02/06/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



but will any of them tickle the electorate's taste buds?


He could be running the EU soon, in which case David Cameron won't be


How accurate were you? I am very pleased that you mentioned that.


Basically, our poll was not conducted on the eve of the


election, it was conducted a week in advance. Subsequently we found that


a fifth of those who said that they voted in the European elections said


that they made up their mind in that last week before the election. So,


an average error of 2.8%, we got the five parties in the right order.


Actually, we were one of the first to predict that UKIP was going to


come first in the European elections, which we are pleased


with. But obviously, it is not an eve of the election poll, it was a


snapshot point in time rather than a prediction. You say you were the


first company to say that UKIP would top the poll, but you did


overestimate the share of the vote that they would get, and you think


the reason for that is that it was not done on the eve of the


election? That's right. Everything narrowed a bit towards the election.


Actually, you people that conducted their polling closer to the election


were much more accurate. It was a point in time, rather than the


predictive element. Looking at Labour and the Conservatives, they


were much closer in the end, were you surprised by that, that they


narrowed towards the end? Not necessarily. I think people were


making up their minds until that point in time, and further out,


people were potentially trying to be a little bit more, there were trying


to protest in their vote, in the voting intentions polls, but when it


came to it, they decided to vote for the main two parties. What do you


think worthy influences in those last few days? Because we had been


discussing the main issues for months beforehand... It was very


difficult, there were a lot of difficult stories regarding UKIP,


regarding the other parties. It is difficult to say what actually swung


it. But as it was, it was a great result for UKIP. And we did predict


them to come first. What about the Liberal Democrats, because they


imploded? What do you think that says, one year out from the general


election? It shows that it is going to be very, very difficult for them.


We have done focus groups among people who voted Lib Dem in 2010,


and they feel really very betrayed by the party. And I think the


polling showed that just it is going to be very difficult, but actually,


we need to take into consideration factors such as incumbents in, so,


although it was a bad result, it is yet to be seen how bad it will be


next year. There has been plenty of discussion about the leadership of


Nick Clegg, so do you think he will stay? I think it is going to be


difficult to oust him. Certainly, the failed coup last week showed


that. But I think it is going to change as we come towards the


election. That will focus minds. But in the European election, everything


was focused on the Lib Dem is, rather than Labour. What about the


state of Labour in the Conservatives and of the general election? And


think it is fair to say that Labour would have liked to be much further


ahead than they were. As everybody keeps saying, this general election


is about momentum. We have got a year, it is going to be the longest


campaign ever, and with Labour not having that momentum behind it in


the European elections, it will be difficult for them going into party


conference. Yesterday,


the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown was on the telly and he was


asked about the plot to get rid of Nick Clegg following the party's


disastrous election performance. And he appeared to compare the


Business Secretary, Vince Cable, to Was it a) Romeo b) Iago c)


Richard III or d) Macbeth? And in a bit, Katharine will


give us the correct answer. The Conservative Party are


considering offering Scotland full control of income tax as part of a


devolution sweetener if Scots choose to reject the offer of independence


in September's referendum. It would mark a significant U-turn


for the party, who have always resisted further


devolution, including voting against the setting up


of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. Last year, Ruth Davidson,


