17/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The polls suggest it's all still to play for


as we enter the final 24 hours of the Scottish referendum campaign.


Both sides are making their final pushes before the polls


We'll have the latest analysis on this tightest of races.


Andrew has been on the ground with No campaigners


I most certainly and voting no. I'm voting yes for a fairer society.


The Foreign Secretary says the UK will play a leading role


in the fight against the so-called Islamic State.


We talk to the former Attorney General.


But wages still aren't keeping pace with prices.


Can the Government do anything about that before the election?


All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme today is


Steve Richards, chief political commentator for the Independent.


Welcome to the show. Pick a cliche, any cliche -


too close to call, on a knife edge, The Scottish referendum campaign has


entered its final day and commentators are still not


calling it for any side. Three new polls last night all


showed a slight lead for the No campaign amongst people who have


already made up their minds. But, as we'll be discussing


in a moment, it's those 'don't knows' who may well hold the key to


this contest, and the pollsters have been scratching their heads to work


out which way they might go. First though, to get you in the mood


for tomorrow night, let's go to Jeremy Vine in the BBC's referendum


programme HQ in Glasgow to tell us how the results will come in


and how the campaign has developed. Votes are coming in through local


council areas, so let me show you the 32 Scottish councils here


in alphabetical order. What we've done is coloured them


in green and red, As the votes come in we will put the


percentages on this battle board. But there is an important point to


make, which is that the biggest So let me re-order this board


for you, and you can see it Glasgow and Edinburgh are


the biggest, we will watch them Then they get smaller, so Perth


and Kinross and Murray there. Orkney, Shetland, the islands there,


fewer voters, maybe quicker counts, but less importance in terms of


their presence in this referendum. Now,


the story of the last year has been remarkable and I will illustrate


this with the polls we've seen. If you go back a year,


look at the kind The yeses came back as the year went


on, you can see them starting to get closer, but months and months go


by and it is basically looking from the polls as if the noes are


going to win a comfortable victory. And then look at the drama


of the last month, look at what's happened, look at how close the two


sides have come to each other. Is there any way


of working out which way those Here, we've coloured in a map


of Scotland in the colours left An awful lot of SNP yellow,


you can see the Labour belt So, you could simply say that SNP


areas will go the independent. Blue areas will be against it


and then there is Labour red. Crucially, that Labour red part


includes Glasgow and Edinburgh, the two biggest councils,


but there is a complication. They've been told


by their leadership to go against, but there are all kinds


of factors like social deprivation There are other problems with


that simple analysis well. That was a map from the European


election, so turnout was low It looks like turnout will be


much higher for the referendum. So working out what will happen is


really unchartered territory and that is another thing that makes


this upcoming election so exciting. Well, one man who keeps as close an


eye as any on this campaign is Professor John Curtice from


Strathclyde University - I spoke to I think clearly the message


of the opinion polls in line with a number of other polls


in the last few days or so is that the no side are favourites, it looks


as though they are narrowly ahead. But not so far ahead that we can


assume the victory is in the bag. There is also some evidence from


these polls that maybe the yes side Certainly, ICM's poll, which can be


compared with the last poll they did for the Scotsman in the middle of


August, that clearly confirms the message of other polls that there


has been a substantial swing to yes. They are now putting the yes vote


at as high point Survation also picked up


a small swing to yes And again there are other increases


in support in other polls. So we cannot be sure the yes side is


not still making a bit of progress. From the yes side's perspective,


they must feel these polls are Have we done enough


in the last two or three days to But they are still within


the margin of error. So, actually,


it could tell us nothing at all. I think that is


a slight exaggeration, Jo. Leaving aside


the possibility that the polls are wrong, and clearly it is possible


the polls are simply wrong, but if they are roughly right, they


are telling us this is very close. The polling released today was for


the most part done over the weekend. Therefore there is the possibility


some people have changed their mind today, yesterday or on Monday


and that that is one of the reasons What we're being told


by these opinion polls - it is close, no seem to have the better


chance, but neither side's chance Who is going to benefit


from the record high turnout? I think the truth is the level


of turnout is not going to make There is some evidence in the


opinion polls that those people who did not vote in the 2011 Hollywood


election are actually less likely to So to that extent at least, the very


high turnout and the fact that some people will vote who don't normally


grace the polling stations, that is However,


it has also been clear from most polling evidence that yes voters are


a bit more committed to turning up than no voters are, and that could


in a close referendum prove to be But probably what one should say is,


if indeed the turnout is anything like what we're expecting,


which is certainly higher than 80%, the crucial thing is the turnout


will be so high that arguments about Or not, it should be accepted by


both sides as being Scotland's collective judgement on what its


future should be. There have been reports that some people have said


yes to polls but are planning to say no. Is there evidence of this? Both


sides have theories about why the polls might be wrong. On the no


side, it is that people are lying and they are saying they don't know


but they are uncomfortable with declaring it. The problem is most


polls have been done over the Internet, so you don't have to tell


anybody what you are going to vote. The favourite theory on the yes side


is the polls are missing crucial people who don't vote, haven't been


on the register, and these people will strongly be them. But if the


polls are indeed getting the folk who don't normally vote correctly,


the votes are not particularly in favour. So you can understand the


spinning that is going on on both sides of the campaign.


