11/09/2014 Daily Politics

good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. President

good afternoon, welcome to the Daily United States will extend attacks on

the -- into Syria, should written joining with the militants? Some of

Scotland's biggest financial institutions say they will relocate

part of their business to England if there is a yes vote. Is the momentum

swinging back to the no campaign? 1400 children abused in Rotherham by

gangs of men of Pakistani heritage will stop was political correctness

to blame for a lack of action by police and the local council?

And why can politics make us so dam angry?

All that in the next hour. With us for the whole of the programme

today, someone who David Cameron once told his party they should

learn to love, Polly Toynbee, welcome to the programme.

The chairman of John Lewis, Charlie Mayfield, has warned of the

likelihood of higher prices in its Scottish stores in an independent

Scotland. Those claims have been dismissed by the pro-independence

campaign but it is the latest in a number of warnings to the business

community about the impact of a yes vote. At the beginning of the week,

the yes campaign was in buoyant spirits with polls suggesting a

narrow lead for independence. The last 24-hour 's have slightly

dampened the mood. Three of Scotland's biggest financial

institutions have confirmed they would move parts of their business

south of the border if Scotland votes yes. The Royal Bank of

Scotland would move its head office and registered office to London.

Lloyds would move its legal home to its head office which is already in

London. Standard life said it would create companies in England to

protect its customers. Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney told

MPs on the Treasury committee that in the event of a yes vote, Scotland

would need to amass billions of pounds of currency in reserves. And

a new poll shows a 6 Point lead for the no campaign. SNP leader Alex

Salmond has hit back, saying the leader of these offers -- the move

of these offices would have no impact on jobs or services. He was

sounding confident of a yes vote in XP's poll. -- next week's poll.

Scotland is on the cusp of making history, the eyes of the world are

upon Scotland and what Scotland is saying is an articulate, peaceful,

energise debate. Scotland will vote yes next Thursday. And they will

vote yes because last-minute cobbled up promises from the no campaign,

which unravel at the slightest scrutiny, will not throw anyone in

this country and neither will be latent bullying and intimidation of

the Westminster government. Joining me from Glasgow is the

Liberal Democrat MP and former leader of the Liberal Democrats,

Charles Kennedy. Welcome to the Daily Politics. He is sounding ever

so confident. Yes and good luck to him. I am one of those who always

thought this would be a very tight on the night finish and so will

prove. As we go into the last week, we are hearing noises from outside

the political circus, warning us as to what may or may not be the

locations. Scots will have to weigh those up for themselves, take them

seriously. I also think, this is why have been campaigning in Glasgow

this morning, we have got to be positive, both about what the union

has brought for Scotland over the centuries, and what Scotland has

brought to the union and how much more we can still achieve together.

Do you think it has been too negative, all about the risks and

warnings that Alistair Darling and the Better Together campaign have

run a downbeat campaign? I don't think they have run a downbeat,

negative campaign. I think we have asked all of the pertinent westerns

that need to be asked, we have asked them repeatedly and have not had

many concise answers, that is putting it diplomatically. I think

at the same time -- the pertinent questions. There is a case for

taking things forward after the referendum. Not just those of us in

the no camp. An awful lot of Scots and civic Scotland, many of whom

will vote yes, but they should have an input as well into how we get

Scotland onto a better footing within a UK that is on a better

footing. That seems to be moving in a more federal correction. You say

there should be a more positive note sounded. The Better Together

campaign and your colleagues have said there is great uncertainty and

that is underlined by the reaction from some businesses and financial

institutions. Is what you are offering now, postal votes have been

cast before the offer, is it any more certain, there are three

different versions of what extended powers Scotland would have in the

event of a no vote. Actually the truth is there is more uncertainty

with what you are offering. I would not have started from where we are

right now left to myself. I argued it was better to have an agreed

package. But even if we have a finally agreed package amongst the

three principal UK parties, that would not be the end. We couldn't

absolutely say, there is the deal, seal it, because you would still

have to go out after the referendum and consult many people who had

voted yes, to get their input as well. Because all the experience in

Scotland and indeed elsewhere in the UK shows that to get good lasting

constitutional change, you have got to go beyond the boundaries of one

bit of the argument. You have got to try to embrace positively as many

people from other parts, too. Let's talk about certainty. Scottish

voters want to know how it will affect them directly and be Better

Together campaign has said it can give guarantees. What guarantee can

you give in terms of powers over levels of taxation for Scotland if

they vote to stay together? The level of guarantee is simply this.