the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, set up a commission


chaired by Lord Strathclyde to look at the issue of further powers


for the Scottish Parliament. It recommends that all income


tax-raising powers should be transferred to Holyrood, giving the


Scottish Parliament responsibility Writing in the Scotland on Sunday


over the weekend, Ms Davidson described the current limited powers


over tax were destabilising and akin Scotland currently has


the power to vary the existing income tax bands by up to 3%, and


this will increase to 10% from 2016 The Tories are the last of the main


parties to outline their plans, with Labour planning devolution of three


quarters of the 20p tax rate and control over housing benefit and


more powers for Scotland's islands. Meanwhile the Lib Dems have proposed


that Holyrood should raise 50% of the money it spends


and have control over income, Joining me now from our Glasgow


newsroom is our politIcal How significant is this? I think it


is significant. The Conservatives started out opposing devolution


altogether, and they have certainly not been at the forefront of pushing


the boundaries of it over the last 15 years. This looks to be a bit


different. The headline measure, the full devolution of income tax, is


actually slightly more radical than what the Labour Party is proposing,


if there is a no vote in September. Ruth Davidson, the leader of the


Conservative Party in Scotland, was elected to that position talking of


a line in the sand, that the powers which are coming to the Scottish


Parliament regardless of the independence referendum vote, that


these should be a line in the sand, and that there should not be further


development of devolution. But now she is saying, and the proposals of


this draft guide commission are covering this, and saying that these


should be in the Conservatives' manifesto for 2015. How much impact


do you think all of this discussion about tax-raising powers will have


on undecided voters in Scotland? I think the parties advocating


Scotland's continuing relationship with the rest of the UK, advocating


a no vote in the referendum, by which I mean Labour, the


Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, are all determined not to


be seen as the parties of no change. And so, they have all been


developing these proposals for further devolution if there is a no


vote. And I think they have done that in part because most opinion


polls suggest that whilst there is not yet a majority for


independence, most polls do suggest that there is an appetite for the


Scottish Parliament to take greater control over the domestic affairs of


Scotland. And the Conservatives are saying, giving it full control over


income tax would be about accountability, making the


parliament accountable for raising much more of the money which it


spends. With us now from Edinburgh is Marco


Biagi from the SNP, and the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth


Davidson, joins us from Glasgow. Starting with you, Marco Biagi, do


you welcome this? We welcome that there is now a consensus which says


Scotland needs more powers, it is good to see the Tories joining in


with that. But the question now is the scale of those powers, and who


can be trusted to deliver them. With a yes vote, we do not just get


income tax, we get control over all things, most importantly our oil


revenues, which continue to flow south, even under these proposals.


But also there is the question of whether the Tories can be depended


upon to follow through on these. You have already referred to was


Davidson's line in the sand statement, and the fact that a few


extra powers have been mooted. That was following a long process of


liberation by the three no campaign parties to decide what they wanted


to offer extra. Surely the Tories would not come out as publicly as


this if they were not serious about it? Well, they have had form on


doing that, in 1979, they did precisely that. But you have to ask,


what has changed between the Calman commission reporting a few extra


powers, stamp duty and landfill tax, and now, an independence


referendum, that is what has changed, and these parties have an


incentive to try to offer the minimum possible they can to try to


win this. You have to ask, can you really trust the Tories as a party


which has always been against devolution? The only option is with


a yes vote. Adam Tomkins, respond to the fact that there is not much


trust with the Conservatives, is this not just a straightforward


bribe? Not at all. The Conservative Party now has an established record


of delivering with devolution. The Conservative government delivered


the Scotland act 2012, which allowed for the biggest fiscal transfer in


British fiscal history. It is the Conservative government after 2015,


should they win, who will deliver the proposals that the Strathclyde


commission has published this morning. And those proposals are


designed simultaneously to strengthen the union, the family of


nations in this country, and also to give Scots autonomy over their


domestic affairs, which they are reported to crave in opinion poll


after opinion poll. Scots do not want independence, they want crater,


enhanced devolution. There are those who say it would be easier to shift


the blame if things go wrong if Scottish people control more of


their tax-raising powers. It would be harder for an SNP government to


blame Westminster? That's right. At the moment, the Scottish Parliament


is responsible for a very large amount of money, ?35 billion, about


60%, more than that, of identifiable public expenditure in Scotland, is


already the responsibility Holyrood. But even under the


Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Government is not responsible for


raising much of the money it spends. It is true, isn't it, most


people in Scotland want more powers, they do not want full


independence? The polls are closing in favour of yes at the moment. But


all this conversation seems to be about tax, not so much about areas


of response ability. Where are the promises over support for business,


new powers to help improve state pension or to extend childcare and


gain revenue from its? These are areas which are absent, as far as I


can see, from the Conservative proposals, but things we would be


able to do with a yes vote. But actually you have some tax-raising


powers already, able to do with a yes vote. But


actually you have which you choose not to use, and yet you want to


continue with things like free prescription charges, neo- tuition


fees, a certain amount of social care paid for. You would have to pay


for these things, so would you be able to do it?


moment, there have been substantial changes. The income tax powers were


set up in 1997 to try to be almost impossible. If we wanted to move it


up down, most of it would be swallowed up by an administration


charge by HMRC. There is a danger that we go down the same path if


similar canard is put up to try to persuade people that these are real


powers when, in fact, the great majority of power, the areas of


responsibility where any normal parliament would be able to deliver


for its people, are continued to be denied to Scotland. Eight "yes" vote


means we have power over all areas. But it is about how you run things


economically as far as both people involved on both sides would argue.


As Ruth Davidson is calling for, the way income tax has gone is not


different from the offer of independence massively because you


would have your own currency and wouldn't be setting your own


interest rates. -- wouldn't have your own currency. There are three


key areas where we wouldn't have control, even under Ruth Davidson's


proposals. The idea that we are putting forward is of two sovereign


nations in partnership so yes, where we agree on things and can get


common interest, on things like currency or anything else, we have


two sovereign nations working in partnership. We do take different


approaches and have different priorities in some places, and we


can do things differently. It's interesting how the SNP can't answer


that question. Enhanced devolution is what the majority of Scots want.