Now, as John Curtice was saying, this campaign has been a slightly


tricky one for the pollsters, not least because there isn't a previous


such referendum to compare it to. To discuss this further, I'm joined by


Martin Boon from ICM and Damian Lyons Lowe from Survation.


Firstly, the people who don't know. And also those who did not vote in


the last Holyrood elections. Why did that make it difficult for


pollsters? Well, we don't know anything about them. Critical to the


projection of the polls is the extent to which we can be confident


about the reported behaviour of people we don't know, people who did


not vote in the last election in 2011. This will be an unprecedented


turnout. By implication, we will perhaps have a quarter of our sample


about whom we do not have any record. Typically, in a general


election poll, we would be able to tie their behaviour back to what we


know they did before. But since many people have not voted before, we do


not know enough about them. If these people were built in solidly to


samples and they are telling us the truth, then we should be OK. There


does not seem to be a huge impact either way. It is just a black hole


we need to fill. What sort of numbers are we talking about? When


the polls are that close, 48-52, several thousand voters, it could


result in a different outcome on the night. Conceivably. The last


telephone poll we conducted for the Better Together campaign, the number


of people who did not know was as low as 9%. When we try to squeeze


those people for an answer, those voters did not break significantly


either way. So I'm not of the view there is a big pool of undecided


voters ready to swing in one direction or the other. So this idea


there is a silent majority of people who don't know who will vote no but


haven't said so far all I've been under pressure to say yes, is that


emit? No, that could well be a valid argument. Scottish people are


patriotic, it is difficult to say I'm proud of Scotland but I also


appreciate the benefits of staying in the UK. That could potentially


carry some social embarrassment, so it could be a factor. If there is


spiral of silence around this, feeling people are not telling you


the truth when it comes to it? It is ICM's pet theory, which obviously


proved true in the 1990s with regard to the Conservatives, when people


were reluctant to admit they were still conservative voters. In


Scotland, the extent to which people are put off saying they potentially


will vote no because they feel there is an undesirable social


relationship there, that is not going to be picked up in the online


poll. Where there is a bit of evidence I've conducted privately,


I've seen a greater level of reluctance among people who tell us


they will vote no in terms of admitting that fact. In a referendum


which is so close to 50-50, that could be a deciding factor. I wish I


had a bit more evidence to underpin it. What is your reaction now after


the poll which put the yes campaign ahead? I can only speak to our own


figures. We conducted 13 polls since February, 12 online and one


telephone. Yes has between act has been between 45 and 48. We've really


not seen that much movement since February. So there is a lot of


narrative out there in the media demanding low-priced Internet polls.


In some sense, the media are getting what the media want, which is


something to talk about. Steve, there has been a huge amount of


pressure and demand for these polls. Yes, I think it has been quite


difficult. I was up in Edinburgh the August before last and I bumped into


a pollster friend of mine who said the data is absolutely different


notes and -- definitive, it will be a no vote, the only question is the


margin by which the no campaign will win. Recently, I phoned him up to


see what he thought. He said he'd never seen a swing like it. So it


clearly has been a difficult one to track. One of the problems is there


just are not enough people in Scotland to create a decent sample


frame from which to draw from. If there was an average panel size of


people, a large one might be 2000 people. You've got the same people


in Scotland being pulled over and over again, probably creating a


self-selecting bias. So is telephone polling more


reliable? As the representative of ICM I would have to say that as we


are the last telephone poll company still standing! We are still


standing. The telephone methodology, the online methodology and a face


poll said the same thing. If there is a problem with any methodology,


it is a problem we are all facing and all methodologies. It is a


problem that the polls are coalescing above the 50% mark for


No. I do not understand why there have not been more which have


dropped below 50. There is so much going on with this referendum that I


do not understand. Take us through your last two polls. The Guardian on


Friday was 51% for No. The latest one in the Scotsman was 52% for No.


Clearly they are saying the same thing, that No have the edge but it


could still be too close to call. The methodologies... What about the


Sunday Telegraph poll? That used a slightly different methodology. It


had 54% for Yeses. How do you explain that difference? In a tight


race, that is a massive difference? Every polling company will


experience a rogue from time to time. I would like to airbrush it


from history because it does not fit the pattern. Because we did it


differently, that underpins why we were slightly different on that one.


