08/09/2014 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Alex Salmond's got a smile on his face.

He thinks he's going to win next week's vote on Scottish

Pro-unionist parties have denied claims they are in crisis

following a weekend poll showing that the "Yes" camp has taken the

Political campaigners for Scottish independence say they have

Leaders at Westminster are trying to agree a timetable

for handing more powers to the Scottish parliament if voters choose

The Liberal Democrats launch their General Election pre-manifesto.

We'll be asking if it's worth the 80 pages of paper it's written on.

Are you the Earl of Grantham, Lady Mary or Mr Carson?

The TUC thinks British Society's just like Downton Abbey.

We'll be asking the General Secretary, Frances O'Grady

And can you identify these well-known faces who've popped up

at one London tube station this morning?

Recognise her? We'll be finding out more about the campaign where famous

politicians are getting mashed up. All that in the next hour

and with us for the duration today, Tessa Jowell, she's Labour and Ming

Campbell, he's a Liberal Democrat. Between them they've had

so many top jobs, It's 10 days to go

before voters decide whether they Over the weekend pro-Unionists were

shocked by the first poll to show In response, George Osborne took to

the airwaves to make this offer. You will see in the next few days a

plan of action to give more powers to Scotland, more tax powers, more

spending powers and plans to have more powers over the welfare state

and that will be put into effect and the timetable for delivery will be

put into effect the moment there is a No vote in the referendum on the

clock will be ticking for those powers. And Scotland will have the

best of both worlds. They will avoid the risk of separation and have more

control over their own destiny. No one is daft enough in Scotland to

swallow an argument from a Tory Chancellor. If this was a

significant new after -- offer, rather than a panic measure because

the Westminster elite are losing the campaign we wouldn't have heard

about it before hundreds of thousands of people have cast their

ballot by post. It's a ridiculous position being put forward by the no

campaign which is in terminal trouble.

Well, we're joined now from Glasgow by Blair Jenkins from the Yes

Before we take reaction to what we just heard there, let's look in

general what has happened in the money markets, Mr

general what has happened in the have had one poll that put the Yes

campaign narrowly ahead. It has sent tremors through the money markets.

The pound has slumped to the lowest level but ten months against the

dollar and companies like The Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Life

have fallen sharply. Is that what Scotland has the look forward to? To

the extent that there is uncertainty in the market, and I don't know

whether that's a reflection on the referendum because all sorts of

things influence the markets. I think it is possible it is a result

of that. What you say the uncertainty? It's a very easy way of

calming the markets available, which is it George Osborne said there

would be a currency union with Scotland after a yes vote. It lies

in the gift of the Chancellor and his friends in the other parties to

end the uncertainty there might be. He's already said he won't do that,

and we can safely say he will stick to that line, certainly up to the

poll and beyond, so is it in your mind that you don't believe him and

he is still bluffing. Not only in my mind but in the minds of the people

of Scotland. This issue has exhausted itself in Scotland. People

have heard what the Westminster politicians have to say and the

level of distrust towards Westminster politicians is at an

all-time high, so I think they believe it is a bluff. I do think

that people feel deeply angered that Scotland could not use the pound if

we chose to. As a tactic, and it is a tactic, I believe it is

spectacularly backfiring. I've lost count of the number of people who

have said they have moved from no on two yes just because of this issue

because of the way the Westminster parties have handled the currency

issue. Your point that the excursion -- discussion has been exhausted

might have been demonstrated in the second debate, but when you look at

the uncertainty in the markets, it has moved on and they are very

important in terms of the offer that the Yes campaign is making to

Scottish voters. Do you accept that the very least from what we saw

today and talk and rumours of companies withdrawing deposits, do

you accept that there will be short-term pain in the event of a

yes victory, a period of uncertainty about the currency arrangements. It

could result in a trouble spot. The UK Government is in a good spot.