There is no great enthusiasm in Scotland for independence, there is


no great enthusiasm for the constitutional status quo. The only


party not to have recognised this is the SNP. Labour, Lib Dems and now


the Scottish Conservatives have all but forward very ambitious proposals


for home rule for Scotland within the UK and that is what the majority


of Scots want and only eight no vote will deliver that. A yes vote will


deliver not more devolution but the end of devolution. What about the


point Marco Biagi makes that you are talking about tax-raising powers but


what about the area of responsibility like pensions? The


Strathclyde commission looked at pensions and we took the view, which


is also the view of the vast majority of Scots who respond to


things like the Scottish social attitudes survey, that there is no


great appetite for the state pension to be different in Scotland from the


rest of the UK, nor is there any great ambition among Scottish


taxpayers that they alone should have to fund the state pension in


Scotland. There is a very important part of the fabric of our union


which is that you are able to retire anywhere in the UK irrespective of


where you worked, irrespective of where you paid tax when you were a


wage earner. To break that apart, I think, is in nobody's interests at


all. Thank you both very much. Katharine, looking at the polls


mentioned by Marco Biagi from the SNP, have they moved much? There is


a lot of difference between different polling organisations in


terms of yes and no votes. Certainly the no vote is ahead but by how


much, it really depends. Who is going to impact the outcome are the


people who say they don't know. They are the crucial ones we need to look


at. In terms of that figure, how many people are we talking about?


It's fairly substantial, isn't it? At least one in five people. So it


could tip the vote one way or the other, bearing in mind how close the


campaigns have become. That's right. But looking at options such as Devo


Max, that has always been quite popular in Scotland. What you see


now is with all the parties are lining more or less on increased


devolution powers, a no vote is almost a default vote for increased


devolution and powers. So the goalposts are changing somewhat. Do


you think that's going to make it harder for the yes campaign to get


any more in terms of votes from the underside? It's difficult to tell at


this stage but I would expect that it is going to make the no vote more


attractive because it has removed some of the risks involved.


In the run-up to the European and local elections, the Daily Politics


interviewed rather a lot of politicians from rather a lot of


parties. One took exception to this on the eve of polling day. Isn't it


a problem in these elections that the class you are talking about is


actually shrunk in recent years and, actually, you and I know they don't


vote for this. Otherwise we would be talking about you in the same way


they have been talking about UKIP, the Greens and whatever. The working


class hasn't shrunk. The working class is as big as it ever was, if


not bigger. Most people are struggling to get by and need an


alternative. Our job is to convince them that socialism is that


alternative. If all the socialist parties got together, wouldn't you


have a better chance of getting your arguments across? You aren't that


far distant, are you? I think we're very different from those. We are a


revolution is so sherry party. They are like a ginger group in the


Labour Party. Well, we're joined now by Chris


Marsden from the Socialist Equality Party. Tell us why you are upset by


that interview. Well, I thought the crack at the end was uncalled for


and demonstrated bias and it trivialised something which was


quite serious. If you consider that at the moment, you have a situation


in which the government, and senior figures in the government, are


calling for Alan Rusbridger to be prosecuted for publishing material


from Edward Snowden, and then it's suggested that socialists are in


favour of persecution of journalists, that's obviously false.


That was a joke. It was the end of the interview... There was a lot of


schoolboy humour in the interview but the point about it is that I


believe that your viewers deserve better. These are important


elections, under conditions in which many, many millions of people are


struggling to get by. You've got a 12% decline in people's living


standards, austerities measures being imposed across Europe... How


many other TV interviews did you have? This is the only TV interview


I did. I did several other radio interviews. You could argue the


programme does take it seriously and we do interview the smaller parties.


I'm just trying to find out whether you really did take offence at that


time or whether it was something that came afterwards that you


thought was belittling the party in some way. I thought it was


belittling immediately. The reference was from Citizen Smith.


Against the wall and that sort of thing. The socialism we believe in


is a democratic ego Terry and mass movement of the working class that


is not about suppressing journalists. -- ego Terry. I


disagree with being associated with it. It is one thing to interview


small parties, it's another thing... What is the purpose of


this? We are fighting to represent the working class under conditions


in which no one seeking to represent the working class. Lots of parties


claim to represent the working class. They may be wrong in your


eyes but they do claim to represent the working class. None of the mass


parties do, including the Labour Party. They are committed to


austerity, two cuts, to militarism, like the conflict developing in


Ukraine, which is extremely dangerous for the working class of


Europe. They're pushing Russia into conditions in which they could


develop into a war in Europe. You came 10th out of 15 parties and you


were beaten by the Cama group pirates Party. Do you still think


it's worth the effort? -- the Pirate Party. In different circumstances,


we would have got a better vote. But we are not a Parliamentary party. We


base ourselves on the class struggle. Our aim is to give a voice


and perspective to the working class. Our party's growth is


conditioned on the extent to which the working class moves into


political struggle and if you don't think that's going to happen, you


are blind because this situation cannot continue. We can't have the


rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer out in an item


without there being a serious shift in the political conscience of broad


layers of working class. Thank you. Newark is a Nottinghamshire town


used to being under siege. During the English Civil War, it was a


royalist stronghold. The parliamentarians laid siege to it


three times before it eventually surrendered. Over the last week,


Parliament and the press have done it again. Why? The small matter of a


rather important by-election this Thursday. Here's Adam.


