16/05/2014 Daily Politics

It's set to be one of the hottest days of the year.

But the temperature ahead of next week's European and local election

Most MPs are off on the campaign trail.

But back here at Westminster, one senior MP tells us he's fed up

of waiting for the Iraq War inquiry, now four years overdue.

The Police Federation is also getting it in the neck over claims

How much damage have they done to the reputation of the Old Bill?

It's the live TV debate that electrified Europe.

The main candidates to be European Commission President have been

And, speaking of voters, just how much does anyone really

And with us for the duration, two top political columnists.

Sue Cameron from the Telegraph and Zoe Williams from the Guardian.

Sue specialises in writing about the civil service.

Zoe also gets to review restaurants for one of the Sunday magazines.

I'll leave you to decide whose job is more fun.

Let's start with the Police Federation.

That's the group that represents rank and file police officers

It's the subject of a scathing select committee

report this morning, with the Home Affairs committee saying it's

accused of levels of bullying to rival any popular soap opera.

And urgently needs reform, including full disclosure of its finances.

MPs also criticised the role of the Police Federation in the Plebgate

affair which led to the resignation of chief whip Andrew Mitchell.

Here's committee chairman Keith Vaz speaking earlier.

This is a big opportunity at Bournemouth for the federation to

move on if they change the way in which they have been doing their

business. We want an end to the bullying that we were shocked to

hear was happening at national headquarters. We want full

transparency. Every police officer in England and Wales to get a rebate

for their subscriptions and we want this to be what it should be. The

representatives of the finest police force in the world.

We asked to speak to the Police Federation this morning

He was giving PR advice to local police federations at the time

He's been singled out by the select committee.

It said he cynically tried to exploit the allegations

against Andrew Mitchell to publicise the Police Federation's campaign

And the MPs said "the consequence was a lowering of

Welcome back. You are paid by the Police Federation to advise three

officers now under investigation for stitching up a Cabinet Minister. Did

you know, did you encourage them to be economical with the truth? No, I

wasn't paid to advise them to stitch of a Cabinet minister. I was paid by

Police Federation in the Midlands and across the country as well as

being paid by the National Federation. Coming to the Midlands,

they'd already planned them are going to have a campaign during the

Tory conference full for the Andrew Mitchell things fell into their lap.

I gave the media training and got involved in that as well. When it

comes to the meeting you are referring to, you must remember, of

course, all three of them are now having a review about whether they

can reopen the case, but no, I didn't advise them to stitch up

Andrew Mitchell. Andrew Mitchell wasn't the target for the digital

they were providing misleading evidence? No, I wasn't in the

meeting. No, but you practice for it. Personally, I was amazed Andrew

Mitchell accepted invitation. I was asking about the evidence to the

Home Affairs Select Committee. No, I was no longer working for them. You

prepped them for the Andrew Mitchell meeting? What do do for your money?

Lots, caps on the front page of newspapers for four weeks. Now

coming back to haunt you. The reputation the Police Federation...