That is not my question. To be honest, we are very surprised by

this. We are surprised by the extent that the poll came as a shock to

people in Westminster and in London. Anyone who paid any attention at all

to the debate in Scotland knew that at the very least it was going to be

the direction of travel towards yes. We have said that that anyone

looking at the campaigns around Scotland, they are more visible and

audible. There is clearly a yes movement which is bigger than party

politics. And it is not calming the market. You still haven't answered

the question about that uncertainty. Whether it is a shock or not, it has

shocked the international markets that you rely on, and if you are not

part of union and you don't have an alternative, and Alex Salmond said

they would renege on the debt, you become a pariah state. The markets

will no doubt way lots of things up at the moment. Everything around

Scotland moving to become an independent country suggests it will

be done so in a smooth transition. We are interested in stability in

currency and other things. But the implication is that the opposite

will happen. If this is what has happened after one poll puts you

narrowly ahead, what are the indications if that continues in the

next couple of weeks for the smooth transition? I would say it looks

pretty bad. Markets tend to respect the process of democracy and

self-determination. But they do like certainty. Unfortunately life is not

full of certainty right now for many of us. I don't think the cause of

the uncertainty here, such as it is, and it remains to be seen how

large it is, if there is uncertainty, it's been caused by the

Westminster parties and it is in their gift to end the uncertainty. I

don't think people mind about the cause, they want to know what you

can do to calm it down and provide some sort of stability. What can you

do? I am heading a campaign for Scottish independence, I'm not a

politician. What would you expect Alex Salmond and the SNP to do to

calm everybody's nerves? I think the First Minister and the Scottish

Government have been highly responsible and highly consistent in

what we have said. What we discovered yesterday, and it was

nothing new, is that the Westminster parties are bumping into themselves

and each other and finding it hard to get a consistent position on more

power but Scotland. We are clear in what we are doing, but I wish the

others would be as clear in what they are saying. It is true that the

offer of more powers has been made by the three parties at Westminster,

and that timetable looks like it has been brought forward. Do you accept

that in the closing days of the campaign, voters in Scotland can now

have it all ways. If they vote no, they can have extra powers. The

option that would not be on the ballot paper, and they can do it

with no risk. I think people in Scotland are smart enough to see

through what is happening. What are they seeing through? What they see

is that this is driven by panic not conviction. If there had been a

serious move to warn -- towards offering new powers, surely it would

have been done before the postal voting started. That has been

happening for a couple of weeks. Many people in Scotland have already

cast their vote. I think this is driven by a sense of panic and the

ground shifting underneath the no campaign. We know what is on offer

from the Westminster parties is inadequate and it does not give as

job creation powers, governments that we vote for and want, and

policies that reflect the priorities of people in Scotland. It doesn't

give us the fairer Scotland we want and the chance to protect public

services. Lots of things in Scotland are moving people towards the Yes

campaign. It is the biggest grassroots movement Scotland has

seen, and we are happy and confident about how the campaign is going.

Please stay with us and listen to the reaction from our guests. This

is Westminster having been far too complacent. Only now, as we heard

from Mr Jenkins, is there a panic reaction from the government, from

George Osborne making all sorts of offers at the last minute because

they never, ever believed that led Jenkins and Alex Salmond and Nicola

Sturgeon could win this. First of all I don't think we have been

complacent. Certainly, consistently, across all three parties we have

said that this is an option and the people of Scotland have got to vote

on whether they go independent or not, but all three parties are

unanimous about wanting to keep the union together. That is my first

point. My second point is, George Osborne has come out with this,

following a careful look at what is possible and increased devolution,

and having looked at Wales, I ran a successful devolution and increase

the power is going to the Welsh Assembly. How have they closed the

gap? If voters in Scotland really believed it, why is the 20 point gap

that existed with the no campaign ahead has closed and been parsed

according to one poll? Coming up to the referendum there is always going

to be a closing of the gap. I've looked at the betting sites

recently, and this morning the yes vote has moved out slightly. It's

gone more towards the no campaign. I think inevitably, as you get closer

to the date, people focus on it. But the thing that the meat is so

important is, unlike a referendum for further powers, this is

irreversible and it makes Scotland a foreign country and cuts it off from

the rest of the UK. And I firmly believe that politically,

economically, socially, in every way, that the countries are better

together. That has not caught the imagination of people though, has

it? First of all, David Cameron, would have to resign, do you think

question you don't think Tory MPs would call for him to go? He

presided over a 300 year union and failed question I would call to

resign, but I don't think the amount of effort he has put in to try to

try to keep the union together that he should resign if the vote goes

the other way. Rather, I want to make sure that he focuses on what

would happen, because there needs to be an awful lot of energy. There

will be a constitutional crisis. For me, yes it would be a constitutional

crisis. It would be that the Labour Party because they would struggle to

win an election in the near future. -- it would be for the Labour Party.

Is this labour's failure to even hold on to their own mainstay

voters? They are bleeding support to the SNP and the Yes campaign because

they have been too complacent in Scotland and they don't believe Ed

Miliband will win next year. No. Really? Why are they going to the

SNP then? There is always excitement about what is seen as insurgent, and

to use a derogatory term of language, what is an

antiestablishment campaign. I grew up in Scotland and I have a strong

sense of the distinctiveness of Scotland within the union. That is

what this seeks to recognise. But I believe that the no campaign will

win the referendum. It is not... There is a lot of Westminster

introspection. And panic. Not panic. Had 13 people recorded their

intention differently in this poll, the story would have been a

completely different one. Everybody recognises 20 points ahead before.

