16/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Scottish independence referendum is just two days away!


The three main party leaders at Westminster have signed


a pledge promising new powers for Scotland, whichever way Scots vote.


The SNP says it's an insult and asked why it's taken so long.


There are growing calls for more powers for the rest of the UK.


We'll debate whether England needs its own parliament.


It's often thought that artists are more likely to be on the left.


We'll bring together two best-selling authors to debate


He looks like someone has put his finger up their bottom! And do we


need to lighten up when it comes to a bit of political argy-bargy?


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme today is the novelist Jeanette Winterson.


She's perhaps best known as the author of


This summer she hit the headlines after skinning a rabbit and posting


And on this programme we like to think we specialise


in minor controversies that blow up out of all proportion,


so she should feel right at home. Welcome.


He said he wouldn't resign despite mounting calls for him to go, but


in the last hour South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner has


stepped down from the role after weeks of pressure over


Shaun Wright has come under increasing fire


since the publication of a report into child sexual exploitation


in Rotherham as he was the councillor with responsibility


for children's services in the borough from 2005 to 2010.


"My role as South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner has clearly


become prominent in terms of public opinion and media coverage following


This is detracting from the important issue, which should


be everybody's focus - the 1,400 victims outlined in the report - and


in providing support to victims and bringing to justice the criminals


responsible for the atrocious crimes committed against them."


We are joined now by our correspondent Adam Fleming. Why has


he gone? He said he was starting to worry that he was detracting from


the plight of the survivors. I think he probably realised the writing was


on the wall last week at a meeting of the police and the panel in that


region. That is a committee which scrutinises the work of each crime


commission in each area. There was abuse from the public gallery and it


got quite heated so he probably saw the scale of the anger that was


directed at him. The pressure had been piling on him for weeks and


weeks and weeks. The Labour Party said he should stand down. He


resigned the whip but not from the job. The Home Secretary and even the


Prime Minister were saying, do you really want to carry on this job


considering what has happened? Where does that leave the role of Police


and Crime Commissioners? They could not actually make him go? That is


the point, people were asking, how can you get rid of a Police and


Crime Commissioner? The rules are very strict. They can only be


chucked out of office if they are convicted of an offence which means


they go to prison. That has now sparked a big discussion about what


should happen to these roles in the future. Labour have said they will


be keen to look at having some sort of recall mess them -- mechanism.


Theresa May has said she's prepared to have a debate. Nick Clegg has


said, it is this job even a good idea? Is it an experiment which has


not worked? In the short-term in South Yorkshire there will be a


by-election for summer due to take over from Mr Right. We saw easily


there was a by-election in the Midlands and the turnout was 10%.


Thank you. Jeanette, was he right to go? Yes, he should have gone right


from the beginning. If you are is the row hours contract worker you


can be out of the door straightaway. The higher up the food chain you go,


the harder it is to get rid of you. We have politicians who are


insulated from public opinion. But he has gone in the end. The he had


to. He is a prize that everyone is furious with him. Why have got a


situation where you cannot get rid of someone like him unless it is a


criminal offence. G4S are saying, give us contracts for ten years and


if you change your minds, still payoffs. We are getting to a


situation where we cannot throw out people in power when they have done


wrong. We have to wait for them to resign. It is stupid. We will see if


it changes, the legislation. The question for today is -


which is the odd one out amongst At the end of the show Jeanette


will give us the correct answer. With less than two days to go


until the polls open in the Scottish independence referendum,


David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have this morning added


some meat on to the bones of They have signed a pledge on the


front of a Scottish newspaper. The pledge on the front page of


today's daily record newspaper promises a timetable for the


transfer of further powers to Scotland, in the case of the no


vote. The politicians guarantee that the final say on NHS funding will


lie with the government in Scotland, something which has become a major


part of the Yes campaign in recent weeks. They promise to keep the


mechanism which allows the higher funding in Scotland than in England,


known as the Barnett formula. The position for Scotland is becoming


clearer but what about England? Labour have been calling for more


devolution for English regions. This does not solve the West Lothian


question, the fact that MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland


are allowed to vote on England only matters. Some people think an


English parliament is the solution but the Prime Minister appeared to


rule this out last night saying we are not remotely at that stage.


I'm joined now by Conservative MP Peter Bone and Labour's Lucy Powell


Lucy, first of all, do we need an English parliament? What we need is


more devolution to the English regions. I think that city now --


that train now is unstoppable. Labour have been calling for more


powers to the city regions. I think we now need much more serious and


real and significant devolution to the city regions which are chomping


at the bit. Here we are in Manchester, I am here in Manchester


and we are ready for that to come. We have been working towards that


for a time and we want to be unleashed. Dare I say, is it a


little too little, too late? What you are talking about is localism.


There is a broad consensus between the parties about offering more


devolution to other cities in England, but if further devolution


is agreed for Scotland, that will have huge constitutional


consequences for the UK which will mean more than just a few powers for


local government. We are not talking about a few more powers for local


government. This would be a significant and transformational


devolution. When you say transformational, what are you


intending to offer some of the great cities of England? More power and


control. Labour has promised to devolve ?30 billion of expenditure.


That would be the first step. We are looking at things like how cities


can raise their own business rates, how they can spend that, how they


can spend money around economic development skills, transport,


things that add a moment they do not have the powers to do. Alongside


that we would be looking for more accountability and democracy. I am a


strong supporter of directly elected mayors. But the people in those


regions have not been very strongly in support. The appetite has not


been there. It has not been demonstrated in the past. I will


come back to you in a moment. Is that going to be enough, Peter


Bone? No. This government is devolving power to local


authorities. Labour were in power for 13 years and nothing happened.


They tried to offer directly elected mayors and people did not want them.


What people are saying now is that if Scotland is going to have more


powers England has to have its own parliament, English votes for


English laws. All we have to do is exclude non-English MPs from voting


on English matters. That was a pledge at the last general election.


We are only carrying on what we said before. I think the Scottish


independence debate has highlighted a need for this sensible move. Is it


the independence debate which have highlighted it or is it that more


powers have been offered in the closing stages of this campaign by


your Prime Minister to try and get a No vote? It has highlighted it. It


was there. It has always been rumbling on. Now people are saying


in Westminster, this has to be done. People are crying out for the fact


we do not want Scottish MPs telling the English how to govern England.


Although it has existed for a long time up until now. That was the West


Lothian question. What about the West Lothian question, Lucy Powell?


Does it have to be solved if we are talking about more devolution. What


would be wrong with an English parliament stopping Scottish MPs


voting on English only matters? We have to continue to address this


question of the West Lothian question. How? If I had the answer


to that, we would have done it a long time ago. I think let's get


back to what is the actual question here that people are asking. I think


it is interesting what Peter Bone said. He said people in Westminster


are crying out for an English Parliament. My constituents are not.


Had you asked them? They are crying out for two things. The first is


that Westminster is increasingly remote from their lives. It is


remitted in terms of the decisions it takes and in their lives. The


second thing my constituents want is they want a better deal for


Manchester. They want Manchester to be able to fill its potential. I


don't think that an English Parliament answers either of those


questions. What an English Parliament does is create another


tier, another layer of centralised Westminster -based power. That is


not what my constituents are crying out for. I am not opposed to an


English parliament but I do not think it answers the question on the


table. I will come back to your question about what constituents in


some of the northern cities are crying out for. Would it be fairer


that only English MPs vote on English only issues that affect them


in health and education. Would it be fairer to have that? There are other


issues we have to consider as well. Is it right that we continue if we


are going to have more powers going to Scotland, that Scottish MPs


continue to vote on health and education and then on finance if


more tax-raising powers are given to Scotland? We have definitely got to


work these things through. You have also got to consider the unintended


consequences if you go down that road which is what it means for the


Westminster UK Parliament and the divine doing of that as well. This


is not going to be something that we can resolve in a debate like this.


This is a process that we need to consider. I think we're absolutely


ready to go with centralisation. Let me put these points to Peter Bone.


Isn't Lucy Powell right that this government has presided over


policies and an administration that is geared totally to London and the


south-east, that that is the problem and Lucy Powell is right to say,


what they want is more decentralisation? Not another


Parliament but not every policy focusing on where the votes for


Conservatives are in the South? Wrong on every count. More and more


power has been devolved. That is the point. Our localism agenda is doing


that. No, it hasn't. It has. You have given with one hand and taken


away with the other. Can you stop laughing at her. This sneery


contempt is really unattractive. You are smiling away as if to say these


girls do not know what they are talking about. Let him answer. When


you say, what examples can you give on localism which have made a


difference? We are having mayors, for example. Planning is going back


to local authorities. Know it is not. It is going in completely the


opposite direction. That is my view. Are they substantial enough powers?


If there was more decentralisation, would you need an English


Parliament? That is the point, you can never get to that point. You


have to have decisions about education and health which have to


be decided on a national level. The idea that there will be more


bureaucracy is nonsense. You're going to use the same building and


the same MPs, it will not cost a penny more. Where would the


constitutional home be? It would still be in Westminster. When it


came to UK matters, all MPs in Parliament would vote. All we are


saying is for purely English matters, English MPs should only


vote on those. Do you think David Cameron is


offering too much to Scotland? We don't know, it is all happening too


quickly. You don't know because? We know they have signed a pledge.


Party leaders have signed pledges before. The Tory offer is for them


to have total control over income tax raising powers, is it too much?


If we go down the route of evolution and as Lucy says it will be a


difficult discussion. If you're going to go down that route, you


have got to have English votes for English laws. Lucy Powell, the truth


is, whichever way you look at it, you could say Labour does not want


an English parliament because it would make it harder for Labour to


govern in Westminster. Imagine in 2015 if Ed Miliband wins with a


small majority it would be reliant on those MPs in Scotland and Wales


and then they would be able to vote on the budget which would be only


for England, that would be absurd? You go down the road of creating two


grades of MPs at your level. Then you have more important MPs and less


important MPs. There are some tricky issues. It is not a political point.


Tony Blair's election victories, he won the majorities of MPs in England


as well. But the likelihood is, Ed Miliband with the reliant on


Scotland and Wales MPs. These considerations are not based on


politics, they are based on what are the questions we are trying to


resolve. It is an internal discussion to think about the West


Lothian question. Frankly, most of my constituents, I would have


surprised if hardly any of them had heard of the issue and were bothered


about it. Peter Bone is shaking his head. If you had a crystal ball,


what would you do? Would you have a more federal UK, an English


Parliament and parliaments of the remainder of the UK if Scotland goes


independent? Or, would you have evolution to other cities or keep it


as it is? He find the answers when you take the question seriously. The


Scottish referendum has shown how strong the feeling is for default


powers. -- devolved powers. We don't have too have everything sitting in


Westminster the way we do now. There is a new generation growing up now


where everything is devolved on media. They don't need a group of


people in one place. We could think about this in a more radical way, if


we wanted to. Lucy is right, most people don't care about it. They


want to know, how am I and my city, are we going to have more say in the


government. Thank you to my guests. So as we've been saying


the main party leaders in Westminster have all been talking


about the powers Scotland will get Well there'll be a lot


of pressure for Parliament to be Normally at times


of great national importance MPs can be recalled to Westminster


at 48 hours notice, but there's talk Our political correspondent,


Carole Walker can tell us more. What are the options? If there is a


yes vote, MPs across all parties will feel that such as the


cataclysmic scale of the change we are confronting, it would be


unthinkable for parliament not to be recalled. The fracture there would


be on the economy, the pound, international relations, Andy Fenn


's and the future constitution of the country would be on such a


scale, MPs would undoubtedly be recalled. -- defence. Downing Street


are not contemplating a yes vote, not making contingency plans, so


there are non-contingency plans at the moment but Holloman to be


recalled. But in the past few weeks when there has been speculation


about the recall of MPs to discuss Iraq and the possibility of Britain


being involved in some form of military action, the whips are


sending out e-mails to find out where MPs would be just in case


parliament needed to be recalled. Quite a few MPs I have spoken to


think Parliament should be recalled, even if Scottish voters voted to


remain part of the United Kingdom. They feel it is already clear there


will be significant changes underway and we saw the pledge from the three


UK leaders today and that is something MPs should be recalled to


discuss. It is complicated by the fact the Labour Party Conference is


due to start at the weekend and many Labour MPs are expect to be there. I


think that the moment, it is looking probably less likely but on Friday


morning, I think there may be renewed calls for MPs to return to


discuss the future of the country. It is uncharted territory.