Do you want me to answer the question? The reputation of the

police has never been poorer. The reason is because it's due to one

police officer who lied. The reason is because it's due to one police

officer who lied. He was there when he wasn't. I have never represented

that police officer or the Metropolitan Police for that if I

had done, I would've told him not to do it. He brought into disrepute and

the leadership of the Police nationally, who were completely

rudderless during this campaign, but going back to what I did, we kept on

the front pages of newspapers for four weeks. I have absolutely no

regrets about it. The target was not Andrew Mitchell. We were not trying

to get rid of him. It was a political campaign and I think

you'll find police officers in this country, unlike Ukraine, have

exactly the same rights to free speech and expression as any other

individual. They cannot strike, take industrial action, but they can

protest and have their say if they feel these cuts were unjust and

that's what my clients felt and my job was there to get it in the

papers which I did successfully. The fact their reputation is in the dirt

is all down to one person? Don't a three who gave misleading evidence

to the home select committee? I'm glad you are so confident you think

it's misleading information. I wasn't in the meeting, Andrew. The

chair of the committee says it is now clear... If there is the same

man who walked out of my evidence 50 minute into Keith Vaz? Have you

watched the video? No. I will be happy to. I did ask your research is

to ask you to watch it last night because 50 minute injured, Keith Vaz

leaves. Yeah, yeah, yeah, never mind that. I'm asking you about the Home

Affairs Select Committee. I'm talking about it. The chairman said

it clear they missed that the committee, possibly deliberately,

and if they don't come back and corrected, they will be in contempt

of Parliament. You're saying it's all down to one man? If you let me

answer the question, I think the Police Federation is the methods are

now bigger of one police officer who and because it was legal and the

present chairman, Mr Williams, invited me to work on it. The Home

Affairs Select Committee, I don't know for the those officers went

back and apologised. You now know the IPCC want to investigate them

again. It's no subject to judicial review. We have to wait and see. I

didn't brief them to go before the committee or had anything to do with

it. The entire episode of the Federation no credit at all. It must

think more carefully in the future mother nature of its public

campaigning. We do not think this contract, the one I had with you,

was appropriate, and don't think the work of the brothers Gaunt helped

the police board the consequence was a lowering of the reputation for

that. I can answer that, if Keith Vaz had listened to my evidence plea

didn't, there was a conclusion at the end. The deputy chair said we

have consulted on this. There was no time for consultation. They've

clearly made their minds before I went in there. The report was

clearly written before I gave my evidence but I will go back, the

lowering of the Police Federation is down to the officer who lied not

what we did. Keith Vaz and his committee have a perfect right to

say they think my campaign wasn't very good but the timing of this

report is very interesting. On the eve of the conference, this is a

political move by the political establishment to cower the Police

Federation. The leadership by the way, is rolling over and let them do

it. How much did they pay you? It's all on the record if you want to go

back to it, the interview you haven't watched. All the evidence is

there, Andrew. I'm not going to go into it again. I'm asking you. You

haven't done your research. The ?15,000 a month with other national

contract. Individual contract... So you were on it? My company was, yes.

Do you think they will ask for their money back given the reputation is

on the debt now? I don't think so. Would you give it back to them? Of

course not, what a ridiculous question. My job is to give the

media training and I did it. I then worked with the regions. If you had

watched the Home Affairs Select Committee, which you have failed to

do. Let me bring in Zoe Williams. What is your view? The Police

Federation is a union to represent its members so the idea it shouldn't

be political and anything that goes against the government is political

is really strange. It is there to lobby on behalf of its members. The

Mitchell affair is unfortunate. What about you is that a to further its

campaign? Jews think they were doing that? That's do you think? It was an

open call, wasn't it? It was irresistible, that story. It

should've been resisted. One of the problems with the police, it isn't

just Plebgate. It is Mark Duggan, Hillsborough, it's that poor man who

was bludgeoned to death. And the reputation of the police, all the

police, is absolutely down. It's no good you being self-righteous and

saying, Keith Vaz doesn't listen to my evidence. He couldn't read

afterwards. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter? It doesn't matter

they came to the conclusion? Let her finish. There were loads and loads

of really good, hard-working and very, very courageous police

officers who don't support the report. 91% of police officers...

The Normanton report show that it doesn't agree with a national

leadership for the correctly for the 91%, National leadership. The

absolutely right, the police had taken a hit on a lot of things and

rightly so. Hillsborough, rightly so. The Police Federation is a

professional body to lobby for the rights. -- the rights of the police.

If separate authoritarian. We have to leave it there.

Ed Miliband's guru, called David Axelrod, is in town this week

At the end of the show we'll see if Zoe and Sue can give us

Now it was way back in 2009 that Gordon Brown set up an

Five years later and the man in charge, John Chilcot, still isn't

The delay is being blamed on a disagreement over whether to publish

classified correspondence between former Prime Minister Tony Blair and

This programme has learned that the chairman of the Public

Administration Select Committee, Bernard Jenkin, has written to

Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood and Cabinet Office minister Francis

Maude, warning them that he may call them in front of his committee

Here's Eleanor Garnier's report which does contain

It was Winston Churchill who coined the phrase the special relationship.