You have the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats

and whatever the arithmetic of the next House of Commons, all are

agreed that there is going to have to be a greater share of tax raised

within Scotland. How much? As I said, you can't begin the detailed

discussions on that until after the referendum. Not just because of the

three parties, but because of the wider interests in the trade union

movement, in business, in civic Scotland as a whole that are going

to have to be involved. You have also got to look at how this impacts

on the rest of the United Kingdom, too. In Wales, Northern Ireland, the

regions and across England as a whole. There is a great deal more

work to be done. We have a settled base camp and that is next Thursday,

a week to day. That is Scotland staying in the UK. Let's have the

answer is, yes we are, we are going to vote no. But then we are going to

take it forward. There are three different offers and there are

Scottish voters I have spoken to who are just not sure what will actually

come out of it, what will they get in terms of labour, depending on

what happens in 2015, their offer is lower in terms of power is lower in

terms of powers going to Scotland in the event of a no vote, and that

doesn't fill many Scottish voters with great reassurance. All I can

say is that in the real world, all three of us, the Conservative Party,

Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, we will have to compromise and we have

act knowledge that by signing what we have signed, at a UK level and a

Scottish level -- we have acknowledged that. We are going to

have to go wider than just ourselves to win wider acceptance. The no

vote, having this referendum behind us, will in fact bolster that. Alex

Salmond, from his point of view, talks about having a mandate to

negotiate independence. The application being, he negotiates and

then he comes back. There is no coming back, there is no going back.

Whatever is negotiated, that is it. In our case we have a mandate, to

agree amongst ourselves as the political parties, but that mandate

must extend beyond us if it is to win the commonweal, if it is to win

wider acceptance. That is the business we are on. Stay with us, I

think we have Dennis Canon from the yes campaign. I don't know how much

of Charles Kennedy you were able to hear. I didn't hear any of it,

unfortunately. Let's start from the beginning, then. Statements from

businesses like RBS, Lloyds and standard life. Do you agree that

what they have said only serves to underline the uncertainty that would

result in a yes vote? I think it has got to be clear, first of all, that

RBS have indicated that there will be no transfer of jobs or operations

out of Scotland. If there is a degree of uncertainty, I think it is

Charles's coalition government and his colleague, Danny Alexander and

his boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who are responsible. All

of the Unionist parties have ganged up against the democratically

elected Scottish Government and said, in effect, no way will we have

a currency union. And that is what is causing the uncertainty, because

there is a great leap throughout Scotland that these politicians in

Westminster are just bluffing, and that when we get a yes vote, the

reality will kick in and good Liberal Democrat MPs like Charles

will save for the good of Scotland and the good of the MP, let's go

with this currency union. Let's put that to Charles Kennedy. Will you

and your colleagues at Westminster immediately say, let's talk currency

union? I am sorry. Because of a lot of internal BBC chatter, I come to,

missed what it was you were talking with Dennis about so can you bring

up to speed? -- I, too, missed what it was. The line is that you have

ganged up on the currency issue and it is your full that there is this

uncertainty that has led to businesses saying they may have to

move part of their business, and that when there is a yes vote on the

19th, you will all fall into line and start talking currency union.

Dennis is one of my favourite stars in politics and always has been, I

will not hear a word against him but what I will say is I think he has

had some distinct ideas of his own about his preferred option for a

Scottish currency. After this referendum, if it was yes, we

achieved independence. The fact of the matter is, let's deal with the

world as we know it. Not what the politicians are saying, but what

business and commerce are pointing out. That is the most reliable guide

on which we can base future progress. That is the world is at

least highly uncertain. I find it interesting that the yes campaign,

led by Alex Salmond, are saying the best option for Scotland and

currency is the option we have got. Agreed, agreed. So let's keep it.

Let's not upturned the applecart by voting for independence. Alex

Salmond is the head of the Scottish Government. He is leading the

campaign. It was his idea to have the referendum. Assuming we get a

yes result in that referendum, he will have a mandate to lead the

negotiations. He has made it perfectly clear that his preferred

option is to have sterling within a currency union. Nobody can stop

Scotland using sterling because it is an international tradable

currency. The point is the desirability or otherwise of a

currency union. They have a situation whereby Charles's party

leader and the Tory Party leader, and low and behold the Labour Party

leader are all saying we are not going to have this. It is complete

nonsense. Cutting off their nose to spite their face. It is in

everybody's interest to have a currency union. Even if you say that

the businesses that have voiced some doubt about what they would do with

some jobs and services, you say jobs would be lost but symbolically it is

not exactly a vote of the buttons in the idea of an independent Scotland.

-- vote of confidence. All of this has cast doubt on the economic case

put by Alex Salmond that there is going to be jam and honey tomorrow.

These are just some business people. The truth of the matter is that the

business community in Scotland is divided. There are those who are

very much in favour of a yes vote, those who are against, and some

people say it won't make much difference. That Scotland will

flourish within or without the union. Frankly there is a host of

business spokespeople in Scotland, we have an organisation called

business for Scotland, who are in favour of Scottish independence

because they believe that what is holding Scotland back at present is

this kind of dependency culture, and the financial straitjacket in which

we are, whereas with independence, it would release a new

entrepreneurial spirit within Scotland, we would see more business

start-ups, we would see business flourishing and that would create

more jobs in Scotland. Let me go to the opinion polls.