The momentum is now with the Nationalists and with the

independence campaign. They have their offer... The momentum is with

a great moment for Scotland, which is referendum day. The no campaign

will be working and identifying those people who feel tempted by the

insurgency of the Yes campaign. They need to explain precisely what the

consequences would be. Would it have been better if Labour had not been

in a broad coalition going into Scotland to try and sell the

prounion argument? They should have gone up and sold the left-wing

campaign to try and outdo the Nationalists on the fairer society,

the social democracy? This is not a time for that. It was the wrong

campaign? This is a time to persuade hearts and minds. I am sure that

every single political party, including the Nationalists, will

have the Rhone postmortem after, but we are in this to persuade the

people of Scotland to remain part of the union.

Has it been the wrong campaign? I heard Henry McLeish saying this

should have been a hearts and minds campaign, that's how Scotland work

and the "no" campaign wasn't? That's not the case. What the "no" campaign

has sought to do is point out the consequences. You said earlier, or

in a question, independence is not for Christmas. This is in perpetuity

not just for us but for our children and grandchildren, and what we have

heard already, everything will be the best in all possible independent

worlds. If Scotland were to be independent it would face a large

number of challenges, some of which are emphasised today, and the

markets are spooked. It is all very easy to say the Chancellor can fix

this by announcing there will be a currency union, but all three

parties made it clear some time ago there wouldn't be one. Didn't spook

the markets. Far from that, it re-enforced them, because the

markets are concerned with the union in which one important constituent

part of it sets its own tax, decides what the levels of borrowing are and

it's own interest rates. How can you run an effective single currency if

you have all three of threes at the discretion of one part of it? There

is a contemporary ill slayings and that's the union in the single

currency. Not enough voters are being persuade. Does the general

election get called off next year if the "yes" vote wins? I see not

reason... Even if Scottish MPs would be sitting ducks? I see no

justification for that. That would only muddy the waters, but you make

a very good point, which is this - it's been said that change can all

be done in 18 months. During that period and well beyond it, if you

think there's uncertainty in the moment there as sure as hell will be

then, because the notion of extracting from uT United Kingdom, a

Scottish -- from the United Kingdom, to the extent that we are across the

border and the income tax and the welfare and all three armed

services, Ofcom, Ofgem, and every single thing you can think of which

is UKwide will have to be deconstructed. How long do you think

that will take and cost? Why did the Scottish Secretary say he would

switch sides in the event of a "yes" vote? He said it would be the duty

of people like him to do everything they could in the interests of

Scotland and he was willing to do that to ensure the settlement that

was achieved was as best as could possibly be obtained. Blair Jenkins

has been sitting there and listening. Your response to what our

three guests have said? There may be a majority of five to one and they

are proud of the process. We've had a mature and responsible debate for

more than two years now and on the issues aired by the panel they've

been fully aired and discussed, people are making up their minds.

People are deciding and all the evidence we have, not just the poll,

but everything I see and hear, says people are moving to question. Blair

Jenkins, thank you very much. It's time for the daily quiz. The

question for today is about the US President, President Obama. He was

in the country last week, but before heading home he took the chance to

visit a popular visitor attraction. Was it:

Was it Barry Island, altonne towers and -- Alton Towers or threes two.

We can only divide the screen into four. What about Blackpool Tower or

Loch Lomond. Only eight months to the general election. The Liberal

Democrats have this morning launched their pre-manifesto, whatever that

is. What's in it? He's had a tough time in Government, but Nick Clegg

is keen for more. What is he going to be shouting about? Well, expect

to hear a lot about plans to extend the 15 hours a week of free

childcare to parents of all two-year-olds. To be paid for by

scrapping the Conservatives' plans to introduce a tax break for some

couples. Among the others, a commitment to raise the amount you

have to earn before you pay income tax to ?12,500. And a promise to

protect all education spending from early years to college. Those aged

16 to 21 in England will be handed a young persons bus pass, giving them

a 66% discount, funded by scrapping TV licences and the winter fuel

allowance for pensioners who qualify as higher rate taxpayers. The NHS

budget will be ring-fenced and they promise to increase taxes on the

wealthiest. With eight months to go, the party is struggling in the

polls. Last Sunday they were on just 7%. Many observers argue the party

is suffering from breaking their commitment on tuition fees, so the

big question is which of the policies are red lines and which are

negotiatable? The man in charge, David Laws, he joins me from

Westminster. Welcome to The Daily Politics. In 2012, when Nick Clegg

apologised for the tuition fees pledge, he said the Liberal

Democrats shouldn't make a promise they were not absolutely sure they

can deliver. Are you absolutely confident you can deliver everything

in this? Yes, I believe we can, but obviously it also depends not just

on what we - the way in which we cost, but the outcome of the general

election, because parties have to sit down, if there's a hung

Parliament, and negotiate with each other. The Conservative Party last

time had to sacrifice some of the biggest pledges in its manifesto,

such as the pledge they made to raise the Inheritance Tax

thresholds. I'm confident. And it's what happens after the hung

Parliament when you have to negotiate with another party and no

party is able to say they can impose 100% of a manifesto on anybody else.