He was something of an expert at forging friendships with US

presidents like Franklin D Roosevelt. And since Churchill's

day, Britain's oration ship with America have been pretty much

accepted by all US presidents and British prime ministers. But there

is something lurking that is threatening to turn that special

relationship a little bit sour. It is the Chilcott enquiry. What? Can I

explain what it is? Yes, I can. The Chilcott enquiry is an

independent... The Chilcott enquiry is an independent investigation into

the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. Good morning and welcome to the

Iraqi enquiry's first day of public hearings. Sir John Chilcott is a man

in charge. His enquiry started in 2009. Two years later, it was still

taking evidence from key witnesses but the findings still haven't been

published. The delay is being blamed on discussions between the enquiry

and the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood over the publication of

top-secret notes and conversations between the then Prime Minister Tony

Blair and former US President George Bush. The Prime Minister's patients

are said to be running out and there's frustration from senior Tory

MPs. It's very serious that this report is now at least four years

overdue. So we have written to the Minister to ask for explanation as

to why these delays occurred and what is holding up the publication

of the report? And how these issues will be resolved on the basis of

that, we may call for the Minister or indeed for the Cabinet Secretary

to come and give evidence to explain how they will sort this out. They've

already had a full investigation surrounding the Iraqi war including

the Hutton affair and Butler enquiry. The former Minister from

Tony Blair 's government to the classified correspondence shouldn't

stop this latest report from being published. My experience of chairing

the intelligence and security committee was that we published

very, very sensitive material but we did it by ensuring that those

agents, informants, who might be under threat of death, where

protected by adapting certain sentences so blacking out certain

references, and I don't see why Chilcott enquiry can't do this and

then he will be able to publish as document and we will look at it. The

report is likely to give an indication as to the depth of the

special relationship between Tony Blair and George Bush. So, that is

the situation surrounding the Chilcott E enquiry. Seeing as you

are such good friends, I will leave you chatting while I find out what

is happening. We're joined now by the former

Lib Dem leader Ming Campbell and Anyone who is liable to criticism

gets to see the passage that might criticise him or her. Sir John

Chilcott has not been able to embark upon that process because he is

still in dispute with the Cabinet Secretary as to whether or not there

can ultimately be published the exchanges between George W Bush and

Tony Blair in the run-up to the war. Why are these important? They are

important for this reason. The decision to take military action

against Saddam Hussein was the most serious form of policy blunder

probably since Suez or maybe before that. This particular thing which

says exchanges like that are confidential, it is in the public

interest. The public interest now is overwhelmingly in favour of

understanding the political journey which the Labour government, under

Tony Blair, reached the decision to take military action. That is why in

my view, said John Chilcott is absolutely right and the Government

should acknowledge those requests. There are certain conversations that

should be left to history. Private conversations between leaders can be

blue sky thinking. I do not think what we could gain from theirs. It

was not a policy decision, it was said in a conversation. We would

gain if we knew from the start we were going to war. That would be

important, given what we knew in the run-up. He told us all he had to do

was give up his weapons of mass destruction and there would be no

war. If he told Mr Bush is something very different, that would be

germane. I think it was an offhand conversation. I do not see what we

will learn from it. Do promise you will take this country to war is an

offhand conversation? Do you know it was an actual promise? That is the

whole point. The question is timing. When did Tony Blair commit

the United Kingdom? Was he aware that the argument in favour of

regime change was one which laid very strongly behind the American

position, behind George W Bush? Did he understand that Article two of

the United Nations Charter opposes regime change? We really need to

know how it was that the political thinking developed. Another thing,

which is pushed to one side often, what was the attitude of the Cabinet

towards this? They have been described as supine. Some say the

topic was never properly discussed. That may have been because

commitments had already been given in private conversations. The

American president is covered by executive privilege. Just as if you

had a conversation with your own lawyer. It is a very important

concept. Leaders need to get free and open advice. With Mr Nixon, the

Supreme Court overruled his right to executive privilege, so it is not

necessarily watertight. If I was sitting down with my lawyer and he

wants some crazy ideas to blue sky think, I want him to have the

opportunity of free speech, to get it through the Crucible and

throughout the bad starts. -- stuff. I think that is a different thing.

The point is, if the conversations are going to become public in living

memory, all within the contemporary period of the events, that they will

find another way all closed down that kind of communication? This is

not normal course. That is the point. This is the decision...