Newark's distinctly damp option market. They're having a by-election


here because their previous MP, Patrick Mercer, offered himself to


sail for some reporters posing as lobbyists. The mood here is a bit


wet. Did you know the by-election was happening? No. I don't take any


notice of them. They're was happening? No. I don't take any


to me. Is there a sense of by-election fever? I haven't noticed


it. But there has been a total deluge of politicians thought for


the Lib Dems, David Watts. Michael deluge of politicians thought for


Payne for Labour. UKIP's Roger Helmer, hoping to capitalise on his


party's victory in the European elections. The Conservative Robert


Jenrick is fighting back with a different VIP by his side almost


every day. All in a constituency that is part countryside, part


market town. It's steeped in history, especially the English


Civil War. He is a piece of political trivia for you. William


Gladstone was first elected as an MP in this constituency. He gave his


victory speech from the balcony of that hotel, which gives me an idea


for a Daily Politics by-election candidate quiz.


Who is your favourite Prime Minister from history and why? William


Gladstone was a fantastic MP for Newark. He didn't stay here very


long after falling out with the juke of Newcastle who controlled


elections in those days so it was easier to be elected in Newark in


the 19th-century than today. I don't think I have a favourite Prime


Minister because all of them have outlaws. I think my favourite


politician was Paddy Ashdown, who should have been Prime Minister but


never quite made it. It's got to be so Winston Churchill, hasn't it? He


made a difference in the last century that probably no other Prime


Minister has made. He saved our country. It might sound cliche but I


think it's got to be Clement Attlee. After seeing a world that


was fighting, he realised we had to rebuild the country. Proud of the


NHS. I was at the Newark hospital today. You didn't say David


Cameron. The prime and it has been very supportive. We've had him three


times in the constituency and are grateful for that. We're not going


to see Prime Minister Nigel Farage, are we? Well, I wouldn't be so


sure. No Blair or brown? are we? Well, I wouldn't be so


country. Aww, you all get a prize! Apparently the blues are in the lead


up this bakery Apparently the blues are in the lead


is, can the purples taste victory in a Westminster election for the first


time ever? Delicious! There are 11 candidates


standing in the Newark by-election. The BBC website has all the details.


Chris Mason is in Newark, The BBC website has all the details.


who your favourite Prime Minister was or how many buttons you might


have eaten but over to you, Chris. -- bonds.


have eaten but over to you, Chris. Good afternoon. We have been a bit


more lucky with the weather than Adam was the other day. This square


is absolutely groaning with politicians. If you popped in for


your cabbages or tomatoes or duck politicians. If you popped in for


eggs - ?1 9412 - the chances are, you are going to get badgered by


rosette wearing politicians. The UKIP caravan turned up at about


8:30am but there are more Conservative MPs here, I suspect,


than there are Westminster. It has the feel of an election race that


isn't in a safe seat, despite the Conservative majority last time


being more than 16,000. Adam has his mood balls when he goes out and


about testing public opinion well, your heart out, because I've got the


Daily Politics whiteboard. I've been doing a word association game with


voters in the square, asking what they think when I name the main


parties will top Conservative - not interested in me or nothing. This is


not remedy scientific. interested in me or nothing. This is


different, useless, interested in me or nothing. This is


dividing opinion - makes more interested in me or nothing. This is


to me, reminds me of Australia's policy on immigration. Policies are


a bit extreme. Nick Clegg has work to do. Clegg


a bit extreme. Nick Clegg has work to do. is an unashamed barefaced


liar, said one correspondent. Let's talk to Dan Churcher, the news


correspondent at the Newark Advertiser.


