :11:23.The Normanton report show that it doesn't agree with a national
:11:24. > :11:29.leadership for the correctly for the 91%, National leadership. The
:11:30. > :11:32.absolutely right, the police had taken a hit on a lot of things and
:11:33. > :11:40.rightly so. Hillsborough, rightly so. The Police Federation is a
:11:41. > :11:48.professional body to lobby for the rights. -- the rights of the police.
:11:49. > :11:50.If separate authoritarian. We have to leave it there.
:11:51. > :11:57.Ed Miliband's guru, called David Axelrod, is in town this week
:11:58. > :12:14.At the end of the show we'll see if Zoe and Sue can give us
:12:15. > :12:21.Now it was way back in 2009 that Gordon Brown set up an
:12:22. > :12:26.Five years later and the man in charge, John Chilcot, still isn't
:12:27. > :12:31.The delay is being blamed on a disagreement over whether to publish
:12:32. > :12:33.classified correspondence between former Prime Minister Tony Blair and
:12:34. > :12:38.This programme has learned that the chairman of the Public
:12:39. > :12:40.Administration Select Committee, Bernard Jenkin, has written to
:12:41. > :12:43.Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood and Cabinet Office minister Francis
:12:44. > :12:47.Maude, warning them that he may call them in front of his committee
:12:48. > :12:52.Here's Eleanor Garnier's report which does contain
:12:53. > :13:06.It was Winston Churchill who coined the phrase the special relationship.
:13:07. > :13:10.He was something of an expert at forging friendships with US
:13:11. > :13:15.presidents like Franklin D Roosevelt. And since Churchill's
:13:16. > :13:20.day, Britain's oration ship with America have been pretty much
:13:21. > :13:23.accepted by all US presidents and British prime ministers. But there
:13:24. > :13:27.is something lurking that is threatening to turn that special
:13:28. > :13:35.relationship a little bit sour. It is the Chilcott enquiry. What? Can I
:13:36. > :13:44.explain what it is? Yes, I can. The Chilcott enquiry is an
:13:45. > :13:48.independent... The Chilcott enquiry is an independent investigation into
:13:49. > :13:54.the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. Good morning and welcome to the
:13:55. > :13:58.Iraqi enquiry's first day of public hearings. Sir John Chilcott is a man
:13:59. > :14:04.in charge. His enquiry started in 2009. Two years later, it was still
:14:05. > :14:10.taking evidence from key witnesses but the findings still haven't been
:14:11. > :14:15.published. The delay is being blamed on discussions between the enquiry
:14:16. > :14:19.and the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood over the publication of
:14:20. > :14:22.top-secret notes and conversations between the then Prime Minister Tony
:14:23. > :14:28.Blair and former US President George Bush. The Prime Minister's patients
:14:29. > :14:32.are said to be running out and there's frustration from senior Tory
:14:33. > :14:39.MPs. It's very serious that this report is now at least four years
:14:40. > :14:42.overdue. So we have written to the Minister to ask for explanation as
:14:43. > :14:46.to why these delays occurred and what is holding up the publication
:14:47. > :14:49.of the report? And how these issues will be resolved on the basis of
:14:50. > :14:53.that, we may call for the Minister or indeed for the Cabinet Secretary
:14:54. > :14:57.to come and give evidence to explain how they will sort this out. They've
:14:58. > :15:01.already had a full investigation surrounding the Iraqi war including
:15:02. > :15:07.the Hutton affair and Butler enquiry. The former Minister from
:15:08. > :15:08.Tony Blair 's government to the classified correspondence shouldn't
:15:09. > :15:14.stop this latest report from being published. My experience of chairing
:15:15. > :15:20.the intelligence and security committee was that we published
:15:21. > :15:24.very, very sensitive material but we did it by ensuring that those
:15:25. > :15:29.agents, informants, who might be under threat of death, where
:15:30. > :15:32.protected by adapting certain sentences so blacking out certain
:15:33. > :15:36.references, and I don't see why Chilcott enquiry can't do this and
:15:37. > :15:47.then he will be able to publish as document and we will look at it. The
:15:48. > :15:50.report is likely to give an indication as to the depth of the
:15:51. > :15:59.special relationship between Tony Blair and George Bush. So, that is
:16:00. > :16:02.the situation surrounding the Chilcott E enquiry. Seeing as you
:16:03. > :16:04.are such good friends, I will leave you chatting while I find out what
:16:05. > :16:08.is happening. We're joined now by the former
:16:09. > :16:23.Lib Dem leader Ming Campbell and Anyone who is liable to criticism
:16:24. > :16:27.gets to see the passage that might criticise him or her. Sir John
:16:28. > :16:31.Chilcott has not been able to embark upon that process because he is
:16:32. > :16:36.still in dispute with the Cabinet Secretary as to whether or not there
:16:37. > :16:40.can ultimately be published the exchanges between George W Bush and
:16:41. > :16:45.Tony Blair in the run-up to the war. Why are these important? They are
:16:46. > :16:50.important for this reason. The decision to take military action