Charles Kennedy, did the "no" campaign panic? Now we've had

another opinion poll which has changed slightly in terms of who is

ahead. Was there a panic? Have they offered too much to a potentially,

if they vote "no", in terms of powers without knowing, and basing

too much on one opinion poll? I don't think too much has been

offered in terms of powers but you're talking to a federalist here.

But did they panic? I don't think so. The way I would draw the analogy

is this - if you are driving a car and you suddenly have to take

unexpected action to avoid a collision you weren't anticipating

and you do so calmly, professionally and no collision happens, you didn't

panic but you changed the mode of your direction at very short notice.

Now, when opinion polls started showing, it would be an insult to

the intelligence of people in Scotland that it didn't have an

effect on everybody campaigning in Scotland. We were neck and neck or

possibly behind the stop if we had said we were sailing on regardless

and not taking any avoidance of what might be an unfortunate mishap in

front of us if we didn't do something, we would be accused of

complacency and contempt. Let me ask Dennis Canavan, do you think the

"yes" campaign has peaked too soon? We still have some days to campaign

and now everything, including the kitchen sink, is being thrown at

this campaign from the Better Together side. I don't think we've

peaked too soon. There is still a week to go. We are neck and neck.

When you look at the opinion polls not all that long ago, the other

side were 20 points ahead, so we have got the moment on our side, we

are closing the gap, we are going to work harder than ever to get every

undecided vote in Scotland and we are confident that we will win a

famous and historic victory a week today. Dennis Canavan and Charles

Kennedy, thank you very much. Polly Toynbee, your analysis - who's going

to win? We really don't know. As Dennis Canavan said, the momentum

has been behind "yes". As you suggested, they might have peaked

too soon. A lot of the heavyweight industries, the finance industry,

didn't want to come out and have to declare their hand at all. They

thought it would be dangerous, that they could lose business if they

found themselves on the wrong side of the result. What happened is

because of that one opinion poll that showed "yes" winning, it's

brought them all out saying really quite fierce things. What Mark

Carney said, what the banks have said about moving south - I think

it's quite alarming and I imagine there are some waverers who will be

swung. Thank you very much. Let's move on. A steady, relentless effort

is what President Obama says is needed to root out the extremists of

the so-called Islamic State who are operating in Iraq and Syria. In a

speech last night, the American president outlined his new

strategy, which includes extending the US led campaign of air into

Syria. He said the US will lead a broad Coalition to defeat the

terrorists, which could include British warplanes involved in air

strikes. We will degrade and ultimately

destroy ISIS through a sustained We will degrade and ultimately

counterterrorism strategy. First, we will conduct a systematic campaign

of air strikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi

government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own

people and him and Terry emissions, so that we're hitting ISIS targets

as Iraqi forces go on offence. I've made it clear that we will hunt down

terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will

not hesitate to take action against ISIS in Syria as well as Iraq. A

short while ago, I spoke to our correspondent Quentin Sommerville in

Baghdad. I asked how the government there would respond to the speech by

President Obama. This will be greatly welcomed and the Iraqi

leadership, this new Iraqi unity government, at least on paper,

welcomed Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday and he would have

been given a full briefing. They have been making a very clear for

quite some time that Iraq alone cannot handle the threat from the

Islamic State but also the overspill of the conflict in Syria. They said

the international community needs to provide them assistance. Iraq had to

do its part and for many years now, the government here in Iraq has

exploited sectarian and ethnic divisions and created a huge gap and

in that gap the Islamic State spared in and exploited the divisions. A

lot of repair has to be done to bring back this country and then

Iraq can think about, with a larrikin help, tackling the threat

of the Islamic State. -- American help. You said the unity government

on paper. How much trust is there among Sunnis in Iraq that it will

deliver that inclusive government? The proof of the pudding, really.

They've got very little credit in the bank. When you look at this

government, many of the faces seem familiar but when you actually

travel on the ground in Iraq, say you go to northern Iraq in some of

the areas where is the state are operating, we've been there, near

Mosul, and speak to Christians, years Edie is, -- years Edies. You

find they are fleeing for their lives and have very little trust in

the Iraqi government to protect them, never mind defend them against

IS. There is a long shopping list before people can actually feel safe

in this country again. There is a big question - who is going to go in

and liberate Mosul? Would be an Iraqi army made up of the Shia

majority, going into liberate a Sunni people from the Islamic State?