If there was one thing in that manifesto that you would say you

would not drop under any circumstances, even in a coalition

negotiation, which would ensure you were in government again, what would

it be? We will say more closer to the election what the highest

priorities are, but I think you can guess through the priority that we

have given in this Parliament to things like raising the income tax

allowance, and things like that, commitments on education, they are

very important to us. They are what Liberal Democrats are about. Tuition

fees were important too, weren't they? They were important, yes, but

we faced a situation where firstly neither of the other potential

parties of coalition were willing to agree to it and secondly, we had to

do what the other parties had to do after an election, which is sit down

and come to an agreement with those other parties and also make sure

that we had the finance to do all of the things that the other parties

wanted to do, as well as ourselves. How much will this cost? We'll

publish a costings paper closer to the general election. Obviously, it

depends on the way in which we phase some of the policies in. We have

income tax and childcare, which have given us long-term and bold

ambitions and how we implement those, stage them in. We'll publish

the figures before the next election, but what Nick Clegg did

say today is that the proposals that are in the pre-manifesto, that we

published today, are actually considerably less expensive than the

manifesto we stood on in 2010. You have learnt your lessons then? We

have. I'm personally confident if we were a Liberal Democrat government

by ourselves and we didn't have to negotiate with others, then all that

we put in our pre-manifesto today is deliverable. We've been every

careful about that. Can you tell us, you'll know how much it would cost

to raise the personal allowance to ?12,500? It depends how rapidly you

do it. How much as a total? Over the lifetime of a Parliament it's

something like ?5 billion per year by the end of the Parliament.

Obviously, there are some increases in the allowance that will happen

through indexing for inflation. That would be by the end of the

Parliament. Looking at mansion tax, you failed to get anywhere with

that. That was during this Parliament. What makes you think,

unless you are in coalition with Labour, you'll be able to get that

through this time? Every negotiation with another party is a separate

one. And how you did on the previous occasion didn't necessary -- doesn't

necessarily mean you won't be successful or not. The Conservatives

are pretty well saying that's not going to happen, even though

privately George Osborne was warming to it? There was a moment in the

Parliament where the Conservatives did come close to agreeing something

that looked tax on high-Qual ewe properties, so I'm not -- high-value

priorities, so I'm not writing that off. Some of the pledges you could

introduce now or you could have introduced while in government. Why

haven't you, like universal childcare? In this cases it's simply

going to be the short-term financial consequences, as you know. We are

already rolling out at the moment two-year education, so 0% of

two-year-olds -- so 40 of two-year-olds. Increase in the

personal tax allowance that will occur in April next year. In part,

it's that on principle we could have done some of the other things, but

we have to make sure that in the short term they're affordable and

actually some of the things will become more affordable in the next

Parliament. Last month, you accused the Conservatives of putting cuts

before tackling poverty a priority as far as you're concerned. You

would go into coalition with the Conservatives if they were the

largest parties? We are not able to say we would go into coalition with

anybody, prior to having a negotiation about the things that we

stand for. If we were - if it was to be proposed we went into coalition

and if we weren't secure in terms of policies of course we would say no.

It all depends on how much of the Liberal Democrat programme for

government and how much of the policies we have announced today we

are enable to enact. You'll be holding the parties to ransom? It's

not about that. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party in a hung

Parliament would have to do the same and sit down, if they failed to

secure a majority and figure out how to get a sensible programme for the

country for the Parliament. We did that in a mature way in 2010. We did

it quickly and efficiently in contrast to what many people

expected before the general election. I'm sure we would do it

calmly and sensibly if there's a hung Parliament. You may not have -

you may be able to take more time if the economic circumstances would be

different as to when you started negotiate in coalition in 2010. Have

you enjoyed the coalition with the Conservatives? I've enjoyed the fact

that the Liberal Democrats have actually been in government being

able to do something rather than criticising the Government of the

day. It's been a tough time to be in government, because of the scale of

the deficit we inherited. We have had to do things we haven't wanted

to do, but also been able to deliver policies like the pupil premium and

the higher personal tax allowance that we are passionate about and if

the choice is between being in government and sitting on the

sidelines I know what I would prefer any day of the week. Are you missing

Michael Gove? I got on well with Michael Gove. He was an entertaining

guy and passionate and cared very much about social mobility,

particularly improving the life chances of young people and the

disadvantaged, but these matters are decided by the Prime Minister and

I'm now working very well his successor. Well done. David Laws,

thank you. Thank you. If the Tories are the largest party, but not big

enough to form a majority government, would you want a

minority or coalition with the Liberal Democrats? First, I'm

working for a majority government and I'm sure Tessa will be working

for a majority government. We would expect you to say that. I'm not

impressed by the Liberal Democrats showing a bit of leg to both

parties. This is what it's all about. The Liberal Democrats -- Why

shouldn't they? They are saying, "Come with us, we'll be there to

prop you up." Do you like what you hear? Not particularly. What is it

you don't like? Some of the things you didn't mention. I understand

already in this pre-election manifesto they're ruling out

expanding the airports, but they'll look at the Davies Commission and

also they would move to decriminalising drugs. Ming can tell

me about those, but they are a case of wanting your cake and eating it.