Let's talk to Dan Churcher, the news correspondent at the Newark We're


awash with senior politicians at the moment. It is unprecedented. This


by-election came about in strange circumstances but we have the Prime


Minister four times, the Foreign Secretary three. Ed Miliband last


week, as well. Things are starting to heat up. It's interesting. How do


you read this by-election? You look at the numbers from last time - a


whopping majority for the Conservatives. The Lib Dems are


stacked up 10,000 or so Conservatives. The Lib Dems are


may be plenty of those are up for grabs by the other parties if recent


election performance is anything to go by. Is it as close as this market


square suggests? You've got to ask yourself whether there is such a


thing as a safe seat now, with UKIP. Straight off the back of their


very successful result in the euros, I expect, or would


anticipate, that the Conservative majority will be hit very hard by


UKIP and as to whether they retain the seat, I believe they probably


will but with a much reduced majority. Have you had Nigel Farage


at the door of the newspaper? No, he was in town on Saturday but we


haven't seen him in our offices. We have had the Prime Minister in and


William Hague and Ed Miliband last week. How much enthusiasm is there


from people in the constituency for the election? Firstly, it's a


by-election. Historically, the turnout would be quite low. And


people were at the polling stations a matter of days ago for the local


and European elections. It will be interesting, I think, to see what


the turnout is. Last time we had 71%, which is a high number, but I


think there is a real sense here that these are exciting times. We


never expected to be here and with the E major and soggy UKIP doing so


well, people want to be involved in that, wants to be a part of it, in


determining what happens with politics nationally. We're grateful


to you. Dan Churcher from the Newark Advertiser, a busy man with an


addition to butt out on Thursday. No doubt all of the analysis will be


the week after. This square is groaning with politicians, rosette


and journalists. I have to say, if I was coming out to my shopping and I


Newark, I might give the square quite a wide berth.


Just to pick up on a couple of those points, Katharine, the question of


con is there such a thing as a safe seat? It would be a mammoth task to


overturn that Conservative majority, yes. The one poll we have


had so far does put the Conservatives ahead, however, he


begins a massive swing to UKIP. In both Corby and easterly, the UKIP


vote share has been underestimated by the polls. We have got another


one coming out this afternoon. It is going to be really important to look


at all of the factors, including turnout, but it could be a perfect


storm for UKIP. They have got the wrangling in the European Commission


at the moment, they have got Labour doing not as well as they should be


doing as the party of protest, and essentially, it could be seen to be


something of a free vote to express dissatisfaction with the Tories.


What about intentions? Is there any polling to indicate anything


regarding this by-election? There is. Last week we did some to show


that actually, UKIP voters in the European elections do intend to vote


in the same way in the general election. However, the point is,


this is a by-election, and people will feel more free to vote for


perhaps an alternative. Listening to Chris Mason, and that stream of


senior Tory politicians who have come into Newark to try to


consolidate that Tory majority, I mean, they are going to fight very


hard to keep a sizeable majority, aren't they? Absolutely, and it is


very much in their favour at the moment. However, there could be this


major upset, because UKIP are really gaining through these by-elections


since 2010. Is Labour featuring in this by-election, in terms of votes


which could perhaps swing it? King at the poll over the weekend, they


were just one point behind UKIP. However, taking into account all of


the other fact is, I think UKIP would expect to be building this


week. In case you have forgotten, there is just time before you go to


give us the answer to and the question was, yesterday, Paddy


Ashdown appeared to be likening the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, to


a Shakespearean character, but who was it? I am embarrassed to say, I


have got absolutely no idea. Have a guess, if we were thinking of


alleged treachery? Iago? Well done. Thank you very much for coming onto


the programme. So, what is in store for us this week. Tony Blair has


the programme. So, what is in store this morning, outlining his vision


for Europe. On Wednesday, MPs return to the Commons for the big event of


the week, the Queen's Speech, when the Government announces its


legislative programme for the coming year. On Thursday, voters go to the


polls in the Newark by-election. Joining us now from College Green,


James Lyons and Holly Watt. First of all, Holly Watt, how critical is


this Newark by-election? This polls put the Conservatives ahead at the


moment, and as we have seen, they are taking no chances. I think they


are probably very keen to avoid losing too many votes to UKIP, which


would terrify the Tories in marginal seats. Will this be seen as a


weather vane ahead of the general election? I think it will be seen as


a pointer, certainly, yes. What will be interesting to see is how close


UKIP can run them, if they cannot actually take the seat. It looks


like the Conservatives are on course to retain at least a little of that


huge majority. And David Cameron is there today. But if UKIP are still


holding up well after the European elections, which many Tories hope


will be their high watermark, then there will be a lot of rattled


backbenchers. What about the Queen's Speech, Holly, what is in it? Well,


there is quite a wide range of things. Labour has been throwing


this zombie Parliament criticism at the Conservatives and Lib Dems,


insisting that they have still got lots of legislation coming through.