Remember a million people walked past this door outside protesting

against this. You cannot find anyone who was in the Labour Cabinet or the

Labour government at the time the decision was made who is trying to

defend now what happened. The consequences were far beyond what

had been anticipated, deeply damaging to Iraq and deeply damaging

both to the United Kingdom and the United States. There seems from what

Menzies Campbell is saying, that there seems to be a stand-off

between Chilcott and the Cabinet Secretary. How does that get

resolved? With difficulty is the answer. I suspect what has to happen

is the pressure needs to be kept up. It seems to me, I absolutely agree

with what Menzies Campbell has said. Normally, civil servants, advisers,

ministers Presidents need to discuss these things will stop I think it is

absolutely in the public interest. I think that Bernard Jenkins saying he

would call Sir Jeremy Heywood in and Francis Maude but it is Jeremy he

would call Sir Jeremy Heywood in and Francis Maude but it is Jeremy who

is the, they must not be allowed to get away with continually saying, it

is difficult. I am told it is the lawyers, as you suggested, saying it

would set a precedent. It should not be left to the lawyers. Executive

privilege would only work as an argued if, in this case, Tony Blair

were not already held to have behaved wrongly. I think it would

work in his favour to have those conversations released. There is

nothing they could release that people do not already say about him.

We all think he had given... It is a different issue. We all think that

he had made an agreement with George Bush we do not know about. All it

could do is either confirm that or deny it and I do not think he is

doing his own case a favour by trying to keep it private. He is

making it worse. People are saying, Michael Dobbs the other day, this

has all happened because Blair is putting the pressure on. I do not

think that is true. Cabinet secretaries are close to whichever

ministers they are working with. Mr Blair Brown what was subsequently

called a sofa government. At that time, he was permanent secretary at

number ten. When it looked like there might be coalitions and we

asked whether the civil service was ready for a coalition government, he

said, we're not even ready for a change of government. Where do we go

from here? It seems from what you say, this is still an unresolved

argument. Even when it is resolved .com -- when it is resolved, it goes

back to Robert Maxwell. He was criticised and now he could have

been entirely right but that is a different debate. This is not going

to happen before the election, is it? There are those who believe that

this delay, among other things, as its purpose, kicking this into the

long grass until after the election. Where this to be published in the

run-up to the general election, it would become part of the campaign.

Why would the Conservative government or conservative and

Democrat government be reluctant? Not the current regime. I think

there were 25 who did not agree. Ken Taylor, Douglas Hurd and others.

Labour would take the biggest hit. I think Labour would benefit from

having an open Anne Frank discussion about who thinks what an saying,

this is what we stand for. -- Anne Frank discussion. The danger is that

American presidents will be wary of this. If you want a current version

of this deal, look at the Benghazi scandal. I can understand it.

it's the debates between the five main candidates for the post

There are some similarities with Eurovision though.

Last night was the grand finale and it was shown on 49 TV stations.

We have to invest into the economy but a greener economy cars we need

to create sustainable jobs, jobs that will still be there in a couple

of decades. Jobs that give good quality of life. Apple wants to

start with a new product for the bigger to the four main operators

and start immediately to start a new product. If we had to do it, we need

100 operators in 28 different countries. That is why they have

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft. They are all American

companies and we still need to do that. The biggest deficit in Europe

is a democratic deficit. Citizens stay away. They do not believe their

vote will make a big change to the strategy and direction of Europe as

it currently is. In the past, the European elections were boring.

There was no confrontation. Secondly, it was abused for mid-term

election of national governments. I think the debate here shows we are

changing in the European Union, to more democracy, more controversial

debate, Porter 's bouncy. This is a step forward. I would like a Europe

that does not cultivate divisions. I would like to put an end to

divisions between north and south, young and old member states. I would

like a Europe of consensus, of wise compromise. I would like a Europe

which allows the Europeans to fall back in love with Europe. I'd bet

you are disappointed you missed that.

Joining me now from Brussels is our correspondent,

Duncan Crawford, who soaked up every minute of the debate.

Why are these debates happening? They are taking place to drum up

support for what is going on in the European Parliamentary elections and

also to put a face to the party to try to end the democratic deficit

the European Commission has. You have the five main party group

candidates. You saw them speak there. They believe that if their

party group gets the most MEPs in the European Parliamentary

elections, they should be the one to head up the European Commission. It

is a big job for the European Commission president. It is the only

institution in the EU which can propose legislation. He or she,

whoever gets that post, will be able to influence the direction which

Europe moves in for the next five years. So, they have the debate. It

was polite at those times. They did not disagree that often. There were

a few jibes at each other and some disagreement. Largely on the big

economic matters, trying to get people out of unemployment and into

jobs, tackling youth unemployment and immigration, illegal

immigration. There was a lot of consensus. I understand that despite

the opened transparency of the debate and whoever is the largest

group can choose the president of the commission from the European

Parliament, it could still be done in a backroom deal by the leaders of

the nation states. You are right. Basically, historically, it always

has been done that way. David Cameron, Angela Merkel, their

predecessors in the past, they would have gone behind closed doors and

work out who they would want to have the top job of the European

Commission president. This time around, it is different because of

the Lisbon Treaty. It says that EU heads of member states say they need

to take into consideration what the European Parliament wants. Certainly

the potential for some institutional deadlock in Brussels over this.