I don't take this launch very seriously. I think it's a lot of

apple pie. And mother hood. I think that they need to remember that

unfortunately the electoral politics meant there had to be a deal done.

And And if they're the same again? I would prefer not to. Having served

in the government in coalition, I would prefer to go it alone with a

minority government. How many of your colleagues feel the same way? I

don't mean exact numbers. I think there's a number that would share

the same view. That's a problem, Ming, because you can show as much

leg as you like, but if the Conservatives and many of Cheryl's

colleagues feel - and we know many have had enough of coalition and

they feel they haven't been able to do the things they want to do,

despite David Laws saying they've achieved a lot in coalition, then

you are going to be frozen out. show because it is up to the public

to decide. Whichever party has the largest number of seats will say

they will have a minority government. They could do. Yes, and

there are consequences, because if we're worried about uncertainty in

the markets, then if ever there was a way to create uncertainty in the

markets, it is having a minority government. If there is a supply and

demand deal done with the Liberal Democrats then? Well, that is a

deal. Would you be up for that? It is what the public decide they want,

and in those circumstances everything must be on the table. But

it's important to make this point, minority governments last a few

months and then you have to go to the country, and if you're concerned

about certainty in the economy, the notion of two general elections in a

few months will not help that, and nor will it be welcome to the public

who expect, if they produce a result which is not clear-cut in the way we

are describing, that some effort would be made to find a common

purpose, as we did after 2010, when we were staring over the abyss. This

time it will be different. You might argue that the markets will be

calmer. They have seen what has happened in coalition and there

could be more time and flexibility for negotiation which could be, as

far as the Labour Party are concerned, they would not make the

same mistake again. They will make sure that if they don't have enough

seats, they will match up with the Liberal Democrats. I don't think

that is a given at all. What David laws is talking about is a kind of

hung parliament manifesto because the Liberal Democrats are not going

to form a majority government. Like Cheryl, my party, the Labour Party,

we would want to form a majority government and to be able to

implement the manifesto. But I was part of the discussions immediately

after the defeat in 2010, and when the Liberal Democrats were riding

considerably higher than they are now, I think there are questions

about the nature of democracy. For instance, if the Liberal Democrats

have lost a substantial number of seats, is it really right, are you

really responding to what the public have said in the election by saying,

OK, you can tag along with us and then we will be in government. These

are the kind of questions that are unresolved. Let's say you lose 15 or

20 seats... I will deal with that in a moment. But if anybody fails to

get an overall majority then you have to do understand that that is a

judgement of the public, just as if the Liberal Democrats were to lose

seats, that would have to be taken into account. The polling suggests

that the local parties are strong, and when members of Parliament are

as effective as they can be, then then the stark reality of the

average opinion poll taken through the country will not be reflected in

any way in the result. That is a fair point. Would you do a minority

Labour government or coalition with the Liberal Democrats question we

are going to be majority government. Knocking on the doors of people

around the UK, we are not saying, will you help us enter a coalition?

But you like the mansion tax, you agree with that, and you could

negotiate over the top rate. There are so many things you share with

the Liberal Democrats. We are going to be the majority government. That

is what we are working for and campaigning for. There is a hint of

Alex Salmond here. There is no Alex Salmond in this. Are you not

planning for a coalition? Was that not the mistake last time round? Of

course we are not planning for a coalition. We are planning a

programme to offer to the British people, and we hope... There have

been all sorts of overture was made by Ed Miliband though. I think there

has been more reporting of it than actual over jewels. Ming Campbell

will stand on the doorstep and say we will go with either party. Tessa

and I can say this is the manifesto. I resent the implication. It is the

voter that loses out when the politicians just get the deal in the

end. I resent the invitation. So, TUC General Secretary,

Frances O'Grady thinks British society currently resembles one

of our favourite TV programmes, Here's what she had to say

at their annual conference Come the election, we all face a

choice. Are we going to settle for a nasty and poorer Britain? A Downton

Abbey style society in which the living standards of the vast

majority are sacrificed to pay for the high living of the well-to-do

question where the blame is heaped on the most vulnerable. Migrants,

claimants, while the powerful and privileged sit pretty. Or are we

going to seize the opportunity and build a new and fair economy that

provides the people of this country with good skilled jobs?

Well, Francis O'Grady joins us now from Liverpool.