They are looking at people being able to plan terrorism in Syria,


pension reforms, all sorts of things, really. But they may well


bring out something which surprises people, simply to prove that they


are not a zombie Parliament at this point. Yes, and that has been the


criticism, hasn't it, that they have run out of in terms of legislation,


so do you think we will be proved wrong on that? They are certainly


dredging the ideas box. We have heard talk of heroism bills,


exempting good Samaritans from certain things, and ideas of


fracking. But the point remains, when the MP 's comeback this week to


Westminster for the Queen's Speech, they will just have an extra week's


holiday, because they have got so little to do. I feel that what the


coalition wants is a kind of steady as she goes Queen's Speech. They


want the focus to be on the economy. Her Majesty I think will actually


say the words long term economic plan. We have seen the King of Spain


abdicating today, and I am sure if abdicating today, and I am sure if


she is forced to say that on Wednesday,


she is forced to say that on what do you think will now


choreography for the next year, none of us are used to having this extra


year, so how of us are used to having this extra


feel at Westminster? I think both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems


are hoping to have a managed separation, a conscious uncoupling,


I suppose, but whether they manage that, who knows. There have been


signs in recent weeks that that may not happen. The Lib


signs in recent weeks that that may in a bit of a meltdown themselves.


They are probably not going to do very well at all in Newark. It


They are probably not going to do interesting. Reflate, let's talk


They are probably not going to do about FIFA, the World Cup, and Qatar


- do you think there should be a rerun of the


- do you think there should be a host the World Cup in 2022?


- do you think there should be a meetings going on today. And we


- do you think there should be a had the allegations over the weekend


which will be top of the agenda. The powers


which will be top of the agenda. The quite limited, so where we go from


here is difficult to see, but there is going to have to be a thorough


investigation, and I would not be surprised if


investigation, and I would not be rerun of the vote. That might


investigation, and I would not be that we might have too reopened the


decision regarding 2018, where obviously England were robbed, and


the tournament went to Russia. This is usually embarrassing for FIFA. We


have heard Lord Goldsmith, who were Tony Blair's top lawyer, saying


today that there is a serious case to answer,


today that there is a serious case allegations do stack up, then it


will have to be rerun. Everything is pointing in that direction. Thank


you both very much. For the rest of today's programme, we have four new,


wonderful, female MEPs, or beautiful, all intelligent. Joey


Barton, eat your heart out. Joining us now are Vicky Ford, Anneliese


Dodds, Jane Collins and Catherine Bearder. Anneliese Dodds, have you


had to give up a job to do this and become an MEP? Well, my life changed


anyway last year because I gave birth to a little boy, so I have


been on maternity leave. I normally work as a senior lecturer, so I have


been off, and I am very grateful to my employer, Aston University. And


what about you, what happens now? It is going to be very interesting,


because there is now a wave of new UKIP MEPs coming in, so there will


be stronger representation for the Eurosceptic voice over there. Let's


get down to it, then - there have been discussions already about the


European Commission president rumbling on, and reports that David


Cameron has made threats that the UK would have to leave if Jean-Claude


Yunker became the president. Who would be your candidate? I want to


see a reformer. We have said a number of times that our


relationship with Europe once to change. Names that we have heard


include the Finnish candidate, and the Irish one. Christine Lagarde has


also been a name which has come up. Funnily enough, Francois Hollande


does not seem to be wanting to be challenged by the Right in France. I


want to see a reformer, anything else would be a backward step. Let's


hear from another former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, earlier today.


I am not a candidate, do not get my name mixed up with this, that is not


going to happen. In respect of who should be the president, my view is


that we should just look for the best doesn't do the job. There


should not be any predisposition, we should just find the best person to


do the job. It is an important job, and if you define it in the way that


I am defining it, in other words, you want someone who is capable of


driving through that big agenda, then that is the kind of person you


should go for. Ought about Tony Blair?! This is the man who gave


away the British rebate and handed more powers to Brussels. What the


voters have said very firmly in my region is, we do not want more of


the same. And Kenny has pretty well said he is not up for it, and there


are not that many more names up for it, are there? Again, he is totally


against reform, he is almost Federalist, so that would be a


disaster. I am so relieved to hear Tony Blair say he will not be a


candidate. Because quite frankly, he is a megalomaniac and a warmonger.


So who would you have, then? It is a difficult decision. There are not


many names which appealed to me on the list. Whichever way you dress it


up, they are all in favour of more integration into the EU, not what we


are for. But the irony is that you are going to have bigger


representation in an institution which you do not believe in, so is


it going to be the role of UKIP to disrupt and create dissent in the


European Union? No, I do not think that is the way we look at things.


We are certainly not going over there to join the club, we are there


to do a job, to be the eyes and the ears of the people that voted for


us, and they voted very, very strongly in this last election.