That doesn't have a lot of credibility and doesn't address the

fears of the Iraqi people. Joining me now is the Conservative MP John

Barron, who sits on the foreign affairs select committee, and Bayan

Sami Rahman, the Kurdish regional government's high representative to

the UK. John Barron, you support air strikes against IS in Iraq but not

in Syria. What would be the point of that? The point is that the

immediate objective is to drive IS out of Iraq. When I say I support

them, I think there is room for regional players, friends and

allies, to play a much more prominent role. So do you support

British air strikes with the Americans in Iraq? I would first

want to see and check cost as much as we could of our regional our

regional our eyes. We've just seen the American allies. -- check we've

asked as much as we could have our regional allies. In answer to your

question about Syria, I think it takes it on to another level

altogether. Of course we can agree with the broad strategy of President

Obama, we've got to take on IS, but strikes in Syria risk Russian built

or Russian supplied air defence systems. There are legal issues to

address. But also, air strikes alone aren't going to defeat this

well-organised guerrilla army and we don't know who will replace ISIS in

Syria. Many extremists lurk in the shadows. Bayan Sami Rahman, is there

any point in joining air strikes against IS in Iraq or parts of Iraq,

without trying to defeat them in Syria? No, in my view you need to

strike at ISIS at their nerve centre. They are very powerful in

Syria. They have access to oil, access to wealth, and are able to

cross the board are freely. So if we're only going to contain them in

Iraq, that's containment. They will then stay in Syria, expand into

Lebanon and Jordan. We need to strike at ISIS in the heart of where

they are. What do you say to that? We got to balance what is desirable

with what is achievable and given our errors in the past, whether it's

going to war in Iraq on a false premise or the disastrous mission in

Afghanistan or Libya, you got to approach this with caution. Our

immediate objective is a responsibility to the Iraqi people,

given our misguided intervention in 2003. We should focus on driving

ISIS out of northern Iraq. Local forces, regional forces - including

the 250,000 strong Iraqi army - should conduct that campaign. The

air strikes in Syria take it on to another level of risk and danger

which we should be very rare -- wary about. There was a lot of cautious

feeling among the public here and quite a lot of MPs for the reasons

John Barron has outlined. Do use of the pies with that to a certain

extent, why there is some reluctance before going headlong into another

conflict? Of course I do understand that. I've been a representative of

the Kurdistan Regional Government since 2005, so I've seen all of the

debate internally about Tony Blair being a liar, George Bush being a

warmonger, but the fact is - and what I believe politicians in the

West generally, including the UK, failed to do - is they've failed to

explain to the public that nonintervention also has a cross.

Nonintervention in Syria early on has let ISIS to grow and has led to

a spill-over of the conflict in Iraq. We in Iraq are paying the

price for nine to mention in Syria when the time was right. Does the

Labour Party have a responsibility in that? It decided, and Ed

Miliband, not to back any potential action against Bashar Al-Assad, and

it has led to what we are facing now? I don't think the Labour Party

or the other MPs in the Commons who voted against it, considerable

numbers of Conservatives and Lib Dems to, have any sense of regret. I

think there is a very keen awareness, born of painful

experience in Iraq, but you need really good military advice, as John

was suggesting, that says attacking them by air will make a difference

and there really is no evidence of that. What happens if you do big

bombing raids is that you had a lot of civilians, and you change the

politics in the area. Western intervention is very, very

dangerous. Unless you know you can absolutely do what it is you're

going to achieve... There is evidence IS has been pushed back. We

had evidence from the Kurds but also other groups in Iraq. We know that

the bombings have pushed them back and, arguably, these dreadful

beheadings that we have seen are as a result of panic, if you like, on

the side of IS. Yes, there's no doubt about it - the air strikes

have had the effect of checking IS and driving them back a bit,

perhaps. That is to be welcome. What many of us in the House of Commons

are saying is that we've got to restrict our activities to Iraq and

accept the fact that you cannot defeat a well-organised guerrilla

army such as ISIS by air strikes alone. This is not a disparate group

of terrorists living in caves. This is well organised and well funded

and we've got to realise the limitations of our power. ISIS is

strong in northern Iraq not because we didn't intervene in Syria.

Really? If we had intervened in Syria, we would have been siding,

unintentionally, with many of the terrorists we're now taking on in

northern Iraq. What led to ISIS making such ground was the sectarian

politics of the premieres premise of Iraq. -- previous. Doesn't that make

it now nigh on impossible for a British Government? We've had a

Labour MP saying we may need site with Bashar al-Assad to defeat IS,

not that that is the Labour Party's position. But if you go in and bomb

IS, there are other Sunni militants who could come to the fall. It's a

minefield. It is, and the world is accommodated place. I'm sorry but

the British public have to accept that the world isn't a clean place

and the good guys in the white hats defeat the Cowboys and the white --

blackouts. There is a Shia-Sunni conflict. The Western world does

have a role to play. You cannot run the world based on values alone. You

need to lead militarily to stop when I talk about intervention in Syria

I'm talking about the early days, not when the whole thing came out of

control. We're not talking just about air strikes, we're talking

right now in Iraq. We have Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga fighting on the

ground, supported by air strikes. We push them to the border

ground, supported by air strikes. We they will come back. They need to be

demoralised in Syria as well. What about arming the Peshmerga? Should

we have done that much earlier? We saw reports from the border saying,

"we need arms now. We cannot halt IS unless we have a lot more

ammunition". What we can agree is that there are no easy answers.

