11/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles