04/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics.


As the life of a British hostage hangs in the balance somewhere


in the so-called Islamic State, David Cameron and Barack Obama say


yet again they won't be cowed by the barbarism of the terrorisists.


yet again they won't be cowed by the barbarism of the terrorists.


Nato leaders are in Wales for a crucial summit.


But Islamic State is now top of the agenda.


Will the UK commit to joining the US in air strikes against terrorist


Some crimes are on the verge of being decriminalised


because some police forces have all but given up investigating them.


We'll be joined by a former presenter of Crimewatch.


Ed Miliband makes a heartfelt plea for Scotland to remain part


But as support for the Union shrinks, are Scots in a mood to


And, we reveal the secret of success in public life - the dark art of not


With us for the duration, broadcaster and writer Nick Ross.


David Cameron has said he will not rule anything out in relation to


military action against the so-called Islamic State.


It's what leaders usually say in current circumstances.


Two US journalists have already been beheaded by jihadists now in control


Now they're threatening to murder a British national they hold hostage.


At the request of the family the BBC is still not naming him,


though the name has appeared in other media outlets.


Last week, President Obama admitted the US still did not have


a strategy for how to deal with Islamic State - though America has


mounted over 120 air strikes which have played their part in removing


This morning, the Prime Minister did the media rounds to tell us


I think the most important thing to consider is that we must not see


this as something where you have a Western intervention, over the heads


of neighbouring states, leaving others to pick up the pieces. What


is required, and we have this, is a strategy to help those on the


ground, and have an Iraqi government that can make a real difference.


Kurdish forces that can make a difference, and then we ask what


more we can do to help them. It needs to be that way around,


properly thought through and patiently delivered, rather than


sometimes, as in the past, these considerations have not been made.


That was the Prime Minister at the NATO summit in Wales earlier this


morning. He met with President Obama just before we came on and they will


get into a plena recession later and over lunch. -- plena repossession.


Joining me now is the former Defence Secretary Liam Fox.


In your view, what would military action look like for the British in


Iraq and Syria? We know that the allies in the region, the Iraqis and


the Kurds, like a sufficient degree of air power. They are unable to get


strategic targets in Iraq or Syria, from which ISIS draw their


strength. That needs to happen. Secondly, were there to be a ground


counteroffensive, they may require air support which they cannot


deliver themselves. Other allies in the region may deliver them but it


would require help from the West. So we should join America in its air


strike campaign? Yes. Not just in Iraq but in Syria? To answer that


question, you first need to answer the question, what is the real


threat? Where does it come from? How can we properly counter it? The main


bases are in Syria. Some of them, yes, which is where they have


command and control. We need to deal with those and the lines of supply.


If you are asking for a legal basis on which to do it, we have the fact


those command and control centres are directing a lot of what is


barbaric treatment of the Syrian population. So you would not just


join with the Americans in the air strikes in Iraq? You would extend


the air strikes into Syria? If required. The border really exists


only in the minds of western cartographers. The border does not


really exist in practice. If that is where the threat is coming from, and


we believe it is of the magnitude we say it is, we need to deal with it.


And in your way of doing things, with this bombing of bases in Syria


take place, first consulting President Assad in the massacres or


without his permission -- in Damascus. We need to do what we need


to do. We would go ahead without his permission? Yes, the Prime Minister


is right that we need to get as wide a coalition in the region as


possible but we have to understand that they may lack the military


capability to do what is required to deal with the threat, as I have said


before, it is threefold. It is a humanitarian threat immediately to


the population. It is the wider destabilisation of the region which


could lead into a religious war. And it is the centre of export for


jihad. We must understand the necessity for action. Despite


Syria's military assets being seriously decomposed, the one thing


they do have is one of the most sophisticated anti-aircraft defence


systems in the world. The Russians have provided it for them. What


happens if he unleashes that on the jets because he has the capability


to knock them down? What do we do? It is a military question but you


have other assets, complex weapons that can be released from a long way


outside contested airspace, for example. So we would not have to go


into Syrian airspace? If you look at the Libyan campaign, we often have


the ability to raise weapons which are highly accurate but don't


require air power in the space. That worked well. The other macro


militarily, yes. But not afterwards. Politically is not the


same thing but you are asking me from the military perspective. What


do you make of this? You're right, militarily, lots is possible.


Diplomatically, politically, strategically on the ground it is


more compensated. As we have seen from Libya, the region sees with


ethnic differences, tribal and religious views which we barely


understand and we have made a mess. We assumed the Arab Spring was going


to be fantastic and it has not turned out the way that the Liberals


and Democrats hoped it would. You say we but not everybody did.


Assumed it would. Many people were worried that it would be a disaster.


Well, they turned out to be right. If you look at what has happened in


Iraq, the failure to brand the basic difference between the different


branches of Islam, and propping up one against the other, we have made


a terrible mess in the past. I agree with Liam that weakness is not a


good solution but nor is what headedness. If we go in without a


clear idea of what we're doing, we will be seen as imperialists. What


is the endgame? To keep Syria and Iraq intact, along the lines of the


boundaries that were drawn in this city during the First World War? Is


it their sovereign integrity we are protecting from Islamic State? Why?


I am not sure that the current democratic structures in Iraq will


hold. There is a strong likelihood you will end up with a much more


federal structure. Some of the Sunni tribes will want to have more


autonomous provinces. There could be partition, let's be, and if the


Kurds have their way, it will be. All you have a federal structure. --


otherwise you will have. The reason I'm saying this is that federal


solutions where the post-colonial answer of the Foreign Office to


every problem they faced, from central Africa, to the Caribbean, it


was all federations and not one of them lasted more than a couple of


years. And Iraq and Syria are the last two vestiges of the Versailles


settlement, which is worth picking up a history book to read about.


What is happening in Iraq is there is a dynamic developing, where you


are now effectively, you call it partition, but you could finesse it


as a more federal structure. But that is what is happening on the


ground. You are getting ethnic divisions appearing in the country.


The most important thing is that one way or another, the ISIS threat,


which is serious, is diminished. It is not for us to tell the countries


in the region how they should govern themselves. But they have made it


clear they cannot deal with the threat of ISIS on their own and they


will need help to do so. The danger of this is that you begin to think


you can win with just their power. In a sense, it seems for the West,


it is not so bad, our boys and girls will not be in danger, we will not


put boots on the ground apart from special forces that we never know


about. We don't really get our hands dirty. But almost no war is decided


by air power alone. That's right. Every voter who has an opinion on


this and every politician who decides on this has got to


recognise, once you are there, you are truly committed. You may say


that you are committed but you are prepared to pull out if a few RAF


pilots get shot down, we will bail out in the hope they do as well. But


I think it is so easy to be headstrong on this because the


threat is sober ministers -- so pernicious, violent and ghastly, we


must do something about it. But I think that doing something about it,


particularly uninvited... If we are invited in, that is different. I


think the Iraqis will invite us and the Kurds are certainly well. But


not President Assad. Of course. As we have your experience as a defence


minister here, Liam Fox, the plight and position of this British hostage


is dreadful. And our options, I would suggest, are seriously


limited. Very limited. You come up against what we all feel, which is,


if that was someone in our own family, what we would want to be


done to help them, which is anything at all. Against the position that


governments find themselves in, which is if they given to groups


like this, it is simply increasing the chance of others being taken


hostage in the future. It is a terrible dilemma for governments. It


is one of those decisions that leaders have to take, which are very


lonely and difficult. I really feel hugely for the family but also for


the Prime Minister and other leaders who have to take such difficult


decisions. Thank you for joining us. But don't go away because we are


sticking on this broad bean, particularly with the NATO summit


taking place. -- this broad theme. Any discussions


about tackling the jihadists in Iraq and Syria will be taken


on the fringes of this Nato summit. The crisis


in Ukraine is supposed to be This morning,


the Nato Secretary General said Russia was still de-stabilising


eastern Ukraine, despite talk Yesterday, President Obama said he


wanted Nato to send an "unmistakable And will President Putin


pay any attention? There may be talk of a cease-fire


but the crisis is still set to dominate the two day summit which


began this morning. Ukraine wants to join the organisation, but the move


has made a number of leaders nervous. Article five of the NATO


treaty states that an attack on one NATO country is considered an attack


against all of them, meaning Britain would be obliged to defend Ukraine


from any Russian aggression. British troops will soon be participating in


joint military exercises with Ukraine, but actual membership could


be seen as a step too far. So what could we see announced over the next


couple of days? It is expected there will be an announcement on a


so-called readiness action plan, which would include a 4000 strong


rapid reaction force, that good response to a Russian attack. There


will also be calls for all member states to follow Britain and spend


at least 2% of their GDP on defence. Finally, there will be


discussions over whether NATO should have permanent bases in Baltic


member countries. Some think it is currently forbidden under an


agreement with Russia. Let's talk to


our defence correspondent, Jonathan I understand there is still no


appetite for NATO to send arms to the Ukrainian government. So far, it


is verbal professions of support but no military hardware, is that right?


That is right in one sense. They are sending body armour and they are


certainly giving quite a lot of expertise. What they will agree at


the summit is to set up what they call a trust fund, which will help


train the Ukrainian military in things like command and control, how


to look after wounded soldiers. There is practical help, but of


course, as you say, Ukraine is not a NATO member, nor has it asked to be


a member, yet at least. They are pretty limited. What they are trying


to do more is reassure those members of NATO who were former Soviet


satellite states, like the Baltic states, and talk about beefing up


their presence but also beefing up military activities, exercises,


essentially come in Eastern Europe, to reassure them.