You say Britain can afford pay rises for public sector workers for

sustained growth in the economy, so do you want to congratulate George

Osborne for that sustained growth? The problem is that George Osborne

personally overturned the recommendation of the independent

pay review body that looks at the evidence and recommended a very

modest 1% increase for nurses and midwives and other health care

workers, and George Osborne said no, they would not get a penny. That is

one reason why people feel so fed up as it seems like George Osborne

talks about a recovery in the economy but it's not one in which

ordinary people share. But you do accept there has been a recovery and

it's come about as a result of George Osborne and the coalition's

economic policies? I suspect that wealth is really created by the

people who go to work for a living. And, in fact, we know the recovery

has been much slower than other countries, but even so, we have had

economic recovery for two years. Ordinary people, on average, have

taken pay cuts in real terms for the last four years. We think it's time

Britain had a pay rise. You are absolutely right. Wages have been

behind the prices for years and there is no sign of it going the

other way. What would be your proposal? What sort of pay rise

would you like to see for public sector workers? All we are asking is

that George Osborne respects the recommendations of that independent

pay review body. But we also think the government should send a signal

that we should be heading for a living wage, a wage people can live

in dignity on, and half a million local government workers don't earn

a living wage. That is not sustainable and ultimately not good

for the economy of people don't have money to spend in local shops and

businesses. Let's have a look at affordability. Over the last year,

there have been retail indications that show that people are spending

more than they were a year ago and you are calling for a ?10 minimum

wage. Is that affordable? It is certainly a goal. But is it

affordable? Nobody is saying it should be delivered tomorrow, but we

are saying we can afford a higher minimum wage, much more than the ?6

50 it will rise to next October, and the truth is, could you live on

that? I know I couldn't and I'm sure George Osborne could not either.

What about current levels of public borrowing? Do you know how much they

are at the moment? I haven't got the figures on me, but as I say, I think

we have had one of the slowest recoveries, and many people, many

economists argue that is because the government cut far too deeply, and

the problem is that people are beginning to spend more, but they

are still dipping into what little savings they have or they are

getting further into debt. It's not a sustainable way to run the

economy, and I think the Chancellor has do rethink it. Compared to

countries in the Eurozone, where unemployment is running at 27%,

youth unemployment at 47% in Spain. The forecasts from the office of the

budget responsibility for borrowing is ?95.5 billion. I come back to the

question, and I'm saying you are not having the minimum wage tomorrow,

but is it right to have the goal of a ?10 minimum wage is, I think it is

absolutely sustainable to have their wages in the public sector. Unions

are the first people to say let sit around the table and talk about jobs

and services and let's talk about pay. We understand the trades off

that have to be made, but we want people to have the respect to talk

to their own workers. I never thought I would see the day that

midwives would be balloting for strike action. It takes a lot of the

people to feel so insulted and so worried about managing their bills

that that is what it has come to. I really think that this government

needs to talk and listen. You also accuse the coalition of creating a

Downton Abbey society where migrants and claimants are blamed rather than

helped. Do you agree it is the case that many union members support

things like the welfare cap and restriction on benefits for new

migrants because they are the ones that have suffered? I think if you

listen to the whole speech, you would have heard me say that nobody

likes cheating in welfare and we know that there is a very small

minority of those who do cheating welfare, and they need to be

tackled, just as the far greater amounts we see avoided by companies

when they should be paying their taxes. But there is strong support

here for a strong welfare system and there is also a growing feeling that

the problem is not migrant workers, the problem is employers exploiting

them and undercutting their pay. Again, we would like to see some

tough talk and action for the minority of bad employers. How much

of what Frances O'Grady has said with the Labour government be

willing to implement? I agree with a lot of what she just said. I think

she was being very reasonable. I think, and we do have a national

minimum wage, and I would hope that there could be a real drive with the

trade unions as partners to see more employers paid the living wage. And

the ?10 as a goal? You would not sign up to that? We have a low pay

commission, and they will have additional powers to ensure

enforcement of the minimum wage, because the point Frances O'Grady

makes is right, that one of the reasons why there is a sense of

alienation in workplaces and some parts of the country is this sense

that migrant workers are undercutting the national minimum

wage. We would make sure that the low pay commission brought cases

against those who did that. How many cases have been brought? Hardly any.

The numbers are negligible. I'm not sure that is reassuring people in

low paid work, but they are worried. Many Labour Party members, and many

union members, are about immigration, migrants taking low

paid work that could be theirs. That is how that has been expressed to

the Labour Party and they don't think you've done enough about it. I

don't accept that. First of all, we know that family income has fallen

under this government. It is very important that the protective floor

of the national minimum wage is properly implemented and that we set

our ambition higher than that. With employers and trade unions to secure

the living wage. But if you have non-cash benefits like childcare,

which are very important for families who are really

struggling... We do have to move on. We might be able to come back to

some of these issues later in the programme.