Catherine Bearder, how did you manage to succeed, since you are the


only lip them MEP? If I knew what that was, I would bottle it and pass


it around my colleagues. -- the only Liberal Democrat MEP.


it around my colleagues. -- the only Liberal We were the only party to


come out as the party of in, and it was the right thing to do. We knew


once we went into government, which was also a brave decision, to go


into government as a junior party, and governments always get a


kicking, but we were the only one brave enough to stand up for in,


which was absolutely the right thing come we have other parties which


didn't. But that has been derided by the voters, your view, that the


pro-European party of him, as you say it, has been completely honest?


The Tories were kicking it into the long grass, and the Labour Party was


just talking about national politics. What is Labour, then? We


are the party of a Europe which is being reformed. We are upfront about


it, unlike the coalition. We are the party that says, we need to have an


EU which is more focused on jobs and growth. For a long time we have set


out what we would like to see changing in the EU, which has not


been the case with the other parties, which is very


disappointing. But you cannot reform the main issue which people voted


on, which is migration. While we are in the EU, there is no reform on


migration. With respect, I did not interrupt you. People on the


doorstep are very concerned about what is happening, particularly


around their living standards. For some people, that is linked to


migration. And Labour again has been the only party which says, we need


to look at the standards that we need, so that people are not


affected by competition from other countries. Your party has been


against the minimum wage and against all measures which protect people


from competition from migration, so we need to have an honest debate


about this. Are you against the idea of limiting the freedom of movement


of people within the EU? I think it has been very important for British


people and migrants but we need safeguards so that it doesn't lead


to a race to the bottom and in some areas, like housing and working


rights, it has. Would you want to limit the freedom of movement? Would


you want to have a cap on the number of people who could come from other


EU countries into Britain? We've seen in this country how having a


target on the number of migrants simply doesn't work. That's because


we can't control the EU migration. I'm talking about the Government's


overall target for migrants coming into the country. That hasn't worked


for them. What Labour is saying that we need longer transitional periods


for new countries coming in but the fundamental problem is that it isn't


a migrants themselves but the potential impact they have on the


labour market, on housing, and public services. We should deal with


that and not demonise people coming into the country. You won't be able


to hit that target on the levels of migration. I just find this whole


argument from Labour trying to rewrite history. Labour was the


government that presided over the economic collapse of this country


and uncontrolled immigration. The economy was growing when we left


office. Do you apologise or whether frontbenchers wrong to apologise?


They have apologised for it. But was that apology right? Personally I


feel that we a lot from migration but I think it's right to look at


longer transitional controls for new countries coming in. But in relation


to your first point, the economy was growing when we left office. There


do need to be stronger controls on freedom of movement of people,


especially in areas - I see it in parts of the east of the - where


we've had some very big pockets of immigration and this is why the


Prime Minister has said no more accession countries without looking


at much more than just transition controls but other controls. A


renegotiation on that issue is part of the whole package. That does not


mean no immigration but it means you need to look at the whole ago Chez


Chez. Isn't that what people want? There are over 2 million Brits


living and working in the rest of Europe and others looking here.


History will tell you that when there are difficult times, difficult


decisions to be made, pressures on services and housing, it's very easy


to say that it is their fault. Why is your argument falling on deaf


ears? I was elected and we have... You were the only one. In a lot of


places where we were working, we were winning councils and holding


councils and doing really well in pockets. We got a kick in, like all


the parties got a kicking, because... Conservatives and Labour


got a drubbing. Labour should have come second. Best result since 1994.


What about the renegotiation? There is pressure being put on David


Cameron for firmer plans and policies in terms of repatriating


powers. He's promised a referendum. In some extent, you've had your high


point in the European elections, many critics will argue, and that


will be that. The way the EU treats David Cameron, with great


disrespect, and especially with people saying that David Cameron is


trying to use blackmail if he becomes president, it shows how much


clout we have in the EU. But there is no renegotiation or reform on


migration if we're in the EU. But if John Claude Junker gets in, he will


be part of a massive block. He is also with Merkel. That is going to


have a great influence, no reform, and it will go to federalism. So if


you ask me who I definitely didn't want to beat you president, Tony


Blair and Mr Junker. What are you going to do if Mr Junker does become


the President? The mandate that I believe people voted for in my part


of the world where three Conservatives stood and three were


elected, is that we want reform which works for business but we do


need reforms on movement and... So the package of what we can negotiate


will get put to the people in an in-out referendum. First of all...


First of all, you have to have next year's general election. There will


be a choice of voting for these two parties, which is more of the same,


or of parties which give you a chance of a renegotiation and a


referendum. There will be no chance of a referendum, will there, if John


Claude Junker becomes the president. It is going to make it very


difficult for David Cameron to get the reforms he wants. That's why I


said electing him... Here's Angela Merkel's favourite. We spent the


last year having a review of all the competencies that we have with the


European Union and every single one has come out and said that we have a


good level of competencies in the balance of our level of membership


of the EU. There are a few reports going on but there is one that


hasn't been released by David Cameron and that is the one on


migration. I can bet some money here that says that it is saying it is


fair and equitable. What it's saying is that what we do here, whether we


don't enforce the legislation on minimum wages and housing is...