Do they feel that they have got to reinforce Article five, that if one


member is attacked, all members are attacked and they have got to go to


the the member that has been attacked? Is there a sense that


people have lost faith in Article five and that the primary purpose of


the NATO summit is to reassure people that Article five is alive


and well? You will not find any leader here saying that they do not


believe in Article five and that they would not come to the military


help of another country if it was attacked. That is a founding


principle of NATO, if you throw that away, you probably do not have much


of an alliance. In theory they are committed to that, in practice, you


could ask questions as to whether they would want a war with Russia,


and whether Russia it self would like to create a war. Certainly


creating instability in Ukraine at the moment. You will not find


anybody here that says that it is not going to be enacted upon as a


founding principle. Since we have got you here, could I move onto


Islamic State: Last night there was a number of reports coming out of


the summit that it looked more likely now that Britain would join


America in air strikes against Islamic State. Have there been any


developments on that front this morning? A very clear message from


the Prime Minister who says that he is keeping the option open. We


understand they are inching forward, the British government, in helping


Kurdish forces, Iraqi forces, already supplying body armour, an


aeroplane landed this morning, and there is talk, they have supplied


arms, and munition. Supplied by a third country. There is a


possibility Britain may directly supply weapons to the Kurdish, to


the Iraqi forces. This probably is not a summit where they are going to


come out with some statement that for example Britain may join America


in air strikes, certainly, that is one of the discussions on the


sidelines, on the margins. The focus is president of Balmer and David


Cameron. President Obama would like sub old. Not just the support


Britain but the neighbours as well. -- President Obama would like


support. That is the key, as David Cameron has said, he would not like


this to be seen as some kind of Western intervention, they did that


as a matter of interest in Libya, Jordan and the UAE were taking part.


Always looks like Western intervention, because they provide


most of the warplanes and the assets. Hinchey very much. -- thank


you very much. Liam Fox, what is the most that this


NATO summit can do about Ukraine? It is to reassure our allies, in NATO,


that Article five does mean something, and to send a very clear


message to Russia, the problem is that we are playing catch up, Russia


launched a cyber attack on Estonia and we did nothing, they cut off


gas, they invaded Georgia, in these situations we have done very little.


The message that this has sent to Vladimir Putin, the West will be


prodded and will probably not respond. That is where we need to


get realignment. While Isis is an imminent military crisis, there is


also a political crisis, and it is a crisis principle: We believe


sovereign nations like Ukraine should be able to exercise self


determination, Russia believes in a sphere of influence, that the former


soggy and republics, Russia has a veto on their behaviour, it believes


that the protection of ethnic Russians lies with Russia, we


believe that it lies with the countries in which those people 's


lives. There is a clear difference in principle. What we require is


de-escalation, Russian forces out of Ukraine, so that they are... It is


not going to happen... Why would he do that, the separatists he supports


are losing the war, the Ukrainian military is moving in on the main


centres of population in eastern Ukraine. He has now sent in,


although he denies it, but it is clear that it would not happen


without his support, Russian armour and Russian forces. They are helping


them and the tide is turning, indeed they may be moving onto this major


town in the south by the Black Sea. Why would he pull back? If that


happens there has got to be another wave of Western responses, that


economic sanctions. Hopefully there can be some sense seen between


President Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian president about how to


de-escalates the issue. If the Russians continue their behaviour,


which is completely unacceptable and illegal, we will have no alternative


but to have further economic response. The real politic, the


harsh reality, certainly in eastern Ukraine, Mr blood and a Putin can do


whatever he wants, there will be penalties but he can do what he


wants. The emphasis of NATO now, as Liam Fox says, trying to catch up.


They are trying to reassure the Baltic states, the members of NATO,


which Ukraine is not, that we will not let this happen to you. Two


separate things: NATO defending NATO nations, that is Article five.


Ukraine is not a NATO nation, it is an ally, but that is new. The other


side, how do we make sure that we are not making Vladimir Putin even


more popular than he already is? Liam is correct, he is prodding us


and he is doing that because it is making him very popular at home. The


thing at this from his perspective, look at this... Think about liberal


Russian citizens... We see our people. -- think that they were


Russian citizens. We could say that they were out people in some


islands. And they are British, and we have some other not very


legitimate regime, remember, this did not go from a democracy to a


democracy, it occurred through a coup. That is when the uprising


began, that is when the Russians began supporting the people. We


British may feel about self-determination for our own


people. The Russians see this as Russians under threat. But in a


Putin is very popular. We have got to be very careful that we do not


play into his hands. What you say? -- blood in a Putin is very popular.