When it comes to the arts, whether it's writing, painting,


or even comedy, it's often assumed that the majority of artists are


And the few who clearly aren't - like the modern artists Gilbert


and George or the author PJ O'Rourke - seem to be something


If you paint a picture of the politics of art, the assumption is


art is the preserve of the left. It is an assumption and I'm not sure


how true it is. Art is greater than any ideology. Our response to it is


personal and therefore infinite. Any attempt by politicians or parties of


either side, to corral artists to their cause has historically been a


catastrophe. The art establishment is dominated by left-wing thinking


and left-wing expectations and there are people in the world who hold


more libertarian views and field their own careers could be


negatively affected if they were to come out. However, artists lobby all


governments and it is often about funding. Even a leading campaigner


admits money may be a personal driver of politics. If you judge a


system by how well it supports the less it -- less fortunate you could


be an artist through ideology or self-interest. You are more likely


to have been poor, you have almost certainly signed on and you are more


likely to give your support to the party who has supported you more. It


is interesting that some people have come out of the system and continue


to be left-wing. JK Rowling was a single parent and on benefits when


she wrote her first book but she still supports benefits and rights.


The trick the right think the left have conjured it those who potter


about in a school of thought who think it is not about class but


intersect -- intellectual class. Ballet receives subsidies but the


audience are well off enough to buy tickets at full price. Then there is


the more exclusively intellectual snobby art. There are things people


don't like and not being popular and not being able to pay its own way is


not assign it is great, maybe it is a sign it is rubbish and the general


public will want to pay to go and see it because it is not very good.


But there are left-wingers who think arts subsidy became funding and


entertaining or the rich and glamorous. Left wing entertainers


think it stops it being edgy. But it boils down as to whether you think


art is essential to our social well-being. We're not just here to


work our backsides off for 50 years and then died. There are other


things to do in between and there are other things to do than shop.


What else are we going to do? We have to make sure there are cheap


and interesting things to do for youngsters to do if they have not


got enough money to buy the things they are told they need to be happy.


If I to choose between saving a life of paying for someone to create an


optional piece of art which the public may or may not use choose to


go to, I will pay to save a life. It is that argument that has coloured


the politics of art for so long. Well to discuss this I'm joined


by the House of Cards author and Conservative peer,


Michael Dobbs, and of course Is there a left-wing bias or stream


of thinking in the arts in your mind? I think it is a bit more


complicated than that. Art is often has to make a point and the point


you have got to make is about the establishment and the existing way


of things. Dramatists, journalists as well as artists, tend to be - not


so much left or right but antiestablishment. It is the easiest


way to go. We have always accused the BBC of being left wing, but


Harold Wilson used to accuse it of being right wing. Even Winston


Churchill used to accuse the BBC are being left wing. But I think it was


more antiestablishment than having a clear political agenda. Is there a


feeling that a lot of comedy you hear is actually anti the right


rather than antiestablishment? Does the left, in a way dominate the


intellectual side of the arts? It has changed, everything changes.


Vince Margaret Hatcher came to power we have had a more ideological


ride. Margaret Thatcher. It is not just talking about left and right,


it is talking about a way that Tory party has remade itself as a party


and it has caused a lot of people in the arts to question those values.