Briefly, should Labour offer an in-out referendum? On the basis of


the MEPs that were elected, the success of Eurosceptic parties. As I


mentioned before, this is Labour's best result in a European elections


for 20 years. Nonetheless we do need to listen to people and for a very


long time, Labour has been saying we would offer people a referendum if


it looked like the relationship with the rest of Europe was going to


change. The difference is that we are completely clear on what we need


to see changed in Europe and the Conservatives haven't come out on


this have the right to know. You said you want more European taxes,


more European spending. That is what I have heard. We argued against an


increase in the budget and we said people needed to keep the rights to


maternity and paternity leave, the social chapter, which you would


jump. Let's hold it there. We can't get away from election


fever on the Daily Politics. We can't stop analysing why


people vote the way they do. In a moment we'll be talking to one


professor who thinks voting habits may be hard-wired into us


from birth. But first let's take a trip


down memory lane. And against many expectations, Mr


major has done it with the smallest Conservative majority since Winston


Churchill's in 1951. Four consecutive victories for the


Conservatives have been done for a hundred years. This is perhaps one


of the most rheumatic nights, for many people the most dramatic night


in British politics they've seen. It was like 1945 when Labour swept in,


like 1979 when the Tories swept in. Let's have a look over here at our


swing, tough. No swing at all from last time. There has been a very


small squint of the Tories but the Labour Party has survived in their


battle ground seats in the middle. Tony Blair back with a majority of


66, with the smallest popular vote since the great reform act of 1832


for an incoming government. In narrow political terms, it's been


fascinating, not to see the country deliver a hung parliament but to


vote in a way that has produced a political scenario of immense


complexity. We'll see whether these elected politicians really are able


to work together and are up to the job.


And we're joined now by Dr Darren Schreiber from Exeter University,


who has been been developing the new field of neuropolitics,


Neuropolitics is based on the idea that your brain is built for


politics so for the last 3 million years, we've been involved in a


cognitive arms race. We are having a bigger, more expansive brain, that


has been an advantage and it's strange because humans have such big


brains in such relatively small bodies. The evidence seems to


suggest our brains are built for politics. What are you saying? That


we are born with the view is that we then have later on? The second


chapter in my book argues that we're hard-wired not to be hard-wired


because as you've seen in this conversation, politics is really


complicated, so that's why we need such a huge brain. Dolphins,


elephants, orangutans all have much larger brains than we might expect


because they also have complex Coalition or politics. We have the


most complex politics and the biggest brains to go along with it.


That's the brains behind it, if you like, but what about the nurture


argument, that, actually, if you are brought up in a certain area with a


family that believes a certain political tribe, doesn't that have


more influence over whether you're hard-wired or not? What your


background is and where you come from does have a lot of influence


but that predict about 69% of your political attitudes. If I brain


image you as a Republican or Democrat in the USA, I can tell your


party affiliation with about 80 to be sent accuracy, by brain imaging


you while you do a gambling task force top that a significant be


better than if I know the political affiliations of your parents. By


knowing your parents I know your genetics and the environment that


you are talking about in which we are raised. It isn't just biology


but the effect the environment has on our brains that allows us to tell


a lot about your political attitudes. Let's try some of this


out on our guests. Do you think your political allegiances in your DNA or


has it developed? Well, I'm married to a zoologist who studies monkeys,


so nature and nurture is almost equal but if you are liberal and


fair thinking and for fairness, you are Lib Dem. This is a little brief


taste test. A little strip of paper I'm giving each guest, which have


come from Darren Schreiber, not made by me. You put them in your mouth


and give us your thoughts after a second or so. You can chew it. Just


put it in your mouth. Don't worry. Any taste? Paper. Just paper. What


is your response, Darren? There is preliminary evidence that people who


are more Conservative taste a bitter taste. It's a small percentage of


effect but what we're finding is that there is a slight probability


of somebody being more Conservative who has a sharper taste. Different


people have had pretty squeamish reactions. A sort of dry, papery


taste. Nobody -- no bitter taste? Are you sure you ripped up


taste. Nobody -- no bitter taste? bits of paper? It's more bitter than


sweet but bits of paper? It's more bitter than


more Conservative, then? I will, of course, have to remain completely


impartial. I'll chew it afterwards but I won't give you the results.


Thank you very much. Interesting that the ladies didn't really get


the taste. The one o'clock news is


starting over on BBC One now. as Britain's museums open up...


at night.


Download Subtitles