This afternoon David Cameron will make a statement in the House

of Commons about last week's Nato summit in Wales.

Also today, the cross-party House of Commons Commission meets

and is expected to discuss whether to create two top jobs to

On Tuesday, a devo max paper on Scotland - setting out how and

when powers could be transferred - expected to be backed by Mr Cameron,

Mr Miliband and Nick Clegg, could be published as soon as tomorrow.

And Boris Johnson will no doubt be prepping hard all week

for a selection meeting to choose the next Conservative candidate

Joining me now from College Green are the Sun's Political Editor,

Tom Newton Dunn and Tamara Cohen from the Daily Mail.

First of all, is there a general sense of panic about Westminster

following this poll that put the Yes campaign narrowly ahead, or is it

overstated? There is panic. Interesting this morning where the

PM's spokesman tells us about the week ahead. Usually it's a good

kickabout, but for 50 minutes we talked about nothing but Scotland.

One question on the end about something else. Scotland is the only

game in town. The YouGov polls last week and the Sunday Times have

thrust us all into a single-track mode and there is now a massive

problem about what to do on eversing this momentum and switching away

from yes. Talking about the Government want to reverse, has this

been a wake-up call that has come too late or is it what the "no"

campaign needs? It's been a collective intake of breath this

morning, with the poll. I don't think there was that realisation

that the "yes" campaign has gone from 22 points behind in the polls

to one point ahead, so there's panic and also a real feeling they they

failed to develop a strategy for the "yes" campaign seizing the momentum

at the last minute. We have had George Osborne this weekend talking

about giving Scots more control of their destiny and we'll get more of

that from the three parties by devolution. We now hear there's not

going to be anything new in it, but reiterating the same. There's

definitely panic mode over the next ten days. We'll talk about

speculation. Tom, say there's a victory for the "yes" campaign,

would David Cameron have to resign? It's inevitable. I don't think a

Prime Minister could hang on having presided over - whether it's his

fault or not - it would change the politics and finances, our defence,

welfare system. The country and England itself would also be

unrecognisable and I think there would be an enormous clamour for new

leadership to get us through that and I suppose what's interesting

about today, with another development this morning, that the

Prime Minister, David Cameron, is now almost entirely totally

powerless in this crusade to save the union. It's down to Labour's big

beasts to try to turn those Labour voters, who are the ones that are

causing this massive cascade towards the "yes" vote. The PM's job is on

the line. I certainly believe that, but he has to sit on his hands,

which is an extraordinary predicament to be in. Following on

from that, what do you think happens to the 2015 election if there is a

victory for the "yes" vote? It leaves it in chaos. We have a

situation where Scots wouldn't leave the union if they vote yes until

March 2016. They would get to vote in the 2015 election and they are 41

Labour MPs and one Conservative in Scotland. There could be a situation

where Scottish Labour MPs are propping up a Miliband government

next year and they would all leave in 2016 and leave them without a

majority. A bit of a constitutional crisis. There has been discussion

about having to delay the election by another year, although we

understand that has been ruled out because the prospect of having six

years of one government is considered something that shouldn't

go ahead because of this. Since you talked about it all mourn, Tom,

something else briefly. The NATO rapid reaction force that was

announced, with contribution from the UK, returning to the Cold War?

It would be nice, wouldn't it, if the combined armies and allies of

the West were to get together and face down two, even three, different

tleeTS, certainly Ukraine and the Islamic State threat in the Middle

East. And then there's Gaza and pass Stein and Israel. I don't --

Palestine and Israel. I don't think it will happen. The force was the

best that a reasonably weakened, divided summit could come up with.