:16:51. > :16:54.against Saddam Hussein was the most serious form of policy blunder
:16:55. > :17:02.probably since Suez or maybe before that. This particular thing which
:17:03. > :17:10.says exchanges like that are confidential, it is in the public
:17:11. > :17:14.interest. The public interest now is overwhelmingly in favour of
:17:15. > :17:18.understanding the political journey which the Labour government, under
:17:19. > :17:24.Tony Blair, reached the decision to take military action. That is why in
:17:25. > :17:31.my view, said John Chilcott is absolutely right and the Government
:17:32. > :17:34.should acknowledge those requests. There are certain conversations that
:17:35. > :17:40.should be left to history. Private conversations between leaders can be
:17:41. > :17:46.blue sky thinking. I do not think what we could gain from theirs. It
:17:47. > :17:52.was not a policy decision, it was said in a conversation. We would
:17:53. > :17:57.gain if we knew from the start we were going to war. That would be
:17:58. > :18:01.important, given what we knew in the run-up. He told us all he had to do
:18:02. > :18:08.was give up his weapons of mass destruction and there would be no
:18:09. > :18:13.war. If he told Mr Bush is something very different, that would be
:18:14. > :18:19.germane. I think it was an offhand conversation. I do not see what we
:18:20. > :18:24.will learn from it. Do promise you will take this country to war is an
:18:25. > :18:31.offhand conversation? Do you know it was an actual promise? That is the
:18:32. > :18:38.whole point. The question is timing. When did Tony Blair commit
:18:39. > :18:43.the United Kingdom? Was he aware that the argument in favour of
:18:44. > :18:48.regime change was one which laid very strongly behind the American
:18:49. > :18:52.position, behind George W Bush? Did he understand that Article two of
:18:53. > :18:58.the United Nations Charter opposes regime change? We really need to
:18:59. > :19:02.know how it was that the political thinking developed. Another thing,
:19:03. > :19:08.which is pushed to one side often, what was the attitude of the Cabinet
:19:09. > :19:12.towards this? They have been described as supine. Some say the
:19:13. > :19:17.topic was never properly discussed. That may have been because
:19:18. > :19:22.commitments had already been given in private conversations. The
:19:23. > :19:26.American president is covered by executive privilege. Just as if you
:19:27. > :19:30.had a conversation with your own lawyer. It is a very important
:19:31. > :19:43.concept. Leaders need to get free and open advice. With Mr Nixon, the
:19:44. > :19:48.Supreme Court overruled his right to executive privilege, so it is not
:19:49. > :19:53.necessarily watertight. If I was sitting down with my lawyer and he
:19:54. > :19:59.wants some crazy ideas to blue sky think, I want him to have the
:20:00. > :20:07.opportunity of free speech, to get it through the Crucible and
:20:08. > :20:12.throughout the bad starts. -- stuff. I think that is a different thing.
:20:13. > :20:17.The point is, if the conversations are going to become public in living
:20:18. > :20:24.memory, all within the contemporary period of the events, that they will
:20:25. > :20:30.find another way all closed down that kind of communication? This is
:20:31. > :20:36.not normal course. That is the point. This is the decision...
:20:37. > :20:41.Remember a million people walked past this door outside protesting
:20:42. > :20:45.against this. You cannot find anyone who was in the Labour Cabinet or the
:20:46. > :20:49.Labour government at the time the decision was made who is trying to
:20:50. > :20:54.defend now what happened. The consequences were far beyond what
:20:55. > :20:59.had been anticipated, deeply damaging to Iraq and deeply damaging
:21:00. > :21:03.both to the United Kingdom and the United States. There seems from what
:21:04. > :21:07.Menzies Campbell is saying, that there seems to be a stand-off
:21:08. > :21:13.between Chilcott and the Cabinet Secretary. How does that get
:21:14. > :21:18.resolved? With difficulty is the answer. I suspect what has to happen
:21:19. > :21:25.is the pressure needs to be kept up. It seems to me, I absolutely agree
:21:26. > :21:34.with what Menzies Campbell has said. Normally, civil servants, advisers,
:21:35. > :21:39.ministers Presidents need to discuss these things will stop I think it is
:21:40. > :21:45.absolutely in the public interest. I think that Bernard Jenkins saying he
:21:46. > :21:49.would call Sir Jeremy Heywood in and Francis Maude but it is Jeremy he
:21:50. > :21:56.would call Sir Jeremy Heywood in and Francis Maude but it is Jeremy who
:21:57. > :22:01.is the, they must not be allowed to get away with continually saying, it
:22:02. > :22:08.is difficult. I am told it is the lawyers, as you suggested, saying it
:22:09. > :22:13.would set a precedent. It should not be left to the lawyers. Executive
:22:14. > :22:18.privilege would only work as an argued if, in this case, Tony Blair
:22:19. > :22:22.were not already held to have behaved wrongly. I think it would
:22:23. > :22:26.work in his favour to have those conversations released. There is
:22:27. > :22:33.nothing they could release that people do not already say about him.