To look at social justice and inclusion. The arts are for


everybody, not just for the elites, the educated and people who have


time, money and leisure. Everybody is created in some way. To shut that


are for the majority of people is wrong. That is why you get the sense


amongst artists that we have to be on the left because we have to be on


the side of inclusion. Margaret thatcher has been out of office for


years and this debate was going on before her. She altered the way


Britain is. What about on the left, surely the left can be criticised


for some of the ideas put forward. Why don't people on the right come


out and do that in the arts? On the left you want more government. You


say we can achieve things for you. I almost call it a deceit almost that


the government says it can do everything for you, left-wing


government can do everything for you. The right wing says, actually


the government cannot do all of this. Government says, we will let


G4S do it. You cannot privatise all of life. There are anarchists,


loners and misfits in the art world. When you have a big government, most


of us work in very solitary ways. It is not because you suddenly see


yourself as belonging to the left but you see yourself as a challenge


to the status quo. What about the contradiction you could have


left-wing ideas for example, being portrayed in theatre in Opera


maybe, but the people who watch it are the people with money and the


only ones who can afford the tickets. That is more true about


opera than theatre. That is why we have more subsidised theatre. It is


great people can go for ?10 and see things at the National which then


gets transferred is and makes a tonne of money. But I would agree


with you, I can afford a ticket. When I was younger I used to pay ?3


and stand at the back of the gods. Let's talk about the money issue, it


has an influence on the arts in terms of subsidy and who can afford


to go and see some of the big West End shows and Opera? Art is wider


than Opera. At the end of the day, government should not a supporting


the arts to the extent it is the only way for it to survive. I am in


favour of temporal tickets. You think everything at the National


should be privately funded rush to mark not at all, it is not the point


I made. Art should not exist if it is only capable of existing because


of taxpayers money. It is OK to subsidise farming? This is a


subsidised country, it is all about subsidy. That is where the


difference is. The right wing of the argument is we should be doing with


less subsidy. Not only did Margaret Thatcher pay for everything by


selling it all off, it is all subsidy. Art and drama is not


documentary. Are you saying this government is not subsidising.


Listen to what I am saying. Are you saying this government is not


subsidising? Are you saying this government does not subsidise rich


farmers? Let's come back to the reason for


the subsidy on the arts. Without a lot of subsidy, the Arts Council


would say their subsidies have been cut. -- their grants have been cut.


If you go back 200 years ago, the art we are looking at now is not the


art of 200 years ago. It does not all take place in these glorious


rich stucco fronted buildings. That is a small part of art. What


Jeanette does, what I do, what other people do is art and we do not do


that in these great big buildings. It is easy for writers and it has


never been easier because you can self publish now. What we do is


cheap. When you put on a show you are talking about money and that


money has to come from somewhere. What you cannot have in theatre is


innovation without cash behind it. We need cash. Looking at artists on


the right, who'd you admire most? Is there someone that you do look at


who is broadly from the right? I really like Tracey Emin's work and


she has destabilised the way we think about art. She is a great


thing in the art world but I cannot bear her political views. You have


to make those distinctions. Right, we have to leave it there.


Now - the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that Andrew's been


So far he hasn't sent so much as a postcard or the tin


Instead he's been on the campaign trail with both sides ahead of


First up, here he is out and about with the Yes campaign in Hamilton.


Hamilton, a working-class town to the south-east of Glasgow. This used


to be a place where they did not bother to count Labour votes, they


just weighed them. In 1967, it was the scene of one of the most


dramatic political upsets in political history. Willie Ewing came


from nowhere to win a by-election for the Scottish Nationalists.


Labour subsequently reclaimed the territory. This is the kind of place


where the Nationalists have been doing well and Yes vote will be


looking for a repeat of the spirit of 1967 because they need to do well


in places like this if they are to win on Thursday.


Towns like this, especially in the West of Scotland, have become the


battle ground for the campaign. There are a lot of older voters,


voters who used to vote Labour and are on modest incomes. There is a


fair degree of social deprivation. The Yes campaign knows it needs to


win a chunk of these categories if it is to win on Thursday. When I


spoke Alex Salmond last weekend, he said the Yes campaign was making


progress in every Democratic group except the over 60s. They were more


wary of independence. He said he would concentrate on them. That is


why Nicola Sturgeon is in an area like this because there are a lot of


old people here. They were probably traditional Labour voters but the


Yes people think their votes are now up for grabs. They used to just


weighed the votes here, didn't they? They did. It is SNP we have been


voting for in recent years. Labour are not better than the Tories when


it comes to their politics. They are going to do away with bus passes and


things which will affect pensioners. I am a unionist. I was in the


forces, I swore allegiance to the Queen. I will not be swearing


allegiance to help residential, whoever he is. This is not safe and


pensions are not safe and it is getting through to people. Is it


clear cut or will it be down to the wire? Down to the wire. The people


you speak to are worried about the National Security in Scotland. The


size of our army, different things. Pensions. That is a worry? That is


why we came today. The Yes campaign knows it has to reassure older


people about their pensions if it is to get their votes. Increasingly,


the message I think is resonating with the older generation is when


they know their pensions are safe, they want a very Yes to give the


Next Generation better prospects in the future. I think that is why we


will see more older people vote yes on Thursday. People think Labour


voters will be more for the No camp and Nationalists are more for Yes.