Remember one third will be British and the whole thing will be

British-led. There is a feeling among NATO that something must be

done, but there's no commitment whatsoever to do anything

substantial about it, so very far from the days of the grand alliance

that won the Cold War. Tom Newton Dunn and Tamara Cohen, enjoy your

week. Our panel, as you can see, you are young, thrusting, modernising

types, but what about rest of Parliament? Does it need to be

dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century? I said that with

conviction. This week, MPs will discuss whether to split the role of

the clerk of the Commons in order to have a Chief Executive who can

devote all his or her time running the place and have a separate role

for an expert to advise the speaker on Parliamentary procedure, but is

this necessary, Ming? You have to remember that the role of the clerk

of the House has constitutional significance. Not least because the

appointment is actually made by the Queen on the recommendation of the

Prime Minister. So far as I know recently, there has never been an

occasion when that recommendation was made and the monarch of the day

turned it down. Building on what we have been talking about this

morning, the next 18 months at least are perhaps -- or perhaps the next

five or six years, will be enormously significant in

constitution. Think of the legislation that will be necessary

if there was a vote for independence in order to give effect to that. If

ever there was a time when the help of Parliament you need somebody who

is thoroughly and completely skilled in that and remember, we are a

legislature, we are not a business. It just happens that there are quite

a lot of business motions. Don't doubt that for a moment. I don't see

why you cannot create a structure in which the clerk of the House retains

his or her position, but that you have someone who is responsible like

that of the chief operating officer. The Chief Executive, with a chief

operating officer. You can construct something of that kind, which helps

you deal with the business issues, but also preserves the primacy and

constitutional importance of the clerk. This has been caused, this

row, by John Bercow, proposing Carol Mills from the Australian

Parliament, who many feel she is not adequately qualified. Does he

survive this? That's not for me to judge, but fo the House. What do you

think? I have to tell you that the situation that has arisen over the

clerk is for me like telling a whole lot of heart surgeons they're moving

to the top of their profession and then appointing a dentist to head up

that section of the hospital. For me, Ming is absolutely right and I

agree, we need that expertise from that number of men and women that

have come up between all the administrations, that has that

experience that they can impart. Has he made a mistake. There was a

panel, not just him. What I don't want to do is use this as a rod to

beat the Speaker. Right. You don't think that. I don't think it's

right. That is the important thing. Of course, the House of Commons has

got to keep on modernising and being efficient and effective and I think

Ming has set out the case clearly, but this is being used as a proxy by

people who don't like John Bercow to get at him. We should stand up for

him, because he believes in ensuring that the House reflects all the

expectations of the public. We'll talk about a popular subject, MPs'

pay. Are you in the line of one advertising company, are you worth

it, a 10% increase? I'm not standing at the next election. The fact is

that the independent Parliament standards authority was set up to

determine MPs' pay. Why, because there was a broad consensus after

expenses that MPs should not -- Are MPs worth it? Yes. Are they worth

it? I think most MPs do a thoroughly, good job and it should

be decided on independently. This is the wrong time. Yes, they are. I

have said this to Lorraine Kennedy's face, at this moment, and we have

heard Frances O'Grady, the idea that we would get - I'm not standing

after next May either. The idea we get a 10% increase immediately

before an election frankly makes so sense whatsoever. There is a good

reason for that, if someone may choose that, but where do the

burdens fall? MPs will be responsible. Everyone who stantes in

the next general election will be asked the question, will you or will

you not take it? Rich people will say no, people who need the money

will say, they think they will take it. It distorts the position. What

do you get when you cross Angela Merkel and John Prescott? I dread to

think. Or Boris Johnson and Karl Marx. Please, don't send your

answers in. Our Adam has been out and about finding out about some

pretty strange political mashups. Westminster tube, used by more than

30,000 people every day. Lots of them hacks. And MPs. They're always

bombarded with adverts for something, whether a campaign,

company or lobby group, but look what has popped up today. Yes, it's

Maggie and gevara. Do you think the guerilla look suits her? I don't

think any look suits her, but not the worst. The whole point is to get

people to think not left and right, but do you think it's good? I don't

think so really. Personally, I don't think they should have altered the

image like that. Who is it dig respectful to who? Thatcher. We are

Conservative mainly, so posters don't do nothing for me. I kwieBG

like Margaret Thatcher. There are plenty more to come. Boris with Karl

Marx and Angela Merkel with John prosecution so the. All dreamt up by

a group called the Social Economy Alliance. We want to get to that

part of people's brains where they have to stop and think and have to

be confused and reorder the thoughts and allow a different space for a

different way of thinking about economics and business. Even the

ticket barriers are plastered with them, so tonight I've got to decide

do I go home through Michaels Foot and Gove or May and Harman. It's so

difficult. Since you enjoyed that so much, team cue have a go at trying

to divide the mash yups we have put together. No-one like the Angela

Merkel and John Prescott one. We'll go for the first one. Take a look

and see if you can tell us who they are. Who is this? Douglas Carswell

and Andrew George. No, David Cameron. Not a good look. No. We'll

try number two. Highly improbable! Yes, it is. Number two. That's an

interesting mashup. Who do you think that is? Boris Johnson and... I'm

frightened to say. No, say it. I love the fact that you're frightened

to say. There's a passing resemblance to somebody who is

sitting next to me. Number three. Who is that? Ming the Terrible? I'm

afraid it's me. It's not just you. It's Ming the Merciless and you? Do

you like that? The principal cartoonist in The Guardian for a

long time, that was his motif, and after I became leader he made me

look less frightening. We have time to find out the answer to the quiz.

Do you remember the question, after the summit, where did President

Obama go? Stonehenge. Do you remember the picture with the

family. They must have been surprised to see President Obama

going through. Yes, there it is. That is the correct answer. Well

done all of you. I'm going to say thank you to all our guests. I'm

sorry the programme goes through so quickly. We had so much to talk

about. The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now and

I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the

day. Make sure you join me. From all of us here, goodbye.

Until there's concrete proof he's acting irresponsibly,

What are you doing?! Don't get him out!