:22:34. > :22:43.We all think he had given... It is a different issue. We all think that
:22:44. > :22:47.he had made an agreement with George Bush we do not know about. All it
:22:48. > :22:52.could do is either confirm that or deny it and I do not think he is
:22:53. > :22:57.doing his own case a favour by trying to keep it private. He is
:22:58. > :23:05.making it worse. People are saying, Michael Dobbs the other day, this
:23:06. > :23:10.has all happened because Blair is putting the pressure on. I do not
:23:11. > :23:17.think that is true. Cabinet secretaries are close to whichever
:23:18. > :23:25.ministers they are working with. Mr Blair Brown what was subsequently
:23:26. > :23:31.called a sofa government. At that time, he was permanent secretary at
:23:32. > :23:34.number ten. When it looked like there might be coalitions and we
:23:35. > :23:38.asked whether the civil service was ready for a coalition government, he
:23:39. > :23:44.said, we're not even ready for a change of government. Where do we go
:23:45. > :23:52.from here? It seems from what you say, this is still an unresolved
:23:53. > :23:59.argument. Even when it is resolved .com -- when it is resolved, it goes
:24:00. > :24:02.back to Robert Maxwell. He was criticised and now he could have
:24:03. > :24:09.been entirely right but that is a different debate. This is not going
:24:10. > :24:15.to happen before the election, is it? There are those who believe that
:24:16. > :24:19.this delay, among other things, as its purpose, kicking this into the
:24:20. > :24:23.long grass until after the election. Where this to be published in the
:24:24. > :24:28.run-up to the general election, it would become part of the campaign.
:24:29. > :24:33.Why would the Conservative government or conservative and
:24:34. > :24:42.Democrat government be reluctant? Not the current regime. I think
:24:43. > :24:49.there were 25 who did not agree. Ken Taylor, Douglas Hurd and others.
:24:50. > :24:52.Labour would take the biggest hit. I think Labour would benefit from
:24:53. > :24:58.having an open Anne Frank discussion about who thinks what an saying,
:24:59. > :25:09.this is what we stand for. -- Anne Frank discussion. The danger is that
:25:10. > :25:18.American presidents will be wary of this. If you want a current version
:25:19. > :25:28.of this deal, look at the Benghazi scandal. I can understand it.
:25:29. > :25:31.it's the debates between the five main candidates for the post
:25:32. > :25:35.There are some similarities with Eurovision though.
:25:36. > :25:48.Last night was the grand finale and it was shown on 49 TV stations.
:25:49. > :26:04.We have to invest into the economy but a greener economy cars we need
:26:05. > :26:09.to create sustainable jobs, jobs that will still be there in a couple
:26:10. > :26:15.of decades. Jobs that give good quality of life. Apple wants to
:26:16. > :26:18.start with a new product for the bigger to the four main operators
:26:19. > :26:24.and start immediately to start a new product. If we had to do it, we need
:26:25. > :26:30.100 operators in 28 different countries. That is why they have
:26:31. > :26:34.Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft. They are all American
:26:35. > :26:40.companies and we still need to do that. The biggest deficit in Europe
:26:41. > :26:48.is a democratic deficit. Citizens stay away. They do not believe their
:26:49. > :26:53.vote will make a big change to the strategy and direction of Europe as
:26:54. > :26:57.it currently is. In the past, the European elections were boring.
:26:58. > :27:03.There was no confrontation. Secondly, it was abused for mid-term
:27:04. > :27:10.election of national governments. I think the debate here shows we are
:27:11. > :27:14.changing in the European Union, to more democracy, more controversial
:27:15. > :27:20.debate, Porter 's bouncy. This is a step forward. I would like a Europe
:27:21. > :27:24.that does not cultivate divisions. I would like to put an end to
:27:25. > :27:29.divisions between north and south, young and old member states. I would
:27:30. > :27:34.like a Europe of consensus, of wise compromise. I would like a Europe
:27:35. > :27:44.which allows the Europeans to fall back in love with Europe. I'd bet
:27:45. > :27:50.you are disappointed you missed that.
:27:51. > :27:52.Joining me now from Brussels is our correspondent,
:27:53. > :27:58.Duncan Crawford, who soaked up every minute of the debate.
:27:59. > :28:06.Why are these debates happening? They are taking place to drum up
:28:07. > :28:09.support for what is going on in the European Parliamentary elections and
:28:10. > :28:15.also to put a face to the party to try to end the democratic deficit
:28:16. > :28:19.the European Commission has. You have the five main party group
:28:20. > :28:24.candidates. You saw them speak there. They believe that if their
:28:25. > :28:27.party group gets the most MEPs in the European Parliamentary
:28:28. > :28:32.elections, they should be the one to head up the European Commission. It
:28:33. > :28:37.is a big job for the European Commission president. It is the only
:28:38. > :28:42.institution in the EU which can propose legislation. He or she,
:28:43. > :28:45.whoever gets that post, will be able to influence the direction which
:28:46. > :28:52.Europe moves in for the next five years. So, they have the debate. It
:28:53. > :28:56.was polite at those times. They did not disagree that often. There were
:28:57. > :29:00.a few jibes at each other and some disagreement. Largely on the big
:29:01. > :29:08.economic matters, trying to get people out of unemployment and into
:29:09. > :29:10.jobs, tackling youth unemployment and immigration, illegal
:29:11. > :29:14.immigration. There was a lot of consensus. I understand that despite
:29:15. > :29:17.the opened transparency of the debate and whoever is the largest
:29:18. > :29:20.group can choose the president of the commission from the European
:29:21. > :29:27.Parliament, it could still be done in a backroom deal by the leaders of
:29:28. > :29:31.the nation states. You are right. Basically, historically, it always
:29:32. > :29:36.has been done that way. David Cameron, Angela Merkel, their
:29:37. > :29:40.predecessors in the past, they would have gone behind closed doors and
:29:41. > :29:43.work out who they would want to have the top job of the European
:29:44. > :29:49.Commission president. This time around, it is different because of
:29:50. > :29:53.the Lisbon Treaty. It says that EU heads of member states say they need
:29:54. > :29:59.to take into consideration what the European Parliament wants. Certainly
:30:00. > :30:06.the potential for some institutional deadlock in Brussels over this.