We have a responsibility to international order and law, which


says that if Russians who live in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, their


protection is the responsibility of their governments. Of their laws, of


their constitutions, not an external power. If you allow the principle to


take hold them there is no international law. Only if those


governments are sensible, and if they believe in self-determination


they must consider that there are times when they must allow a vote,


as we are allowing in Scotland, to ask if you want to do your own


thing. May well be... The last time there was a pol, 80% of people in


Crimea said they wanted to be independent of Kiev. No matter how


independent and irresponsible, are we going to support them? That is


not what we are saying, what we said was, any move towards independence


in Crimea has got to be legal and in line with the constitution of laws


of Ukraine. It cannot simply be a good guitar. -- cannot seem to be a


coup d'etat. One final question, the Americans were moving their


attention elsewhere, particularly to the Pacific, the Americans were


getting angry that at the height of the Cold War, they accounted for 68%


of NATO defence spending and 20 years after, when Europe did not


seem under threat, 75%, this year repair and sad demobilised and cut


defence. -- because Europeans had been mobilised. Is there really an


appetite, with the Eurozone mired in stagnation and mass unemployment, to


defence -- increased defence spending. They decided they would


bank the Article five guarantees and cut the defence spending. Now they


are beginning to think again. Looking at countries like Estonia,


it is over 2%, and rising. They are beginning to realise that life


outside of the soviet union does not mean life without the threat of


Russia's. We are barely over that. But we are. Barely. We should be


leading at the summit by saying that the Brymon Vista can say that a


future Conservative government would guarantee we stay over to depend of


GDP. -- we stay over 2% of GDP. The built-in NATO comes, and this is in


a cartoon, the built-in NATO comes and everybody is searching for their


wallet! The idea that America could choose to pivot away from European


and American security towards Asia, it was never a choice will stop it


has global interest and therefore global responsibility, this idea


that America could suddenly turn its back on Europe and turn towards the


Pacific, looks a bit odd today. I understand what you are saying but I


still think that it is the modus operandi of Barack Obama to do so.


Some police forces in England and Wales have given up investigating


certain crime, a scathing report has found that in some areas, police


were asking victims to investigate for themselves instead of sending an


officer. Roger Baker is the inspector who produced the report.