That is not how it is working. A lot of Nationalists will vote No, a lot


of Labour voters will vote Yes. It seems one of the biggest deciding


factors is levels of deprivation. The less of a stake you have on


society, the more you are struggling, the more likely you are


now to vote Yes. That is why another reason why Nicola Sturgeon is in


Hamilton. And on tomorrow's show you can see


Andrew out and about Joining us from Glasgow is


Richard Walker, the editor of the Sunday Herald which has come out in


favour of independence, and with me in the studio is the Daily Mail's


Deputy Editor Tony Gallagher. Welcome to both of you.


First of all, how much weight do newspaper editorials carry with


their readers? I think the days of newspapers being able to sway large


numbers of readers have gone, it is ever they existed. Nevertheless, I


think newspapers are still important. When we made our


declaration of favour of Yes, we got a huge groundswell of support which


was very heartening and welcoming for us. I think clearly we put


forward our arguments in favour of Yes and we hope some readers will


take those on board. We are not telling readers we think Yes was the


right answer and you should all follow what we say, our readers are


way smart enough to decide that for themselves. Do you agree with that


that they hold less power and sway these days? I think in the era of


social media that is undoubtedly the case. Readers by newspapers in large


part to reinforce their own views. They are very influential with


political class. I think politicians of all stripes will look at


newspaper editorials almost before they look at anything else to see if


they are mentioned in dispatches. The idea they would sway large


numbers of people is a myth. But you have come out in favour of the


union. To some extent, are you preaching to the converted? We feel


passionately that the union is a good thing and it should remain in


place. It is the most beneficial union we think has existed through


the modern age. We had a shared sense of national identity what


Scots have achieved is truly remarkable and they have punched


above their weight. The idea that we would be turning Scots friends,


neighbours and relatives into foreigners is an anathema to us


which is why we are fully behind the No vote and the union remaining in


place. Richard, is it lonely being the only paper to come out in


support of Alex Salmond? No, it is not lonely at all. We have a huge


number of readers. It is strange in a media landscape there is only one


newspaper in support of Yes. I think that's something about our democracy


and one of the we wanted to state where we stood was there is a huge,


at least 50% of the population support independence and there is no


newspaper reflecting that view. I think that is not healthy. What you


make of the fact that your sister paper, the Herald, has come out in


favour of the No campaign. Newspapers will not criticise a


newspaper for stating of you. Our proprietor holds us to say what we


think is the best outcome. That is a healthy situation for newspapers to


be in. The Herald and the Sunday Herald are different newspapers,


they have different editors. We each came to our own conclusions and they


are different conclusions. I think that is much healthier than having a


proprietor which is telling us to do one thing or have to do the same


thing. I think that would be an untenable situation for me as an


editor. The Daily Mail has been accused of printing one view on the


front cover of the English edition and a contrary front page in the


Scottish edition. Do you think that works? They do have different


readers. Culturally the idea that we should be presenting a uniform paper


would be a mistake, just as the BBC provides a different service north


of the border to its viewers. I think the Daily Mail quite rightly


should be providing a different menu for readers who have different


cultural and political interests. You do not think it is treating


readers like fools for doing that? Not at all. The idea that we should


be providing one newspaper the whole of Great Britain would be a mistake.


Scottish people have many different interests, cultural, sporting and


political interests. The idea they should be force-fed huge amounts of


Westminster politics when Holyrood is important to them would be a


mistake. As much as anything, it would be the road to commercial


ruin. People want newspapers which are relevant to them. That has been


a lot of speculation about what the Scottish Sun will do. Will they join


the yes camp, does it matter? I think it would be great if the


Scottish Sun came out in favour of it. It would be clearly two


newspapers supporting Yes rather than just one is fairer, it even is


the right. Do you think the spectacle of London based papers


coming out in favour of Better Together could harm the campaign? I


do not. I think what is harming the campaign is the spectacle of


politicians panicking and charging north of the border having woken up


to the idea that they might be losing in the last couple of weeks.


I think it has been rather un-edifying. It has smacked of


complacency. When they open their mouths, the tendency to resort to


bullying and hectoring the Scots has been a catastrophe. The idea that


Scotland would not be capable of ruling on its own as an insult and


extremely patronising. But equally, the idea that we should be shouting


at Scots the entire time without highlighting benefits of the unit --


union would be a mistake. Newspapers, Jeanette, could you be


persuaded? I could be persuaded. I am a Guardian reader, what do you


expect? Surprise, surprise! I read the Daily Telegraph sometimes and


also the Daily Mail as well. We do not need on a law, we need a


dialogue, that is what newspapers can offer. You need people who can


put across a point of view to allow you to change our mind. I think we


need to be more optimistic. If a newspaper has a strong belief, a


strong opinion, then why not put it across. I want someone to argue with


me. As long as it is not the karate chop syntax of fake headlines to


sell the paper, let's have a proper debate. The idea we should not have


proper opinions is a mistake. The idea that newspaper editorials can


change your mind is overstated and as much a newspaper myth as reality.