:30:07. > :30:11.David Cameron will have concerns about the five candidates involved
:30:12. > :30:16.in this debate last night. Most likely they will be viewed as too
:30:17. > :30:19.federalist, two in favour of integration in Europe. If David
:30:20. > :30:25.Cameron wins the next general election, he wants to renegotiate
:30:26. > :30:29.Britain 's relationship with the EU. Before we get to that, I want to get
:30:30. > :30:33.a brief wedding about Scotland. I understand there was a mention of
:30:34. > :30:47.Scotland last night. What did they say about this argument that if
:30:48. > :30:52.Scotland The general answer was they shouldn't get involved, it wasn't a
:30:53. > :30:56.thing for the EU to comment on at this stage, it is up to the member
:30:57. > :31:00.states are bad, that said, Martin Short, the Socialist candidate who
:31:01. > :31:05.is currently the European Parliament president, said the procedures could
:31:06. > :31:11.be followed suggesting that Scotland, if it became independent,
:31:12. > :31:18.could join with the EU and the Green candidates, she talks about
:31:19. > :31:28.welcoming Scotland into the EU. Would they have to reapply? They
:31:29. > :31:31.didn't say they would have to reapply. They basically ducked the
:31:32. > :31:37.question is that it wasn't their place to comment. The Green
:31:38. > :31:40.candidate was talking about welcoming Scotland into the EU,
:31:41. > :31:48.independently, about as positive as it got, really, for Alex Salmond.
:31:49. > :31:56.Thank you very much. Does this make the European elections more
:31:57. > :32:00.interesting? I give them half a small cheer for shuffling towards
:32:01. > :32:06.something slightly more democratic. But otherwise, no. Ultimately, if
:32:07. > :32:10.the heads of individual countries decide who to have, then that's
:32:11. > :32:15.almost certainly going to be who it will be. It could be very
:32:16. > :32:19.interesting, the row between them, but I bet that is smoothed over and
:32:20. > :32:25.deals are done behind closed doors. Neither are the frontrunners, are
:32:26. > :32:30.coming anywhere near here in this country. We are not going to see
:32:31. > :32:35.site nor sound of them. Labour and the Lib Dems will be happy with that
:32:36. > :32:43.because both are very staunch federalists. I know why they like
:32:44. > :32:49.Scotland, because it's so windy. The Green party is fit in favour of
:32:50. > :33:00.independence. More windmills, more wind farms. It's the jewel in our
:33:01. > :33:02.green crime. O. Then you are unlikely to be acceptable to the
:33:03. > :33:09.Prime Minister is the Irish prime ministers. It's very difficult. Even
:33:10. > :33:14.though socialist doesn't mean the same thing, if you are voting
:33:15. > :33:19.socialist, you would be voting for somebody on the left. It's
:33:20. > :33:28.federalism Mr Cameron is objecting to. They all are. Maybe that's not
:33:29. > :33:32.why they're coming here. The interesting thing is, the impetus in
:33:33. > :33:35.Europe this towards greater federalisation because that's the
:33:36. > :33:39.only way they would get out of the Euro crisis. And avert another
:33:40. > :33:41.crisis. Nothing David Cameron does Canada reflect what is best for
:33:42. > :33:44.Europe. OK, let's move on. So that's one attempt to get voters
:33:45. > :33:46.engaged ahead In case you'd forgotten,
:33:47. > :33:50.although that would be pretty tricky if you're a regular viewer
:33:51. > :33:53.of this show, next Thursday is And if you live
:33:54. > :33:58.in England or Northern Ireland you could also be voting in local
:33:59. > :34:00.and mayoral elections. The turn out for these types of
:34:01. > :34:04.election are usually pretty poor. But with the EU never far
:34:05. > :34:07.from the headlines will this year be Adam's been out to find out
:34:08. > :34:35.if people are feeling switched on, Do you know what's happening next
:34:36. > :34:47.Thursday? Do you know how many MEPs will be elected next Thursday? 50.
:34:48. > :34:56.60? 120. 100? 73. Tell your friends. Where are you from? Belgium. Will
:34:57. > :34:59.you be voting next week? Yes, Belgium has compulsory voting. What
:35:00. > :35:05.happens is be done to vote? You could get fined. Do you know the
:35:06. > :35:16.European Parliament is? Brussels? And? It's in France. It's gone.
:35:17. > :35:20.Strasberg. Yes. How much of your councillors up for election? I don't
:35:21. > :35:25.know. I don't know what proportion is up for election. I think we had
:35:26. > :35:29.about six candidates. That's all I know from the voting form. Do you
:35:30. > :35:34.know what voting system they use for the European elections? It's a form
:35:35. > :35:41.of proportional representation. An open list or a closed list? It's a
:35:42. > :35:47.party list system. Do you work for a party? I am a candidate, yes. I
:35:48. > :35:49.thought using suspiciously familiar. And well-informed. I think that's
:35:50. > :35:56.the only reason he knew the answer. And we're joined now by Katie Ghose
:35:57. > :35:59.from the Electoral Reform Society. As the name suggests, they campaign
:36:00. > :36:04.for reforms to the electoral system. It's interesting the more power
:36:05. > :36:09.that's gone to the European Parliament, the lower the turnout in
:36:10. > :36:13.the election has been. That's right, and without expecting a turnout for
:36:14. > :36:16.the year rose or the locals to be higher than the low 30s, which is
:36:17. > :36:21.where it has remained stubbornly low and also we not saying that although
:36:22. > :36:25.Europe is all over the headlines, that's not translating into a huge
:36:26. > :36:29.public appetite to go to the polls and it's also not leading people to
:36:30. > :36:34.take part in local democracy more. This is a long-term problem. People
:36:35. > :36:37.have been tuning out from formal party politics from long time and I
:36:38. > :36:43.don't think there's a quick fix to that. In the Euro election, the
:36:44. > :36:48.first time in 1979 with 62%, which seemed quite healthy but by 2009, it
:36:49. > :36:56.dropped to 43% and it's probably going to be lower this time. People
:36:57. > :37:02.don't think it matters very much? People feel it's very remote. People
:37:03. > :37:09.feel national MPs are increasingly alien from their concerns. Whether
:37:10. > :37:13.that's fair or not. You take the European Council, it feels even more
:37:14. > :37:17.remote. Actually, these politicians and decision-makers have a say and
:37:18. > :37:21.influence over jobs and homes and security but people don't feel it to
:37:22. > :37:28.be that way. On the local elections, I was covering the local elections
:37:29. > :37:33.in France. The turnout was pretty impressive both in the first round
:37:34. > :37:38.and the second round. One of the reasons for that is that it matters
:37:39. > :37:46.in France who the Mayor is. It matters who the local councillors.
:37:47. > :37:50.They have real power. In many ways, I live in France for part of the
:37:51. > :37:57.year, and it's more important to me who my local French Maher is done
:37:58. > :38:02.the president is. -- French Mayor. You've hit the nail on the head. If
:38:03. > :38:06.there were more meaningful powers and budget held locally, people
:38:07. > :38:10.might feel it was worth going to the polls but we've also got a very
:38:11. > :38:16.outdated system which means there are loads of uncontested seats.
:38:17. > :38:22.Between 2011-14, two .5 mil in people didn't have a save -- say
:38:23. > :38:30.because only one party going for it in the award, uncontested. And also
:38:31. > :38:32.the party thought, I'd better put my resources elsewhere. We are
:38:33. > :38:38.disenfranchising millions of people. No wonder people are thinking with a
:38:39. > :38:42.platter of uncontested seats, if not is worth my while. In Scotland, the
:38:43. > :38:47.referendum there, even very hard and nonvoters are saying and going to
:38:48. > :38:52.give my damnedest to this and I'm going to vote in the referendum. You
:38:53. > :38:59.think the turnout on September 18 will be very high? Yes. It's going
:39:00. > :39:01.to be really-I'm not going to have a stab at it. I've had discussions
:39:02. > :39:05.with Scottish people who don't normally vote and they say this is
:39:06. > :39:09.the future of my country and 16-year-olds are going to be voting
:39:10. > :39:12.for the first time and this is very exciting. I think they will be very
:39:13. > :39:16.engaged and it's only a matter of time before we have young people
:39:17. > :39:24.developing the voting habits for life. Maybe this is another problem
:39:25. > :39:33.here, the European Parliament for the London region. The whole of
:39:34. > :39:38.London? Yes, the London region. You vote only once by putting across in
:39:39. > :39:45.the box next to your choice. I thought the system was proportional
:39:46. > :39:51.representation? You don't have much choice as as a closed system. This
:39:52. > :39:56.gives the names, people on this list of been chosen by the parties. They
:39:57. > :40:01.have behaved themselves. Yes, and parties are too much control. If we
:40:02. > :40:05.want to breathe fresh life into politics, we need to respond to
:40:06. > :40:11.modern voters who want choice. Do you know who your MEP is? When I do
:40:12. > :40:14.it, you have got to shock me but an informal vote swapping system.
:40:15. > :40:19.Across the country. There is somebody I want to vote for in the
:40:20. > :40:24.south-west. I could sever the Facebook page and it will be trust
:40:25. > :40:28.based. You can't enforce it but you can say, you vote was so-and-so and
:40:29. > :40:34.in return, I will vote for your party. I think that's going to be
:40:35. > :40:42.quite unusual. Do you know the name of your MEP? I'm afraid I don't. I
:40:43. > :40:45.don't. If I saw it, it would ring about.
:40:46. > :40:49.LAUGHTER The fact people have to think about
:40:50. > :40:53.tactics shows we have a pretty old-fashioned system that's not
:40:54. > :40:59.working. People like these two don't know who the MEPs are, what hope for
:41:00. > :41:02.the rest? That's the problem. Also three quarters of British people
:41:03. > :41:05.feel their voice doesn't count in the European Union, so it's the
:41:06. > :41:10.thing is not being heard. I just wonder, I know what you're saying,
:41:11. > :41:15.but in some places, please, the controversy and the impact of UKIP
:41:16. > :41:20.isn't going to put off the turnout. I think it could happen. Newark is
:41:21. > :41:26.very soon after if you kept us very well in these elections. I will def
:41:27. > :41:29.to the other five I have got. Thank you for being with us.
:41:30. > :41:31.Now, in America, politicians quite regularly say they
:41:32. > :41:34.are driven by their Christian faith to take public office.
:41:35. > :41:37.Over here MPs tend to be more reticent about discussing religion
:41:38. > :41:42.And when they do, it can cause a bit of a kerfuffle.
:41:43. > :41:45.Ahead of Easter Sunday, David Cameron wrote in the Church Times
:41:46. > :41:48.that Britain should be proud of its status as a Christian country.
:41:49. > :41:51.Plenty of secularists disputed that, and the former Archbishop
:41:52. > :41:53.of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said that Britain was
:41:54. > :41:56.a post-Christian country because so many people have given up
:41:57. > :42:02.One small group called the Christian People's Alliance is hoping to prove
:42:03. > :42:06.him wrong and make an impact at next week's European elections.
:42:07. > :42:10.They want to leave the EU, but in the meantime they want to bring
:42:11. > :42:18.What they describe as their key moral issues include the importance
:42:19. > :42:31.The leader of the Christian People's Alliance, Sid Cordle joins us now.
:42:32. > :42:37.If you have a Christian Prime Minister who says we live in a
:42:38. > :42:42.Christian country, why do we need your party? Because basically this
:42:43. > :42:49.government has not pursued Christian policies. There are a lot of reports
:42:50. > :42:52.because this is a European election, coming to the European Parliament on
:42:53. > :42:58.issues like abortion, one of the proposals is going to take away the
:42:59. > :43:01.right of the doctor to refuse to conduct an abortion. Other proposals
:43:02. > :43:08.are saying they want to dictate what is taught in schools on sex
:43:09. > :43:11.education. The Conservatives have abstained on all these reports.
:43:12. > :43:14.There is no opposition coming from the Conservative Party. But there
:43:15. > :43:20.are strong Christians on both sides of the house. For people who think
:43:21. > :43:26.like you, would they not be more progress? More likely to influence
:43:27. > :43:30.the debate if you concentrated all votes on getting people elected
:43:31. > :43:37.rather than your own people? You and I both know you're not going to win
:43:38. > :43:42.any seats. No, I don't accept that. This is a tremendous opportunity for
:43:43. > :43:45.us. There are an enormous number of Christians who have left the
:43:46. > :43:49.Conservative Party over the issue of same-sex marriage. Sadly, too many
:43:50. > :43:53.of them have gone to UKIP. But I think they are beginning to find
:43:54. > :44:01.that in UKIP, it's not a natural home for Christians. This issues of
:44:02. > :44:05.racism in UKIP. They have made life difficult for you, haven't they? You
:44:06. > :44:11.would be doing better if they didn't exist? Not necessarily. UKIP brought
:44:12. > :44:15.the whole issue of Europe onto the agenda and they provide an
:44:16. > :44:20.attractive alternative which hasn't really existed before. It's only
:44:21. > :44:25.existed fairly recently, but people need to see that, actually, I don't
:44:26. > :44:29.believe the majority of people in this country want to live under a
:44:30. > :44:31.UKIP government. Frankly. I think there would be happy to live under
:44:32. > :44:39.Christian People's Alliance government. Do you? Absolutely. The
:44:40. > :44:44.Pope said last, if the person is gay and six God and has good will, who
:44:45. > :44:47.am I to judge? Would you welcome though some gay people? Of course,
:44:48. > :44:50.don't judge people because of their lifestyle. When not against people
:44:51. > :44:57.but the principles on which we stand. Earlier this year, UKIP
:44:58. > :45:06.councillors said the floods in Britain were due to gay marriage.
:45:07. > :45:11.You wouldn't accept that? the way he said it was completely wrong. What
:45:12. > :45:21.about the substance? All Christians believe that God does things with
:45:22. > :45:29.nature. Because he is gay? He supports gay marriage? A lot of
:45:30. > :45:35.Christians believe that God is angry at gay marriage. Where David Silva
:45:36. > :45:40.Esther was wrong is to be adamant this is the case. If he thinks it is
:45:41. > :45:44.possible this is the case, the majority of Christians, I certainly
:45:45. > :45:49.would agree with that. You tweeted that if the head of the Environment
:45:50. > :45:53.Agency, Chris Smith, one of the most openly gay politicians in British
:45:54. > :46:01.life, if he resigned the floods would stop. If he resigned, the
:46:02. > :46:10.floods with stop. You said it is like Job. If he resigned p, I am
:46:11. > :46:15.sure the floods would stop. I not know quite where that quote has come
:46:16. > :46:21.from. That is from your tweets. One of the problems on Twitter is you
:46:22. > :46:26.only have a very few words to say. It is quite clear what you said. If
:46:27. > :46:32.gay people could change the weather, wouldn't that make them God 's
:46:33. > :46:37.anointed people? I think, quite honestly, we are delving into an
:46:38. > :46:45.area which is quite honestly not of interest to the majority of people.