David Cameron will have concerns about the five candidates involved

in this debate last night. Most likely they will be viewed as too

federalist, two in favour of integration in Europe. If David

Cameron wins the next general election, he wants to renegotiate

Britain 's relationship with the EU. Before we get to that, I want to get

a brief wedding about Scotland. I understand there was a mention of

Scotland last night. What did they say about this argument that if

Scotland The general answer was they shouldn't get involved, it wasn't a

thing for the EU to comment on at this stage, it is up to the member

states are bad, that said, Martin Short, the Socialist candidate who

is currently the European Parliament president, said the procedures could

be followed suggesting that Scotland, if it became independent,

could join with the EU and the Green candidates, she talks about

welcoming Scotland into the EU. Would they have to reapply? They

didn't say they would have to reapply. They basically ducked the

question is that it wasn't their place to comment. The Green

candidate was talking about welcoming Scotland into the EU,

independently, about as positive as it got, really, for Alex Salmond.

Thank you very much. Does this make the European elections more

interesting? I give them half a small cheer for shuffling towards

something slightly more democratic. But otherwise, no. Ultimately, if

the heads of individual countries decide who to have, then that's

almost certainly going to be who it will be. It could be very

interesting, the row between them, but I bet that is smoothed over and

deals are done behind closed doors. Neither are the frontrunners, are

coming anywhere near here in this country. We are not going to see

site nor sound of them. Labour and the Lib Dems will be happy with that

because both are very staunch federalists. I know why they like

Scotland, because it's so windy. The Green party is fit in favour of

independence. More windmills, more wind farms. It's the jewel in our

green crime. O. Then you are unlikely to be acceptable to the

Prime Minister is the Irish prime ministers. It's very difficult. Even

though socialist doesn't mean the same thing, if you are voting

socialist, you would be voting for somebody on the left. It's

federalism Mr Cameron is objecting to. They all are. Maybe that's not

why they're coming here. The interesting thing is, the impetus in

Europe this towards greater federalisation because that's the

only way they would get out of the Euro crisis. And avert another

crisis. Nothing David Cameron does Canada reflect what is best for

Europe. OK, let's move on. So that's one attempt to get voters

engaged ahead In case you'd forgotten,

although that would be pretty tricky if you're a regular viewer

of this show, next Thursday is And if you live

in England or Northern Ireland you could also be voting in local

and mayoral elections. The turn out for these types of

election are usually pretty poor. But with the EU never far

from the headlines will this year be Adam's been out to find out

if people are feeling switched on, Do you know what's happening next

Thursday? Do you know how many MEPs will be elected next Thursday? 50.

60? 120. 100? 73. Tell your friends. Where are you from? Belgium. Will

you be voting next week? Yes, Belgium has compulsory voting. What

happens is be done to vote? You could get fined. Do you know the

European Parliament is? Brussels? And? It's in France. It's gone.

Strasberg. Yes. How much of your councillors up for election? I don't

know. I don't know what proportion is up for election. I think we had

about six candidates. That's all I know from the voting form. Do you

know what voting system they use for the European elections? It's a form

of proportional representation. An open list or a closed list? It's a

party list system. Do you work for a party? I am a candidate, yes. I

thought using suspiciously familiar. And well-informed. I think that's

the only reason he knew the answer. And we're joined now by Katie Ghose

from the Electoral Reform Society. As the name suggests, they campaign

for reforms to the electoral system. It's interesting the more power

that's gone to the European Parliament, the lower the turnout in

the election has been. That's right, and without expecting a turnout for

the year rose or the locals to be higher than the low 30s, which is

where it has remained stubbornly low and also we not saying that although

Europe is all over the headlines, that's not translating into a huge

public appetite to go to the polls and it's also not leading people to

take part in local democracy more. This is a long-term problem. People

have been tuning out from formal party politics from long time and I

don't think there's a quick fix to that. In the Euro election, the

first time in 1979 with 62%, which seemed quite healthy but by 2009, it

dropped to 43% and it's probably going to be lower this time. People

don't think it matters very much? People feel it's very remote. People

feel national MPs are increasingly alien from their concerns. Whether

that's fair or not. You take the European Council, it feels even more

remote. Actually, these politicians and decision-makers have a say and

influence over jobs and homes and security but people don't feel it to

be that way. On the local elections, I was covering the local elections

in France. The turnout was pretty impressive both in the first round

and the second round. One of the reasons for that is that it matters

in France who the Mayor is. It matters who the local councillors.

They have real power. In many ways, I live in France for part of the

year, and it's more important to me who my local French Maher is done

the president is. -- French Mayor. You've hit the nail on the head. If

there were more meaningful powers and budget held locally, people

might feel it was worth going to the polls but we've also got a very

outdated system which means there are loads of uncontested seats.

Between 2011-14, two .5 mil in people didn't have a save -- say

because only one party going for it in the award, uncontested. And also

the party thought, I'd better put my resources elsewhere. We are

disenfranchising millions of people. No wonder people are thinking with a

platter of uncontested seats, if not is worth my while. In Scotland, the

referendum there, even very hard and nonvoters are saying and going to

give my damnedest to this and I'm going to vote in the referendum. You

think the turnout on September 18 will be very high? Yes. It's going

to be really-I'm not going to have a stab at it. I've had discussions

with Scottish people who don't normally vote and they say this is

the future of my country and 16-year-olds are going to be voting

for the first time and this is very exciting. I think they will be very

engaged and it's only a matter of time before we have young people

developing the voting habits for life. Maybe this is another problem

here, the European Parliament for the London region. The whole of

London? Yes, the London region. You vote only once by putting across in

the box next to your choice. I thought the system was proportional

representation? You don't have much choice as as a closed system. This

gives the names, people on this list of been chosen by the parties. They

have behaved themselves. Yes, and parties are too much control. If we

want to breathe fresh life into politics, we need to respond to

modern voters who want choice. Do you know who your MEP is? When I do

it, you have got to shock me but an informal vote swapping system.

Across the country. There is somebody I want to vote for in the

south-west. I could sever the Facebook page and it will be trust

based. You can't enforce it but you can say, you vote was so-and-so and

in return, I will vote for your party. I think that's going to be

quite unusual. Do you know the name of your MEP? I'm afraid I don't. I

don't. If I saw it, it would ring about.

LAUGHTER The fact people have to think about

tactics shows we have a pretty old-fashioned system that's not

working. People like these two don't know who the MEPs are, what hope for

the rest? That's the problem. Also three quarters of British people

feel their voice doesn't count in the European Union, so it's the

thing is not being heard. I just wonder, I know what you're saying,

but in some places, please, the controversy and the impact of UKIP

isn't going to put off the turnout. I think it could happen. Newark is

very soon after if you kept us very well in these elections. I will def

to the other five I have got. Thank you for being with us.

Now, in America, politicians quite regularly say they

are driven by their Christian faith to take public office.

Over here MPs tend to be more reticent about discussing religion

And when they do, it can cause a bit of a kerfuffle.

Ahead of Easter Sunday, David Cameron wrote in the Church Times

that Britain should be proud of its status as a Christian country.

Plenty of secularists disputed that, and the former Archbishop

of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said that Britain was

a post-Christian country because so many people have given up

One small group called the Christian People's Alliance is hoping to prove

him wrong and make an impact at next week's European elections.

They want to leave the EU, but in the meantime they want to bring

What they describe as their key moral issues include the importance

The leader of the Christian People's Alliance, Sid Cordle joins us now.

If you have a Christian Prime Minister who says we live in a

Christian country, why do we need your party? Because basically this

government has not pursued Christian policies. There are a lot of reports

because this is a European election, coming to the European Parliament on

issues like abortion, one of the proposals is going to take away the

right of the doctor to refuse to conduct an abortion. Other proposals

are saying they want to dictate what is taught in schools on sex

education. The Conservatives have abstained on all these reports.

There is no opposition coming from the Conservative Party. But there

are strong Christians on both sides of the house. For people who think

like you, would they not be more progress? More likely to influence

the debate if you concentrated all votes on getting people elected

rather than your own people? You and I both know you're not going to win

any seats. No, I don't accept that. This is a tremendous opportunity for

us. There are an enormous number of Christians who have left the

Conservative Party over the issue of same-sex marriage. Sadly, too many

of them have gone to UKIP. But I think they are beginning to find

that in UKIP, it's not a natural home for Christians. This issues of

racism in UKIP. They have made life difficult for you, haven't they? You

would be doing better if they didn't exist? Not necessarily. UKIP brought

the whole issue of Europe onto the agenda and they provide an

attractive alternative which hasn't really existed before. It's only

existed fairly recently, but people need to see that, actually, I don't

believe the majority of people in this country want to live under a

UKIP government. Frankly. I think there would be happy to live under

Christian People's Alliance government. Do you? Absolutely. The

Pope said last, if the person is gay and six God and has good will, who

am I to judge? Would you welcome though some gay people? Of course,

don't judge people because of their lifestyle. When not against people

but the principles on which we stand. Earlier this year, UKIP

councillors said the floods in Britain were due to gay marriage.

You wouldn't accept that? the way he said it was completely wrong. What

about the substance? All Christians believe that God does things with

nature. Because he is gay? He supports gay marriage? A lot of

Christians believe that God is angry at gay marriage. Where David Silva

Esther was wrong is to be adamant this is the case. If he thinks it is

possible this is the case, the majority of Christians, I certainly

would agree with that. You tweeted that if the head of the Environment

Agency, Chris Smith, one of the most openly gay politicians in British

life, if he resigned the floods would stop. If he resigned, the

floods with stop. You said it is like Job. If he resigned p, I am

sure the floods would stop. I not know quite where that quote has come

from. That is from your tweets. One of the problems on Twitter is you

only have a very few words to say. It is quite clear what you said. If

gay people could change the weather, wouldn't that make them God 's

anointed people? I think, quite honestly, we are delving into an

area which is quite honestly not of interest to the majority of people.

You are socially conservative, aren't you? What I would say

categorically is, as a Christian, I believe God is involved in every

aspect of society. He is very interested in marriage. Marriage is

a pillar of society and vitally important to us. I believe children

need a mother and a father and they need that stability. Breakdown of

marriage is costing this country some 46 billion. That will rise to

49 billion. We need to do something about it and it does matter. In

America, that would be regarded as the socially conservative Christian

view. That is what you represent in this country, am I right? What he

said on gay marriage and whether children should be brought up by two

parents in the same sex and so on... I would say I am a Christian.

A Christian is a follower of Jesus 's teaching. That is clear and I

have no problem whatsoever in following that teaching. We are

grateful for you coming in and explaining that. We will have you

back. If you've been watching the BBC

during the early evenings or sometimes late

at night over the last month, Not just how The One Show is really

just a pale imitation of the Daily Politics but a rash

of party election broadcasts. Since the early days of BBC radio,

the political parties have been given a slice of airtime to

communicate directly to the voters Let's have a look at some

of the most recent crop. I believe you have the right to have

your say on Europe. When we have finished renegotiating Britain 's

relationship with the European Union, we will give you the final

decision with them in /out referendum by the end of 2017. Let

open all the doors and batten down the hatches. Sky 20 million

immigrants. That is why, when it comes to Europe, the answer is

simple. On 22nd of May, take the right choice and vote for...

Something else. The last two generations have been robbed of

voting on the EU yet it has a great impact on our everyday lives than

anything else. We need to put this issue to bed now and not leave it

for another generation. I'm asking you to vote for the Liberal

Democrats, the party of in. In for the sake of British prosperity and

jobs. If I allow energy companies to raise their prices, you will defend

it? You will keep your mouth shut about huge profits? Yes. Jolly good,

well done you. We are joined by the man who designed how much airtime

parties will get. Welcome to both of you. Do people enjoy watching these

party election broadcasts or can you see a switch off when they come on?

Definitely. You switch on for Phil Mitchell and you get David Cameron.