Arming the Peshmerga, fine, but what you are doing is taking a step

closer to the old regional fault lines and Iraq breaking up into its

three constituent parts. You got to recognise that there are downsides

to each of these policies but what we've got to learn from past

interventions is that we have intervened and, actually, I would

argue - whether it is Iraq all the mission in Afghanistan, or even

Libya, where the Libyan parliament is now taking refuge in a Greek

ferry - we have not made things better. We have got to be more

balanced and nuanced and are approaching when it comes to ISIS,

yes, play an active role in driving them out of northern Iraq but it has

to be local forces on the ground doing that. Be very wary of going

into Syria, if only because it would represent a complete U-turn on our

policy last year. John Barron and Bayan Sami Rahman, thank you very

much. Louise Casey, the former victims

commissioner, has been appointed to conduct an independent inspection

into children's services at Rotherham Council. She'll also look

at what wider lessons can be learned about child protection, following

the revelation that 1400 children were abused in the borough between

1997 and 2013, mainly by gangs of men of Pakistani heritage. Police

and council officials appeared in front of select committees over the

last couple of days, accused of failing to act to stop the abuse

despite numerous warnings. This is not something I would have

turned a blind eye to, nor something I would have wilfully ignored. With

respect to the evidence you have been given, those who know me

personally know I would not turn a blind eye cover up incidents of

child grooming. I take no pleasure from this. I have had a 32 year

police career, and yet on this issue, I have singularly failed the

victims of these criminals. And it hurts, bearing

Bearing in mind you were the deputy head of children's services from

children's -- from 2006, you have known about this all along, you are

one of the threads in respect of what has been happening. Why are you

still in post? I am not stepping aside for the simple reason I remain

accountable to the children, people and families of Rotherham. I take

personal responsible to for every incident of child abuse and I worked

tirelessly with my staff. I take my responsible at his very seriously

and I do not intend to resign... Some very significant, tragic

failings within the Council. The reason we are here is because of the

victims. Those people, before the select committee. With me are former

MP and Cryer, who raise concerns about the grooming of teenage girls

by Asian men in her constituency in Keighley as early as 2002, and Susan

Evans, deputy chairman of UKIP. Ann Cryer, you raise this issue ten

years ago, what was the response? It was 12 years ago, actually. The

lease and social services's response was minimal -- police and social

services. I got on board Justin Rowlatt, who now works for the BBC,

and he made a short film about the mothers who had come to see me,

reporting the abuse of their very young daughters. 12 or 13-year-olds.