Gentlemen, thank you very much. Enjoy the last few days.


The women that I knew who raised me calm and thoughtful?


The women that I knew who raised me and millions of people like me, who


ran our factories and our businesses, put out the fires when


the bombs trot, they would not have recognised their definition of


womanliness as being incorporated in an iconic model of Margaret


Thatcher, two rebuke to the first Prime Minister deputed by female


gender, OK, but a woman, not on my terms. The big thing is UKIP and


Nigel Farage. Come over here, the Romanians and Bulgarians are putting


everything at risk. I think he looks like someone has put their finger at


his bottom. Are you allowed to say that? It is too late! He can


embarrass and self, he can disgrace his party but what is intolerable is


he has cynically raised the hopes of hundreds and thousands... Miserable


pipsqueak of a man! Order, order, before we go any further, I must ask


the honourable gentleman to withdraw the term he used. I think I heard


the term pipsqueak. The honourable gentleman must withdraw that term.


You say the public switch off at political slanging matches? If you


look at PMQs, it is the only bit of the debate people tune into. It is


the only way to test parliamentarian's metal. Everything


is so manufactured. The one time we get to see what politicians are like


is when they go to and Neil at each other. To avoid that it would leave


us with these endless drones of dieticians who are boring and dull.


-- politicians. We see them in their most natural state when they are


aggressive. Isn't that true? People want characters, personalities,


mavericks and people to speak their mind. The way Harry outlined it, it


is stage-managed, why do we have more of the argy-bargy? It is a


little bit stage-managed. I think you are right about the spin and


stage management. And stage management. And we think it is just


a performance and we cannot get behind to the truth. I am just not


sure we really need to have the slanging matches and are getting


down and dirty when we're watching people have a debate. I have got an


issue because I do think there is a gender problem, because a lot of


women are not attracted by that and not very good at it. You are good at


it. Harriet Harman is not a shrinking violet. She is going at it


like the rest of them. The transport minister, the defence minister, they


are powerful women. I resent the fact people will say, shouting isn't


for women. We have this model as if it is almost, what we are seeing is


this is how politics is being done which is a male preserve and if we


put a woman in their she has got to behave like one of the boys. We say


she has got balls. We use these terms. If the model of a politician


is a male combative model, maybe women want to do things differently.


I think they do. Isn't there a line between passionate debate and


personal slanging matches? Sometimes the debate does get reduced to a


slanging match which does not show the intellectual power of


politicians. There are lines we cannot cross, it has to be around


the issue at hand. A good parliamentarian is the one who has


the skills to remain on the right side of the rules. I think people


should care I get angry, it does matter. I would like to see


politicians going out more with their constituents and having to


but... A bit like the Scottish campaign, out on the streets. Jim


Murphy, a Labour hard man saying they threw eggs at me and called me


names. Alastair Darling when he was confronted by the TV debate


audience, he said it was an Axa double. Nigel Farage said he did not


like it out in the field. Nigel Farage deserves what he gets. If


they are to be strong and tough, do they have to withstand that thing?


It comes with the territory. You have to expect some people will not


like you and freedom of speech is not just for politicians it is for


people to vent their anger to politicians. There is a line and


when it becomes physical intimidation, it is an issue. The


idea politicians are not the most popular people in the world is


absurd. They should wake up and realise this anger is out there. We


are saying get on the streets and you will feel the anger coming back


at you. It is the level of debate in Westminster which distracts from the


important questions the public are trying to grasp. Serious things.


Party political point scoring? Yes. I agree, we are about to enter into


a general election campaign full of tedium. The reason we are going to


be able to test politicians are when things go wrong and get nasty. When


they make mistakes. The point I was trying to make is, we should be


celebrating these mistakes and celebrate the rawness of politics


because that is when we see the truth. Does it turn voters off, do


you feel people just think, it is not for me? I think this shouting


turns people off, but if we got politicians out onto the streets and


have them participating in a democracy rather than sit down


democracy, this is what we were talking about at the beginning.