He is in EastEnders. That is a small programme on BBC One! I think it can

have a counter-productive effect. People can be turned off. They want

to watch their favourite programme and there is a politician. I wanted

to get away from those guys, I have just watched the news and here they

are again, trying to ram ideas down my throat and I do not like that. It

plays into the idea of political apathy. Voting levels are down. Do

you think it was that kind of fear that led Labour to make this

controversial TV about the shrinking... ? First of all the fear

of showing Ed Miliband. He is not in it. Labour is mentioned in the last

really second of it. David Axelrod has been brought in to try to

improve his TV profile. His three advisers are all from newspapers. He

is perceived as a turn-off. Voting, their poll in the internal pressure

groups and their little focus groups that they do, are suggesting that

people think he is a bit of a geek. Do not put him on your TV. I think

it is a very bad idea to go negative. You're going to send

people into the warm embrace of UKIP. You are saying all politicians

are the same and it is extremely cynical. Let's have a look at some

of the rules on this. What are the rules when it comes to PEB is? How

do parties qualify for getting airtime and how do you decide how

many slots they get? Thank you for that one. The starting point is how

many candidates they are putting up. It is different in different sorts

of elections. Let's take the European elections. If you have a

full slate of candidates in England, you get a single broadcast. There is

a second criteria which is parties that can demonstrate electoral

support will get additional broadcasts. Traditionally, three

broadcasts were Labour, Tory, UKIP, the Lib Dems. The Greens have two.

It is based as a starting point for 2009. The smaller parties will get

one broadcast and the bigger parties will get more in the Europeans. In

the locals, they'll get one. When they demonstrate support, the polls

relevant? Can be. You take that into account. We take that into account

in our editorial coverage. The process of deciding this is, the

starting point, it is candidates. Largely it is what happened in the

last equivalent election. A lot of our viewers have wondered, and even

complained, about why UKIP is getting so much time? They get three

broadcasts, as they did in 2009. If you look back at the previous

European elections, in 2004 they did pretty well. That is why they got

the same number of broadcasts in 2009. They came second in 2009. It

would be quite reasonable for them not to get the same number of

broadcasts as the bigger parties. Some also think they are getting too

much time on programmes like this. Is there a formula for how much time

they all get in the run-up to the they all get in the run-up to the

elections? Formula is too strong a word, it implies you

elections? Formula is too strong a that you do it with good judgment.

You look at the fact that UKIP did well last time. It makes sense for

them to have the same kind of coverage and scrutiny that the

bigger parties are getting. You do take that into account. You have got

to take account as well of things that may have happened since,

subsequent elections. They have had a very strong run in the opinion

polls. The polls can be relevant. UKIP have been running ahead of the

Lib Dems for getting on for two years. People often wonder why Nigel

Farage appears so much on current affairs broadcasts where somebody

like Caroline Lucas does not. UKIP has no MP and make do point out that

opinion polls of the Mirror the picture you see on current affairs

broadcasts. If you are often represented, some would say in

excess of their real representation... I think the mirror

thing does not work. You look at the opinion polls and it is a really

robust trend. What has happened in the past two years in terms of

support for UKIP, if you look what happened in the local elections last

time, UKIP had no background in the councils and they shot towards 20%.

If you look at by-elections in local councils, UKIP have been, not just

an opinion polls, but real votes have been getting around 17 to 20%,

ahead of the Lib Dems. You get a small boost, more coverage and then

more boost. Firemen cut we have to give them coverage if people are

giving them support. -- we have to give them coverage if people are

giving them support. Natalie Bennett will be on the Sunday Politics. It

is not random. It is by looking at objective figures on how people

vote. What do you make about the idea of hosting a TV debate online?

The Wild West of the internet! You might put an audience that seems to

be totally uninterested in politics at the moment. I mentioned before,

voter apathy. It is strong among the younger people. They think, these

people are not speaking for us. They are all middle-aged men in suits and

they are not speaking for me. If you put them on a forum where they might

achieve in, I do not think that is a good idea. Sky one advantage of it,

to a greater extent it cuts out the political class that the

broadcasters, the politicians... There would be far fewer rules and

regulations which politicians often used as an excuse for not doing TV

debates. We would love to do them but the rules, we cannot abide by

them. The other thing is... You can use, I think... There will be

opportunities to use Skype and video to bring in a far greater number of

people asking questions directly instead of the traditional studio.

It is not either/or. As you saw there,

the American political guru, David Axelrod, who's fast becoming a bit

of an obsession here at Westminster, has been in London meeting senior

Labour figures this week. So let's find out the answer to

our quiz. We asked what's wrong with

this tweet from Mr Axelrod? He's spelt the Labour leader's name

wrong and, in doing so, Thanks to our back on BBC One

on Sunday with an elections feast on the Sunday Politics,

with Sajid Javid, Simon Hughes Female artists have rocked the world

for centuries. Not only did she impress and surprise

Michelangelo, in her nineties,

she won the homage of van Dyck. So just how did they push the

boundaries and flout convention?