:46:46. > :46:50.You are socially conservative, aren't you? What I would say
:46:51. > :46:55.categorically is, as a Christian, I believe God is involved in every
:46:56. > :46:58.aspect of society. He is very interested in marriage. Marriage is
:46:59. > :47:05.a pillar of society and vitally important to us. I believe children
:47:06. > :47:08.need a mother and a father and they need that stability. Breakdown of
:47:09. > :47:14.marriage is costing this country some 46 billion. That will rise to
:47:15. > :47:20.49 billion. We need to do something about it and it does matter. In
:47:21. > :47:23.America, that would be regarded as the socially conservative Christian
:47:24. > :47:31.view. That is what you represent in this country, am I right? What he
:47:32. > :47:37.said on gay marriage and whether children should be brought up by two
:47:38. > :47:44.parents in the same sex and so on... I would say I am a Christian.
:47:45. > :47:49.A Christian is a follower of Jesus 's teaching. That is clear and I
:47:50. > :47:55.have no problem whatsoever in following that teaching. We are
:47:56. > :47:57.grateful for you coming in and explaining that. We will have you
:47:58. > :48:02.back. If you've been watching the BBC
:48:03. > :48:04.during the early evenings or sometimes late
:48:05. > :48:07.at night over the last month, Not just how The One Show is really
:48:08. > :48:12.just a pale imitation of the Daily Politics but a rash
:48:13. > :48:15.of party election broadcasts. Since the early days of BBC radio,
:48:16. > :48:18.the political parties have been given a slice of airtime to
:48:19. > :48:21.communicate directly to the voters Let's have a look at some
:48:22. > :48:45.of the most recent crop. I believe you have the right to have
:48:46. > :48:46.your say on Europe. When we have finished renegotiating Britain 's
:48:47. > :48:51.relationship with the European Union, we will give you the final
:48:52. > :48:58.decision with them in /out referendum by the end of 2017. Let
:48:59. > :49:03.open all the doors and batten down the hatches. Sky 20 million
:49:04. > :49:09.immigrants. That is why, when it comes to Europe, the answer is
:49:10. > :49:16.simple. On 22nd of May, take the right choice and vote for...
:49:17. > :49:21.Something else. The last two generations have been robbed of
:49:22. > :49:24.voting on the EU yet it has a great impact on our everyday lives than
:49:25. > :49:30.anything else. We need to put this issue to bed now and not leave it
:49:31. > :49:35.for another generation. I'm asking you to vote for the Liberal
:49:36. > :49:41.Democrats, the party of in. In for the sake of British prosperity and
:49:42. > :49:46.jobs. If I allow energy companies to raise their prices, you will defend
:49:47. > :50:02.it? You will keep your mouth shut about huge profits? Yes. Jolly good,
:50:03. > :50:06.well done you. We are joined by the man who designed how much airtime
:50:07. > :50:11.parties will get. Welcome to both of you. Do people enjoy watching these
:50:12. > :50:18.party election broadcasts or can you see a switch off when they come on?
:50:19. > :50:22.Definitely. You switch on for Phil Mitchell and you get David Cameron.
:50:23. > :50:28.He is in EastEnders. That is a small programme on BBC One! I think it can
:50:29. > :50:32.have a counter-productive effect. People can be turned off. They want
:50:33. > :50:37.to watch their favourite programme and there is a politician. I wanted
:50:38. > :50:41.to get away from those guys, I have just watched the news and here they
:50:42. > :50:47.are again, trying to ram ideas down my throat and I do not like that. It
:50:48. > :50:53.plays into the idea of political apathy. Voting levels are down. Do
:50:54. > :50:59.you think it was that kind of fear that led Labour to make this
:51:00. > :51:07.controversial TV about the shrinking... ? First of all the fear
:51:08. > :51:15.of showing Ed Miliband. He is not in it. Labour is mentioned in the last
:51:16. > :51:20.really second of it. David Axelrod has been brought in to try to
:51:21. > :51:27.improve his TV profile. His three advisers are all from newspapers. He
:51:28. > :51:30.is perceived as a turn-off. Voting, their poll in the internal pressure
:51:31. > :51:35.groups and their little focus groups that they do, are suggesting that
:51:36. > :51:40.people think he is a bit of a geek. Do not put him on your TV. I think
:51:41. > :51:44.it is a very bad idea to go negative. You're going to send
:51:45. > :51:48.people into the warm embrace of UKIP. You are saying all politicians
:51:49. > :51:55.are the same and it is extremely cynical. Let's have a look at some
:51:56. > :52:00.of the rules on this. What are the rules when it comes to PEB is? How
:52:01. > :52:07.do parties qualify for getting airtime and how do you decide how
:52:08. > :52:12.many slots they get? Thank you for that one. The starting point is how
:52:13. > :52:15.many candidates they are putting up. It is different in different sorts
:52:16. > :52:20.of elections. Let's take the European elections. If you have a
:52:21. > :52:25.full slate of candidates in England, you get a single broadcast. There is
:52:26. > :52:29.a second criteria which is parties that can demonstrate electoral
:52:30. > :52:32.support will get additional broadcasts. Traditionally, three
:52:33. > :52:39.broadcasts were Labour, Tory, UKIP, the Lib Dems. The Greens have two.