37 forces carry out what are called displaced investigations, the other


six have and attend everything policy. We do not criticise the desk


-based investigations. But it is when a member of the public phones


the police, and they ask if there is any evidence. What we did have a


problem with, a lot of these crimes will simply then be filed straight


away and the public have been asked to effectively carry out their own


investigations to the extent of, if you do not contact us back further


with more evidence, that is the end of the case. We have found that in a


third of the forces we examined. Arab guest of the day, Nick Ross,


former presenter of that highly rated show Crimewatch, he founded


the Jill Dando Institute of crime science at university. He has


written books about crime. -- at the University College London. I thought


that you were meant to be the government of law and order, why are


citizens investigating their own crimes? I don't think the Liberal


Democrats have ever been the party of law and order, they are a part of


the government. Are they to blame? They certainly do not help. I voted


against the government reducing the police budget each year, I see it


first hand, how stretched police forces are. I believe in strong law


and order measures. It is unacceptable to be sending out the


message that people have got to investigate their own crimes, that


is a ludicrous message to send out. The police have got to be realistic


and say to people, look, without any evidence, we cannot really pursue


this any further. I think that is just being honest with people,


nothing wrong with being honest. There are organisations that have


been set up, like face watch by Simon Gordon in London, rolled out


across the country, businesses are going through CCTV evidence for


police and handing them a crime sheet with the relevant CCTV


evidence, to enable them to crack on and get people to justice, rather


than sitting for hours, waiting for CCTV footage, which they will not


realistically do. -- wading through. Can you blame this on cuts, you


follow the mantra of the left whenever public services are in


trouble, you say that it is all the fort of the cuts, but in fact, six


of the 43 forces in England and Wales actually attend the scene of


every crime. -- it is all the fault of the cuts. If six can do it, why


not the other 37? They do not. Just because they are attending does not


mean they are doing anything meaningful all worthwhile, it may be


that the other police forces are being more honest. Without any


particular evidence there is not a great deal that we can do. How do


you know unless you look? It depends upon what the crime is, it may be


that you depend upon CCTV footage, we have got to look at all of the


methods. With things like face watch, and test it in, set up by


businesses, it is they found years ago that police are wading through


CCTV footage, spending hours doing that. -- Facewatch. That seems to be


a useful thing. But the police will turn up to every event in an ideal


world, they will investigate and bring everyone to justice but we do


not live in an ideal world. Certainly in my area, the police do


a pretty good job in difficult circumstances. What you make of the


idea that the police tell victims of crime to look for fingerprints, to


check CCTV... And scour second-hand goods websites to see if they can


find their stolen property? Three things to say: It can be


distressing, we forget that some crimes which to an outsider do not


seem very important, like a burglary within your own household, can be


hugely important. And live with you for a long time. And if you do not


think anyone is on your site, it can be upsetting. But it is incredible


that Her Majesty 's Inspectorate have suddenly stumbled upon this as


if it is new, car crime and burglary have gone down by three quarters,


perhaps he is too young to remember the 1970s. He is not that young! In


those days, very few, if your car was broken into, very few would have


been investigated. Even going back much further, it was our


responsibility, as citizens, to put up a hue and cry before there was


police force. The pendulum has gone so far the other way, that we have


become utterly dependent almost on the nanny state. In some extends it


is right, but it is a bit of a distraction. Only three or 4% of


known crimes finish up in court anyway. We will never arrest all of


those making travel and the reason we have wrestled it down, these kind


of crimes, that the police are not investigating, is nothing to do with


magistrates. We should stop talking bread and circuses and look at why


they came down and we will copy it across to other areas. Doesn't this


report view all the line of the Association of Chief Police


Officers, which says because of the cuts, we have got to make choices,


and therefore, we decide that there is some things we do not have to


resolve, the less important stuff, less important in our opinion, we do


not investigate? That will be the message that they give. Police


forces have to prioritise. There are not the resources to do everything


and there never will be. Of course they have to prioritise what they do


but it is not necessary about police priorities. The police should


reflect the public's priorities. It is not just a question of saying the


public can go hang and the police will decide what is important. The


police should concentrate on what the public think is important. Nick


mentioned burglary and it would be completely an acceptable to me if


the police did not attend every burglary. -- completely an


acceptable. But there is one police officer to every 450 citizens also


and you are more likely to meet Doctor van you are a police


officer. There's only one every ten square miles. They have so me things


to do. You only have 40, roughly two answer emergency call that any one


time. We have to tailor expectations to what is realistic. Absolutely,


and that is my point, we have to be realistic. I go out with my police


force on many occasions. I have been with scenes of crimes officers to


see what they do. In my experience, the police do a very good job, given


how stretched they are, and with the issues they have to deal with. It


will never be perfect. There will be issues they get wrong but broadly,


they do a pretty good job. Wood reassurances one thing but bringing


people to justice is another. We have made it progressively more


difficult for the police to do that, probably rightly. If you go


back 100 years, I homicide trial at the Old Bailey would have lasted a


couple of hours, and now it is weeks and months. With things like the


police and criminal evidence act, it is increasingly difficult for the


police, they have do have a trial before a trial with the CBS. We have


to lower people's expectations about what the courts can achieve. We are


having the debate about rape and we need to have it more widely. It is


not a panacea and not the only tool in the tool box. Philip Davies, stay


with us, because I am going to talk about crime some more.


"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime",


"prison works", "tougher sentences" "more bobbies on the beat".


These are just some of the slogans politicians love to trot out to show


Indeed, crime has been declining over


So do our politicians deserve a hearty pat on the back


Or is the explanation, well, a bit more complicated?


We'll talk to our guest, Nick Ross, in just a moment - he's written all


For some time, The Blue Conservatives eyed the boys


- and girls - in blue as the last great unreformed public service.


Whilst others did not go along with that view,


the Coalition has made reform a key plank of its home affairs policy.


Its argument is that even after reforming and having to make


financial cutbacks, crime overall is still falling and has been


Today, the lightbulb moment for many in the Home Office seems to be


trying to understand why, and what the so-called drivers of crime are.


We believe they are alcohol, drugs, opportunity, the effectiveness of


the criminal justice system, character, and profit. If we can


understand each of these drivers better, and how they relate to one


another, we should be able to devise better policy to prevent crime


occurring in the first place. The Home Secretary signalled


in the last 24 hours a move towards more preventative policing policy,


mergers of emergency services, and repeated her belief that


the necessity and indeed desire is The Labour government in the late


90s introduced reforms that put a big focus on prevention, the police


working with local councils and communities, and introduced


neighbourhood policing which made a huge difference in cutting crime.


However, we have seen neighbourhood policing being undermined, and a lot


of things going backwards. I think it is a problem as well that fewer


criminals are being brought to justice. Victims need support and


justice as well. Some see the grand scheme


of crime and how to control it went back earlier into the 90s


and are clear what it was down to. I think what Michael Howard started


doing as Home Secretary, his prison works, toughening up policy, set


sentencing, and changing the whole view of the Home Office that had


before seen rising crime as inevitable, and a problem to be


managed. I think that was a key part of what happened. Since 1994-1995,


crime has been falling most years, a fairly consistent trend under


governments of both stripes. It is not just locking people up because


they will come back out again. Why house somebody so they can come out


and commit more crime? We can be much smarter about that.


And now it seems policing will involve not only uniformed officers,


but us just being a bit smarter about how we use our stuff.


We are carrying thousands of pounds of goods around in our bags,


laptops, mobile phones, iPads, all kinds of things which are tradable.


They are worth something. If you think about the levels of theft, and


how they actually track, you can look at spikes in crime, for


example, when a new mobile phone comes out. It goes up, shock horror.


In the past, this was labelled as blaming us.


Now it seems whilst focusing on our traditional demands on them,


politicians and police are making reducing opportunity and temptation


Nick Ross and Philip Davies are still with us.


Nick Ross, the official crime figures have been going down across


the Western world. But across the Western world, you have a huge


variety of law and order regimes, some putting more emphasis on


prison, and others putting less. Do we really know why it is falling?


