02/06/2014 Daily Politics

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.