:52:40. > :52:43.It is based as a starting point for 2009. The smaller parties will get
:52:44. > :52:52.one broadcast and the bigger parties will get more in the Europeans. In
:52:53. > :52:57.the locals, they'll get one. When they demonstrate support, the polls
:52:58. > :53:04.relevant? Can be. You take that into account. We take that into account
:53:05. > :53:09.in our editorial coverage. The process of deciding this is, the
:53:10. > :53:17.starting point, it is candidates. Largely it is what happened in the
:53:18. > :53:21.last equivalent election. A lot of our viewers have wondered, and even
:53:22. > :53:30.complained, about why UKIP is getting so much time? They get three
:53:31. > :53:33.broadcasts, as they did in 2009. If you look back at the previous
:53:34. > :53:38.European elections, in 2004 they did pretty well. That is why they got
:53:39. > :53:43.the same number of broadcasts in 2009. They came second in 2009. It
:53:44. > :53:48.would be quite reasonable for them not to get the same number of
:53:49. > :53:52.broadcasts as the bigger parties. Some also think they are getting too
:53:53. > :53:54.much time on programmes like this. Is there a formula for how much time
:53:55. > :54:00.they all get in the run-up to the they all get in the run-up to the
:54:01. > :54:03.elections? Formula is too strong a word, it implies you
:54:04. > :54:09.elections? Formula is too strong a that you do it with good judgment.
:54:10. > :54:13.You look at the fact that UKIP did well last time. It makes sense for
:54:14. > :54:17.them to have the same kind of coverage and scrutiny that the
:54:18. > :54:21.bigger parties are getting. You do take that into account. You have got
:54:22. > :54:25.to take account as well of things that may have happened since,
:54:26. > :54:29.subsequent elections. They have had a very strong run in the opinion
:54:30. > :54:33.polls. The polls can be relevant. UKIP have been running ahead of the
:54:34. > :54:39.Lib Dems for getting on for two years. People often wonder why Nigel
:54:40. > :54:43.Farage appears so much on current affairs broadcasts where somebody
:54:44. > :54:48.like Caroline Lucas does not. UKIP has no MP and make do point out that
:54:49. > :54:53.opinion polls of the Mirror the picture you see on current affairs
:54:54. > :54:57.broadcasts. If you are often represented, some would say in
:54:58. > :55:01.excess of their real representation... I think the mirror
:55:02. > :55:05.thing does not work. You look at the opinion polls and it is a really
:55:06. > :55:09.robust trend. What has happened in the past two years in terms of
:55:10. > :55:14.support for UKIP, if you look what happened in the local elections last
:55:15. > :55:18.time, UKIP had no background in the councils and they shot towards 20%.
:55:19. > :55:22.If you look at by-elections in local councils, UKIP have been, not just
:55:23. > :55:30.an opinion polls, but real votes have been getting around 17 to 20%,
:55:31. > :55:33.ahead of the Lib Dems. You get a small boost, more coverage and then
:55:34. > :55:43.more boost. Firemen cut we have to give them coverage if people are
:55:44. > :55:50.giving them support. -- we have to give them coverage if people are
:55:51. > :56:01.giving them support. Natalie Bennett will be on the Sunday Politics. It
:56:02. > :56:08.is not random. It is by looking at objective figures on how people
:56:09. > :56:19.vote. What do you make about the idea of hosting a TV debate online?
:56:20. > :56:22.The Wild West of the internet! You might put an audience that seems to
:56:23. > :56:29.be totally uninterested in politics at the moment. I mentioned before,
:56:30. > :56:34.voter apathy. It is strong among the younger people. They think, these
:56:35. > :56:37.people are not speaking for us. They are all middle-aged men in suits and
:56:38. > :56:42.they are not speaking for me. If you put them on a forum where they might
:56:43. > :56:49.achieve in, I do not think that is a good idea. Sky one advantage of it,
:56:50. > :56:52.to a greater extent it cuts out the political class that the
:56:53. > :56:56.broadcasters, the politicians... There would be far fewer rules and
:56:57. > :56:59.regulations which politicians often used as an excuse for not doing TV
:57:00. > :57:09.debates. We would love to do them but the rules, we cannot abide by
:57:10. > :57:14.them. The other thing is... You can use, I think... There will be
:57:15. > :57:20.opportunities to use Skype and video to bring in a far greater number of
:57:21. > :57:22.people asking questions directly instead of the traditional studio.
:57:23. > :58:12.It is not either/or. As you saw there,
:58:13. > :58:17.the American political guru, David Axelrod, who's fast becoming a bit
:58:18. > :58:20.of an obsession here at Westminster, has been in London meeting senior
:58:21. > :58:23.Labour figures this week. So let's find out the answer to
:58:24. > :58:27.our quiz. We asked what's wrong with
:58:28. > :58:29.this tweet from Mr Axelrod? He's spelt the Labour leader's name
:58:30. > :58:34.wrong and, in doing so, Thanks to our back on BBC One
:58:35. > :58:41.on Sunday with an elections feast on the Sunday Politics,
:58:42. > :58:43.with Sajid Javid, Simon Hughes Female artists have rocked the world
:58:44. > :59:11.for centuries. Not only did she impress and surprise
:59:12. > :59:17.Michelangelo, in her nineties,
:59:18. > :59:21.she won the homage of van Dyck. So just how did they push the
:59:22. > :59:25.boundaries and flout convention?