Yes, and firstly, can I just point out what you have said is


revolutionary. Here you are on the BBC, taking it as read that crime


has fallen across the industrial world. I have been saying this since


about 1997-1998. I have been ridiculed by MPs, saying it was


complacency, they were just statistics, official figures and so


forth. We know from hospital admissions, insurance and lots of


ways of trying elating crime, it is falling all across the Western


world. The other dispiriting thing is the tribalism you get from


politicians, who are all trying to put their own spin on it. Generally


in crime, someone to the right of centre, who is conservative,


believes if you are nasty to people, you will get less crime.


Lock people up, bring back hanging, deterrence and all the rest.


Liberals on the left tend to believe that if you are nice to people, you


will get less crime, community sentences and so forth. Each of them


madly cherry picks the data, starting with the ideology and


getting the data to make it stick. Actually, the criminal justice


system as only tangential, very marginal effects on crime rates. We


can see this for the very reasons you have pointed out because the


same pattern is happening in the industrial world. Theresa May, bless


her, said something I have never heard her say before on that clip


you just showed. She said there were six drivers of crime, and the


criminal justice system was only the fourth on the list. She is right and


that film was right, the summary was right, temptation and opportunity


are what changes the crime rate. Can I give you a political example? If


you make the expenses system in the House of Commons very easy to


fiddle, you will find it is fiddle. You will find that those with the


greatest opportunity, constituencies outside London, tends to fiddle it


more than those within, not because they have a different moral


character but because of opportunity. Even the Prime Minister


had to pay back some money, as I recall. If you make it difficult,


these things don't happen. If you make society by default, difficult,


which is the reason car crime has come down, they are great difficulty


in steel now. There is concern about moral character which is proper and


justified but it is not the way to manipulate crime figures and


certainly not the way we will reduce victimisation. Philip Davies, are


you and your kind going to stop taking credit for falling crime


rates? I agree with a lot of what Nick said. I have got his book and I


have met him and he's gone into more detail about his views. He is right


about car crime, the enhanced security measures are clearly the


reason why it has come down and no one can deny that. It is only part


of the story. There are other things, other technology has played


a big part, CCTV has helped bring evidence to court, the DNA database


has made a massive difference in terms of highlighting who has been


responsible for things. Technology generally has been a massive help in


dealing with crime, bringing people to justice. But I don't think it is


the whole picture. I think we still need to be tougher on crime. If you


speak the local police forces and asked them how to reduce crime in


the area by 50%, they will all say that the best thing is to take the


ten most political offenders and put them in prison. It is perfectly


obvious that if the most prolific offenders are in prison, they cannot


commit crime. We should not forget that aspect either. That is


logically true but is it true in practice? In America and in this


country, we put, particularly America but by European standards,


Britain to put quite a high proportion of people in prison. No,


we don't. Higher than France, Germany and Italy. This is the


Howard league's we send 17 people to prison for every 1000 crimes


committed in this country. You will find it hard to find a lower


percentage. But in terms of percentage of the population, we do.


Let me finish my question, when you look at other countries, which don't


put as many people in prison, crime is still falling. Where is the


correlation, the causation? Different countries have different


experiences and cultures and histories. They have different


issues. I prefer to look at what has happened in this country in the past


and what is happening now. The fact is, whether people like it or not,


since we started putting more people in prison, crime has come down. The


facts of the matter are, and the Ministry of Justice figures are very


clear, the longer people spend in prison, the less likely they are to


reoffend when they come out. Let me put that point Nick Ross because we


hear it a lot. I agree with Philip on lots of things but he is making


the classic error, his ideology is defining the way he sees this. Here


is a correlation that he says is causation because it happens to fit


with his ideology. There are lots of other correlations which don't fit


with the ideology. But he has said something which is important, which


I agree with. Huge numbers of real-life experiments and academic


experiments show that deterrence does not work in the way we think it


should. That is why people who promote the -- who could suffer the


death penalty, will still promote those behaviours. It is like people


not stopping smoking even though they know it will kill them. If you


lock people away, particularly a very fine group of highly prolific


offenders, but you have to define the group very carefully, then it is


true they cannot commit offences outside prison. Filipe, I will give


you the final word. -- Filipe. Prison is essential in reducing


crime but it is also about an appropriate punishment for people.


Should not forget that sending people to prison is because they


deserve to be punished for what they have done. We should not pretend


that punishment should never play a part in the criminal justice system.


The Labour leader is in Glasgow today to make a last-ditch pitch


for a no vote in the upcoming referendum.


Ed Miliband says Scots should vote for a Labour government to get


the change they need, rather than "erecting a new border"


Alex Salmond says hundreds of thousands


of Labour supporters are considering voting Yes on September 18th.


But Mr Miliband says he'll give Scots a better deal.


This is the change I bring, change to bring a fairer country, changed


to bring a fairer Scotland. Not the change of erecting a new border, the


only ambition of the Nationalists. This is my programme to change. This


is my contract with the people of Scotland. -- for change. Freezing


energy bills, raising the minimum wage, fairer taxes with the new 10p


starting rate, and a higher rate of 50p, taxing the bankers bonuses, to


get our young people back to work, including here in Lanarkshire.


APPLAUSE And yes, abolishing the bedroom tax


across the UK. APPLAUSE Not just here.