That film that just didn't make it the trick, it got West Yorkshire

Police and Bradford social services on board and after a further two

years, it did take a while, I think five of the men were sent down. I do

remember you trying to raise these issues at the time. What do you

think actually motivated the inaction, if you like, I social

services and council and police, at the time? It is what has been said

about Rotherham. People who are not racist are generally afraid of being

called racist, that is the truth of the matter. I hated it because I

knew that the Pakistani community in Keighley at the time would probably

because me a racist. I have no evidence of that but I dare say that

is what happened. And of course it is terrible. If you genuinely

believe in a fair deal for everyone in your constituency, and you do

your best for them, it is awful to think you're going to be as a

racist, simply because you raised the issue of girls being abused in

this way. It is shocking and that is what has been raised, the idea that

people could be labelled for merely bringing up, and what has proven to

be true in many cases, the fact that they were men of mainly Pakistani

heritage involved in this abuse. Absolutely. Ann Cryer has been

exceptionally brave all along and whole lot of these issues, she has

been unafraid and had a lot of trouble as a result and I think she

is magnificent. One of the problems is that the number of rotten

boroughs that there are, where politicians collude with so-called

leaders of ethnic communities, who are not really leaders at all, they

are not leaders of large parts of it, but they can deliver votes, or

they think they can deliver votes. That is partly because we don't have

a proportional representative system which breaks up some of these solid

locks, in this case Labour, in some places Tory -- solid blocks. Does it

come down to political correct this? Actually stopping people being able

to do their jobs? Was that the reason in Rotherham that people

didn't want to dig any deeper? We have heard from Denis McShane, the

former MP, saying I was a left leading Guardian reader, it wasn't

the sort of thing we looked into, that political correctness was to

blame? I think partly but it was very much these deals with so-called

leaders. The leaders wouldn't allow any slur on anything that was going

on in their community and Labour backed off. I'll say think there is

a lot of political incorrectness. How these goals were treated was

extraordinarily sexist and classist. -- these girls. These are rubbish

girls, in care, wild and reckless, there was no idea that these are

children in our care and perfection. That seems to be the most important

thing, the way these girls were utterly despised, both by their

abusers but also by the authorities. I am delighted that Holly has

brought up this issue of sexism and class, because I think that is

right. -- Polly. We try to label it as being entirely to blame at our

peril, there were other issues as well and Polly has accurately picked

up on one of them. There are issues about the night-time economy. I

personally feel there are issues around what Michael the anaesthetise

agents of economy -- the -- around what I call. People see such cases

time and again that what I call. People see such cases

red flag flying. An MEP has made this quite clear, they need to stand

up and make them accountable. These so-called community leaders are not

democratically elected, they are put there... Nobody should accept... We

have just heard from the council director of children's services

saying she is not going to resign, yet she was there throughout this

period and the Ford ever -- throughout this whole period and for

whatever reason it was not recognised. It is also political

protectionism of your own people and own voters. As the left fostered

that? I don't know about the left, they are an old-fashioned corrupt

our working council, you can find the same in Tory councils that have

been Tory for ever as well. You have a solid block of old-fashioned power

that refuses to look at what is happening. But the left has

relentlessly pursued the ethnic vote and I think that is the cause of the

problem. I think you will find David Cameron is pursuing the ethnic vote

as well. You are probably the only ones who aren't. Do you think there

was that sort of atmosphere at the time, in your area and rather, too,

and it was the fear of being labelled a racist? There may be an

omen of a rotten borough but did that prevent issues coming to the

four? When I was elected first, the leader of the council said, I will

consult the Camino to. What he meant by that, and it nearly always was

that, he will pick up the phone and phone perhaps five men -- consult

the community. The women would have no say whatsoever. He would bring

those five men ask them their views, and then he had consulted the

community, in his view. It was wrong. We have moved on a bid from

then. We have about eight or nine women councillors of Asian Heritage,

which is terrific. After the next election we may have an Asian woman

MP, which would be great, in Bradford. We are moving on but this

particular community in Bradford and Keighley are extremely

paternalistic. We have to grasp that nettle and argue and make sure it is

understood that it is not the way of politics in Bradford and Keighley,

and things must change, and I think they are changing. Let me bring up

another example. In November 2012 Rotherham council removed three

children from foster parents because they were members of UKIP. I mention

the director of children's services who told the BBC at the time, her

decision was influenced by UKIP aberratio

-- influenced by UKIP's policy. If these were children of ethnic

minorities... I think they it is a bit different. I don't see why. They

are either good foster parents or they are not. What matters is

whether or not you are a good parent. I all accounts these foster

parents work and I gather they are being foster parents again, although

I think in a different borough. I don't know the case but if it were a

case of foster parents who had any instinctive sense against particular

foreigners, I would think it not a good idea to put foreign children

with them. UKIP doesn't have anything against Eastern Europeans,

this is the problem, it has been so misrepresented. Except you go into

areas where there is strong Eastern European... We are against mass

immigration. , we're not against anyone from eastern Europe and we

have been misrepresented on that. In East Anglia you are really targeting

people who are not Eastern European? We talked about when they were

joining the European Union, how they would be an open door, it could have

been any other two countries. You sound so reasonable but you are so

unlike the leaflets that you and your party are putting up. Thank you

very much. Pay attention, you lot, because I am

not repeating myself. Politics has got angry and it is your fault.

Sorry about the tone but you see my point. As our guest of the day knows

well, some people can take an aggressive dislike to people who

inhabit the political landscape or write about it. It is us, the

public, or have politicians got to wound up and has the advent of

social media meant we can vent spleen whenever we like?

The world of politics is not just populated by politicians but a press

that provides opinion formers and commentators. They are often

strident and dogmatic in their views, as are their counterparts,

but how often have you seen or had this reaction? That person is so

annoying, they are wrong about pretty much everything, I actually

think I hate them! I might even tell them that. And now with Twitter and

Facebook and links to the comments section of newspapers and

politicians who willingly use social media, we can, and we do tell people

in no uncertain terms what we think of them. By and large you are

talking about people who are older, they are male, they are right wing,

they have a sense that everything is somehow getting away from them, that

people who have no right our user pin power and so on. Essentially

they are people who feel their potency slipping away and look for

somebody to blame -- they are You cover both sections, from the

left, who really dislike cute was that no matter what you say, if you

said free beer for the world of workers, they would say, I hate you!

Hold on, chaps, because it is mainly chaps. It is not just us but our

politics can get sharp at times. How about this, you are the weakest

link, goodbye? Mr Speaker... The house has noticed the Prime

Minister's remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to

Mr Bean. You are a miserable pipsqueak of a man! When it gets

rowdy, the speaker is clear he thinks we do like it and want it

calmer and more reasonable. Order. That is what the public has a right

to expect of this house. We pretend we don't like bust ups, we think it

is bad, badly behaved, then we all watch it and we send each other

tweets about it. The vile sickos who populate Twitter, there is no green

ink defining them any more. It is the same typeface, whether you are

David Cameron or you are some revolting piece of work conducting

some vile vendetta. It is a fascinating subject and I would love

to tell you more, but frankly, you can all bog off. Charming! Joining

the psychologist Lucy Beresford. Polly, does it bother you, the

response that you get in response to your columns?