Politicians are often insulated from the views of the public. Let's see


what happens in Scotland before we can decide whether the negativity of


raw politics turns people off. It has been a passionate campaign. This


is such an important issue and the Scots are on it, unlike the wimpy


English. Let's leave it there. And now back to the Scottish


independence referendum. According to reports this morning


the unionists have been outgunned by independence supporters


in the final days of the campaign when it comes to billboards,


leaflets and knocking on doors. But just how important has


advertising been over Well if you're watching in Scotland


you can hardly have missed them, but for the rest of our viewers here's a


taste of what you've been missing. I am going to be born on the 18th of


September 2014. The very same day as the referendum on independence for


Scotland. Have you made a decision yet? I was like, it is too early to


be discussing politics. Independence, it is what we want in


our lives so why should our country be independent. We don't want to be


a separate nation, we want to be a better nation. You know what? I have


made up my mind. I am going to do what is best for Scotland. So, that


will be known from me. When the 18th of September arrives and I arrived,


please vote yes for Scotland, for yourself and for your children's


future. Right, I have heard that one before. Watching that was Chris


Fairhurst from an advertising agency and Gordon Young who is an editor.


Gordon, what makes a good elliptical advert? Something that can sum up


the proposition neatly and put it forward in a clean and single-minded


way. Do people agonise, we have seen advertising agencies going over


slogans and headlines? People do agonise. People in the public would


be amazed how long people spend coming up with 32nd television


adverts. What effect do you think adverts and the leaflets have had on


this independence referendum campaign? I think the adverts,


posters and TV commercials, my suspicion is not very much at all. I


inked the marketing that probably hasn't had a lot -- has had a lot


more effect, the more 121 advertising. Partly because of the


nature of the campaign but also because of the advertising that has


been done is not very good. Do you agree? People pay a lot for


advertising. In America, they think it works to a great extent. But do


you agree it has not had a great impact? Relative to what political


advertising looks like, the Yes campaign has look good. The Better


Together campaign has look poor. Why is that? It has been a bit


disjointed. Is it Better Together, let's stick together, is it no


thanks? They have come out with all sorts of different colours and


oppositions. The Yes campaign has been more consistent and


professional. Is it easier because it has been clearer than having


three other parties joining with slightly different messages? I am


certain it is part of it. I think also, the Yes campaign has been more


coherent because the advertising tends to be an emotional medium and


I think the Yes campaign's idea has been an emotional idea. Where as the


No campaign have attempted to communicate through rational fact.


What they have learned is it does not do the job of persuading people,


you need to do both. How would you choose who would represent your yes


or No campaign? Who would you have going back, who would trusted and


credible? The big opportunity for the Yes campaign is it is a positive


proposition from the start. They have had the commercial where they


featured a baby who was born on referendum day and trying to work


out what would happen over the lifetime of that child. Selling hope


which is tied up with a new baby. The No campaign have been negative


with the proposition of the woman. They had a woman who said she is too


busy for politics because she is too busy serving her family serial. It


is not so much the individuals, it is what they are saying that is


important. Do you agree with the mother in the campaign because it


has been criticised. I do agree with that. Not going to appeal to the


family and women voters? Particularly these days, people are


very sophisticated in terms of how they understand advertising. I would


lay this criticism to both camps. Simply putting the person in the ad


you want to talk to and said this is a person of your age, sex or


whatever, and said this message is for you. People see through that and


want more these days. Do you think it is worth spending those sums of


money on these campaigns? It is high risk, but when you get it right. In


the case are Better Together, probably best to do nothing at all.


Their strategy has not converted a lot of no voters to yes. So when you


get it wrong it can go badly wrong. What do you think is most important,


leaflets through the door, as opposed to TV adverts? Leaflets


through the door, it has been the physical passion that has fired up


the Scots. Both campaigns have been a bit wishy-washy. If you are not in


the United Kingdom, these adverts look exactly alike and they just


took the captions off them and you could not tell the difference. But


on the ground, people can feel the heat. Thank you both very much.


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


Which is the odd one out. I hope it is Nick Clegg. If not, let it beat


John Major, which is it? It is Nick Clegg.


Download Subtitles