Joining me now from Glasgow is Jeane Freeman from the Yes campaign.


She has a background in Labour


having been a senior political adviser to First Minister Jack


The battle is clearly on to the Labour vote, if I can put it that


way, particularly in the West of Scotland, to do with social


services. -- for the Labour vote. Why is Alex Salmond and the yes


campaign saying that if Scotland stays in the union, they risk a


privatised NHS? The only person that can privatise the NHS is Alex


Salmond. The campaign is saying that because


while the Scottish Parliament has power over the shape of the NHS,


what we do not have is control over the finances. The finances that come


to Scotland to spend on public services come as part of a formula,


which is based upon how much public expenditure those services is made


in England and Wales. We may have control over the kind of NHS that we


want in Scotland, what we do not have control over is the total


financial package that would allow us to fund it. Those are two


separate issues. Taking them one at a time: one is privatisation, the


other is amount of money that you get to run the health service. Can


we establish right away, regardless of the amount of money, that there


is no danger of Scotland having a privatised health service unless the


Scottish Parliament decided that is what it wants. We cannot establish


that, Andrew, because there is the transatlantic trade and investment


agreement that is currently being negotiated between the European


Union and the United States, the UK Government has refused to exempt the


National Health Service from that agreement. What that agreement will


do is open up the market of the NHS, and therefore, let me finish...


Let me finish... I'm trying to... That is a European issue. It is not


and you know that, it is a UK Government issue. If the UK


Government does not exempt the National Health Service, and we


remain a part of the union, no matter what the Scottish parliament


may want to do about the NHS in Scotland, the market for the UK,


because it is the UK that signs it, is then open to private companies


coming in. They can insist upon doing that. We cannot separate the


two matters in the way that the No campaign would like us to be able to


do. Labour supporters across Scotland are coming to realise that


increasingly. Having now had to admit that threats of Tory


privatisation in Scotland can work because you control your own health


service, you are now saying that the danger may come from a free trade


agreement which is not even been agreed or signed? You are mistaking


me for a politician and an SNP politician, I have not asserted any


of the things you are suggesting. I represent women for independence and


we are very clear that the privatisation agenda, south of the


border, is a threat to the National Health Service, because of the


reason I have given you, and because we do not control in Scotland the


total finances that Scotland earns, because that comes back to us from


the Treasury, based on that formula that I mentioned. Let's be crystal


clear about who is asserting what, this debate is about what Labour


supporters in Scotland want to do. Labour in Scotland is run by the


United Kingdom, is run by London Labour, and they are conflating a


Labour against SNP argument with an argument about independence, which


is about the decisions in Scotland being taken by the people who live


and work in Scotland. The second issue, the amount of money. Is it


not a fact that every year, under the last Labour government, since


1997, and every year under this coalition government, Scotland,


along with the rest of the UK, has had an increased health budget. It


is not. It is not? Alistair Darling asserted that, perhaps that is where


you have taken it from. The ombudsman followed up the Andy


Burnham question, that is the Labour UK shadow health spokesperson, his


assertion that that claim was not true and the as men said Andy Berman


was right. -- the ombudsman said Andy Burnham was right. In real


terms the spend at UK level by the Westminster government has declined


on health. How much has the health budget been cut in Scotland? It has


not been cut in Scotland because our Parliament has taken a decision to


ring fence health spending in Scotland and protect it. You can


only do that within the limited pot of money that comes not from the


Treasury, which is significantly less than Scotland contributes to


that country. That depends which way you look at it. When it comes to


health spending, the fact is that you could move money from anywhere


in the Scottish budget to help if you wanted to, and if you still felt


there was not enough money, even as things stand now, you could increase


tax or increase spending on health but you have chosen to do none of


that. Not true. We are dancing on the head of a pin, I am not an


elected politician, so I do not get to increase or decrease taxes. You


are confusing me with someone else. We are dancing on the head of a pin.


If you increase health spending, that would mean that in Scotland


because of the fixed money, not because of the resources that we


earn in Scotland and contribute to the UK but because of the fixed


amount of money, we would need to cut spending on education or justice


or housing, that is what it would mean, your argument. In terms of


increasing taxes, let me remind you, people in Scotland already pay taxes


for the National Health Service. Are you seriously suggesting we would


pay twice for a health service simply because down south, the UK


Government wants to decrease its spending on health by introducing


privatisation and market forces? That is a nonsense. As you know, I


was not suggesting that, but we have run out of time. Where are you on


this, on the union? We are not dancing on the head of a pin, it is


on the edge of a precipice! Emotionally I am for independence, I


will swallow my profound dislike of nationalism, Scottish, Russian,


English, such a chip on the shoulder mentality, but rationally, I am


really concerned. I am really concerned for the left. If they


believe there is going to be Nirvana after independence, look to France,


where they had a left-wing Prime Minister, who came in expecting


that, and the fiscal reality has meant that they have had to be quite


right wing and conservative. I think you will find that spending on the


health service and also some other things, which are so precious to the


left, will decline very rapidly within three or four years after


independence. We will see, we will see how it goes on after September


18. The new Education Secretary Nicky Morgan was apparently brought


in to calm the nerves of the education establishment.