It does from time to time and it does, to some extent, altar what I

write. I'm very, very much more careful to not write anything

remotely personal, not to give away anything, that could allow them to

get that screwdriver in. When I read the comments after my column, are

lot of them are the same ones week after week. They are very often

absolutely vile. We have a moderator who takes out anything really

obscene or a threat to your life. I have had ones that have been threats

to my life. "Hope you get cancer," that kind of thing. Very nice. It is

upsetting and disturbing. The level of vitriol is kind of

incomprehensible. I don't, on the whole, right vitriolic or personal

stuff about people. I have, about three times in my life, written

really savage things about Peter Mandelson, Boris Johnson and another

person. Otherwise, I am genuinely not trying to stir things up. What

does that say about the state of human nature, if people are writing

that sort of savagery to be blight Polly Toynbee on a fairly regular

basis? There are two things. One is about the nature of politics, which

is generally quite impassioned, and the other is the nature of social

media at the moment, which almost excites and impulsivity. If I wanted

to send a letter in green ink, by the time I got my 17th page, I might

have got it off my chest. But now it takes me no time at all to tweet.

I've pressed the button before I've censored myself, doing the normal

human thing. But politics is about passion and it's also about our

sense of self. We hold beliefs about things and it's those beliefs that

make us feel connected and grounded to the world and if someone

challenges those beliefs, we're going to defend ourselves. Do you

think it is the immediacy of the response, the initial anger before

it had time to diminish, which means politics is actually ideological D

split that it was in the 1980s and 1990s. -- ideological. I think this

government was doing things well to the right of anything Margaret

Thatcher ever dared do so I think there is, underneath it, a very

strong right-wing ideological string anything to do with the state...

They do it to some extent to people on the left but I think people on

the left are less interested in spending their time on the Daily

Mail site than those to the right plunging into the Guardian. If you

weren't allowed to be anonymous and people knew that their families,

their brothers and sisters, their work colleagues, could see what they

are saying, it would calm the whole thing down. I would like an end to

anonymity. Do you think that is the problem, people feel masked by

social media, e-mails, Twitter, so they can say things they don't

really believe the person will ever read? They certainly have the

wherewithal to be anonymous and some people have to be anonymous and some

people have Twitter encourage a certain licentiousness but, at the

same time, there are a lot of people who want to stand out and proud and

say, "I am going to be a really nasty person". We have to leave it

there before it gets nasty. Thank you very much.

We know that the continuing saga over who should be the next Commons

clerk has been keeping you awake at night. Not familiar with the story?

Well, and Astrium called Carol Mills is the preferred candidate of the

Commons Speaker John Bercow for the role of clerk of the House of

Commons. The Clarke Access Chief Executive of the Commons but they

are also the person who advises MPs on procedure. But a growing number

of MPs are unhappy with the choice. They're concerned that Ms Mills

lacks the necessary Parliamentary knowledge to carry out the role.

Last night, Conservative MP Andrew Lansley, who sat on the panel that

interviewed her for the job, admit they might have chosen the wrong

person. It is no criticism of Carol Mills, who interviewed well, to say

that her knowledge of the constitutional procedural issues, as

required for clerk of the House, would not suffice. I took that view

but it is not supported by the majority of the selection panel. It

is particularly regrettable that the speakers sought expressly to water

down the 2011 requirement in the job description that the clerk should

have "detailed knowledge of the procedures and practices of the

House". He sought to replace the words "detailed knowledge" with

"awareness". I have to say the selection panel was not asked to

subject candidates to the same test as in 2011. The process for

appointment there was, in my view, it ill founded. Jesse Norman, the MP

who called for last by's debate over the choice of Commons clerk, joins

us from Westminster. This isn't about respective traditions of

Parliament, is it? It another way of putting the boot into John Bercow

because you don't like him. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There was a flawed procedure to choose the new clerk and there were

questions, as Andrew Lansley mentioned, and are widely

acknowledged, about whether she has any genuine qualifications for the

procedural and constitutional aspects of the job. We know that

she's had two enquiries launched into her conduct by the Australian

Parliament where she works and this was about clearing all that up and

putting the selection process and, indeed, the governance of the House,

on a proper constitutional basis. Stick a white we take your point

about the enquiries going on but she is a secretary for the department of

Parliamentary services and the biggest item coming up the clerk's

agenda is multi-million pound refurbishment of the Palace of

Westminster, which won't need an intimate knowledge of Parliamentary

protocol, will it? It's true that the business side

will be important and that's why the wiser heads in the Palace of

Westminster are going to set up a specific delivery authority to

commission this enormous piece of change and renewed infrastructure.