She was facing questions in the Commons yesterday and, lo and


behold, she used the opportunity to rebut rumours that the government


was planning to introduce compulsory setting by ability in secondary


schools - something that would no doubt irritate the education


establishment. She was taking part in a debate about infant class


sizes. Let's get a flavour. The number of primary schools with over


800 pupils in them as rocketed by 381%, so we can forget about the


smaller schools with no anonymous pupils, we can forget about knowing


every child's name with the growth of these Titans goals. More and more


so-called Titan primary schools are struggling to educate their pupils.


Assemblies and shift patterns, multiple lunch hours, expanding


class sizes, head teachers and teachers doing their best in the


most difficult of circumstances. The number of infants taught in classes


more than 30 has soared to 93,655, a staggering 200% rise since 2010.


This claim, that children are routinely taught in classes of 70 or


more, is utterly wrong. This shows that some pupils are taking part in


activities such as swimming or arts and craft while supervised by a


number of adults. It is hardly unexpected to find this in a normal


primary school at some point on a Thursday during the year when the


census is taken I will in a moment. It is not how they will be taught in


a classroom normally, he has as good a grasp of school census figures as


he does of 19th-century history. Macro and audible something has been


repeated from what was in the Guardian, which was a compulsory of


-- a system of compulsory setting. For the benefit of the house, there


is no truth in those rumours at all... Let me also say, to the


honourable members here, that there are some people outside of his house


who have a rather unhealthy interest sometimes in speculating about what


I am or am not about to announce... There is a flavour of the new


Education Secretary. Now it's a tough job being


a presenter. In at the crack of dawn,


having your finger on the political But one of the greatest hardships is


trying to get a straight answer. Well, Rob Hutton is


a political reporter for Bloomberg and has written a book about it


called Would They Lie to You?: How to Spin


Friends and Manipulate People. It examines the dark art


of what he calls "uncommunication", the art of not saying what you mean


which he argues is the key to making His new book helpfully gives us a


guide "I'm deeply humbled to accept this


award, as I shall now demonstrate by gently boasting


for the next three minutes." Another example is "regret",


what people really mean when they talk about regret is


"We're sorry that people are upset about the thing that we did that


we're not sorry we did." Its actual definition is, "We're


not going to let the fact that we can't work out how to do it stop us


from announcing what we want to do." And finally,


"That's deeply patronising". Of course something we have


never heard on this programme. Meaning, "I'm not going to dispute


your conclusion, but I think you We are now joined by the author. I


see that you have got the book there are, it is quite small, given the


kind of language you have got to deal with, I thought it would be the


size of Encyclopaedia Britannica! An awful lot of it, inevitably, is the


same things coming round again. There was a nice story outside of


the United States last year, some people sat down and analysed every


answer that the spokesperson for Barack Obama had given, and produced


14,000 ways in which he is not going to answer your question. -- a nice


story coming out of the United States. 13 categories which are


variations of "I have not discussed it within". No spokesman should ever


discuss anything with the person they are speaking for, because then


they can sing the say, "I do not know what he thinks". -- because


they can simply say. Do you think of the scare true language has become


worse? Yes, over the last 20 years or so, because there is so much more


language that politicians have got to produce, we had the Prime


Minister here, he did five broadcast interviews over the last hour. I


very much doubt Harold Macmillan was doing the morning round every six


months or so. -- obfuscatory language. If you find ways, in his


position, to survive that, without creating news... Interesting point,


when we began in journalism, a televised interview by the Prime


Minister of the day was a big event. It did not happen very often. All


the Chancellor. Now, they are on all of the time, quite often without


much to say, and what they want to say they want to hide. Too many


political programmes, that is the problem. How can you say that, you


helped to start the programme and now you stab us in the back!


LAUGHTER Matthew Parris indulged my book on


crime, knee has a 4 word here, so you can tell Eddie is a good book!


-- the as a foreword in the book here. -- so you can tell that it is


a good book. There could have been a Europe saying that Europe makes a


30% more energy efficient, but instead, "Europe is going to take


away the hairdryers! " John Bercow has been accused of appointing this


clerk over the head of parliament, no where are we saying, well, the


committee of six including the Parliamentary ombudsman made the


decision... We never spoil a good story ourselves, most PR people


begin as journalists. My last book was the language of journalists,


that is what led to this one. Journalists have language that makes


everything more furious, a furious blistering row! Every split is a


chasm! Coalition on the brink of disaster... While doing that, we


realised the other side of this, is that people in government try to


make everything as boring as possible. Sometimes, they succeed!


We will have two leave it there. Thank you for joining us for the


duration, neck. Thank you to Nick Ross.


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


There's no This Week tonight, but Jo will be here


at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the day.


She will have all of the information on the latest news, including the


Download Subtitles