But if you think about what's really at stake, the question is, can

Parliament reinvent itself for the 21st century through this renewal

and restoration process? That requires a detailed understanding of

how Parliament works in Britain and this specific institutions and stop

it is the clerk's understanding and expertise that will really be in

play. We've done quite a few interviews on this in the last

couple of weeks since has returned. Is this really what MPs should be

spending their time on? There's a way of looking at it which says that

this is just petty nonsense and we should pay our attention to

international affairs and I don't disagree with much of that. The

question, however, is what the rules are under which Parliament itself

operates and Parliament is our supreme legislative body so, add

chilli, the question of who the clerk is is a profound matter for

the constitution and proper governance. -- actually. Other

governments across the Commonwealth rely on our clerk for advice on how

to run their Parliament so it turns out to run their Parliament so it

turns out how to get right. But isn't there some truth in what David

Blunkett says, which is that MPs wouldn't put up with how the House

of Commons were run if it were a business and that, to some extent,

echoes the electorate, you are switching of Parliamentary protocol

because it's compensated and outdated? That isn't a reason to not

care about Parliamentary protocol. It may be that in the Twitter age,

people just generally don't have the time to invest in these issues,

although frankly they know more about them now than they probably

have ever done in our history. David Blunkett was right in our history.

David Blunkett was writing part. 20 years ago, the House of Commons with

an ability to mess. It's now much better. -- and administrators at

mess. It can still continue to improve and that's part of the

argument that we'll be engaging with with this new select committee. All

right, Jesse Norman. No doubt we will do revisit this. Amongst

political journalists of a certain vintage, this Scottish referendum

campaign has conjured up a feeling of deja vu. Stop "yes" and Mobot for

their French language counterpart and you could have a campaign in the

Canadian province of Quebec in the 1990s. -- swap "yes" and "no". In

Quebec they love voting on whether to leave Canada. They lasted it in

1995 and there are some spooky parallels with what happened then

and the final few days of the campaign in Scotland. Just ask

somebody who was there. Watching this whole campaign has given me a

strong sense of deja vu, having followed the Quebec referendum 20

years ago. A hugely exciting, nail-biting campaign, but also

bringing together these very big, emotional feelings.

bringing together these very big, national identity, belonging.

Exhibit A, the polls. In the early days, the Canadian "no" campaign was

a head-butt them in the last minute the "yes" campaign took the lead.

The same seems to have happened in Scotland this week. Better

Together's response is out of the Quebec rule book. The Prime Minister

of Canada said that Quebec would be recognised as a distinct nation with

a constitutional veto. People said it was too late and if he really

meant it they would have done it earlier. They said they wouldn't be

fooled again, exactly as you are hearing now on the nationalist side.

Then there was a move to say that we have been too negative on the "no"

side and to pettifogging about the detail. We've got to be more open.

Just like jamming street's decision to fly the salt are, although there

are few tricks Number Ten might not borrow from Canada. David Cameron

could have said that if a wrong-headed to King's Cross, he

would pay for them to go to Edinburgh to campaign. But that is

what happened in Canada. If you got a free ticket to go to Edinburgh to

campaign for Scotland to stay in the UK, would you take it? Yes I would.

Would you be tempted with a free ticket to go on campaign? I used to

live there and I think it's a nice place but I think they cost us too

much money and if they want to go, they can go. Is it one way or

return? There is a big difference from Quebec. We know the result. The

answer was "no" but only just. We're joined by a representative of

the Canadian broadcaster CBC. I love the idea that the government paid

for people to go to Quebec to beg them to stay. That obvious he

worked. It depends who you speak with. The fact is that about 100,000

Canadians ended up in Montreal. I was there as a student journalist

and was quite a scene, certainly not won the separatists were

appreciative of but one that the Federalists credited with that very

small surge ahead for the "no" side. What lessons do you think thereafter

Scotland in this campaign? It's amazing the similarities, despite

the fact that the campaign is so starkly shorter on the Canadian

side. It's gone on for ever hear! Despite that, the arc of it has been

similar. The surge of the "no" side all along and then suddenly the

dramatic surge of the "yes" side. In Canada, there was the love bombing

that happened and here, that seems to be happening. It does sound very

familiar. The separatists were not very happy about it in Canada. I was

told it isn't the kind of approach they like to see in Scotland. What

do you say to that? What about a month long campaign? Would that have

been better for the "no" side or the "yes" side? What's really

interesting about the Quebec question is that they then one such

strong concessions as a result of nearly winning that it was all a

problem. There really does appear now to be very little push for

another referendum any longer. The young in Quebec seem to be 70% in

favour of not breaking away, so it sounds as if it's done the trick and

maybe what the "no" side is offering now would do the trick in Scotland

as well and resolve the question by giving enough. Do you agree with

that, and does it end the debate? In Canada the separatist movement still

exists and is watching this mode very closely, just as Catalonia is,

and Venice, because it could be instructive. Some associations in

Montreal have planned meetings will shortly after the vote to talk about

what affect this vote might have on the future, the next possible

referendum. The party that led and hopes to go for another vote still

has a broad base of popularity. Was it a dirty campaign? In Canada?

Depends who you talk to! We'll end it there. Thank you for joining us

today. That's it. Thanks to all of our guests but particularly to you,

Polly Toynbee, for bearing with us for the whole hour. The news is

starting on BBC one now. Andrew will be in Edinburgh tonight and

tomorrow, I will be here in London and Andrew still in Edinburgh for

politics Musgrove. -- for the Daily Politics.

Now. This. Looks. Like. A job. For me.