How likely do you think it is, Damian, that the result will be


different to the polls? Our methodology is similar to Martin's.


It is the telephone. The ability to have a large enough online panel to


not keep asking the same people over and over again, the way we conducted


our last poll, we took a representative sample of individual


records, then called those people, then adjusted those people back to


what are the demographics of Scotland and that showed 54% for the


No campaign. We are not having a social embarrassment issue as far as


I am concerned! Would you like to bet? I would not like to bet on this


one. The polls are nearly almost right these days. We must work on


the assumption that that is coalescing around a No win but I


would not put money on it. Thank you, gentlemen, we will find out


soon enough. Now, you may remember that yesterday


Andrew was with Nicola Sturgeon out on the Yes campaign trail


in Hamilton. I've still not received


a post card or any shortbread. Well,


today he's out with the No campaign, with Jim Murphy in Barrhead in his


constituency of East Renfrewnshire. On the final day of this long


referendum campaign, the likelihood is that it Aberdeen will vote No,


Dundee will vote Yeses, this leaves the West of Scotland and this


greater Glasgow area where many Scots live, the key battle ground


which could determine the result. In the battle ground, the fight is for


Labour to convince its core vote to stick with the union.


The Better Together campaign has been criticised for not being vocal


enough, for lacking passion. Jim Murphy, the Labour MP in this area


has been a one-man campaign to put that right. He has gone up and down


the country with his Irn-Bru crate on which he stands and speaks and


canvases all over the place. Are you voting for his side? I certainly am.


We want to stay the same and not change. Do you think that is how


people in areas like this feel? I think it is maybe 50-50. You think


it is close? Yes. Are you in danger of losing the


traditional Labour vote? I do not think so. Increasingly, some of the


Labour voters gave the SNP the benefit of the doubt a couple of


weeks ago and looked at them and they are now shrouded in doubt. When


we examined what they were proposing, no clarity on the pound


or the pensions, I think there is a move back to us among Labour voters.


How much faith you have in the idea of the silent No vote. There are a


lot of voters the polls are not picking up? I think if this was a


referendum about posters in Windows, the Yes campaign would win. They


have more posters in the windows but Windows do not vote. There is a


quite patriotically John to waiting on Thursday will stand up and be


counted and vote No in a quiet, dignified way -- a patriotic


majority. How are you going to vote on Thursday? I know how I am going


to vote, I do not want to say on the television. I have decided. All I


can say is the response we have got today is fantastic. We are getting a


lot of people saying no thanks. Vote yes for a fairer society. We have a


lot of money which can go to people rather than investments. The polls


have been tight, tight enough to make predictions dangerous. What


makes this even more unpredictable is the existence of people in two


groups. Those living in socially deprived areas. They may not have


voted for many years. The Yes campaign think they will come out


for independence. On the other side, the silent Nos. They have made


up their mind but they are not telling anybody about it. The


problem is, politicians, pundits and pollsters have no idea how big


either group is which means we have no idea how this will pan out until


these results start coming in in the early hours of Friday morning.


I am delighted to say our new young reporter joins us from Aberdeen.


Andrew, welcome. It is a privilege to be on the same show as you! You


have been on the campaign trail for nearly a week in Scotland. Give us a


feel. Tell us how it has felt for you wandering around the streets on


both sides? As the campaign polls have got closer and there is a sense


of momentum behind the Yes campaign and No becoming more defensive, it


has got more frenetic, hectic, passionate and emotional on both


sides and at times nasty as well. There is a false balance to say


there is nasty on both sides, more nasty nurse has come from the Yes


campaign, from a small minority. I have been in Edinburgh, Paisley,


Glasgow, bar head, Hamilton with the Yes and the No. Everywhere I have


gone I have been met with friendliness, politeness, engagement


and everybody wants to talk about it coming up and no sense of threat or


nasty nurse. There has been some but it is by no means everywhere.


Everywhere I went people wanted to simply talk about it and get


engaged. We have a lot of Daily Politics viewers in this campaign.


I'm glad to hear it. What about this idea that people are not saying how


they will vote. When you say people are keen to talk to you at and


engage, are they not telling you how they will vote apart from the ones


in the film? Most people are telling us. There is still a sizeable chunk


of people who are yet to make up their minds. The problem is, we are


dealing with the concept here which we cannot measure. We do not know


how many of these people fall into the silent No, just as we do not


know how many of these are lapsed Labour voters living in pretty bad


social conditions who will turn out for Yes. By definition, if they are


not going to tell you, we do not know. The pollsters have struggled.


Commentators like me have struggled. The politicians have struggled to


reach these people. It is what makes this election even more


unpredictable than the polls are suggesting. You are in Aberdeen, a


key battle ground, how is it splitting up there? The hinterland


of Aberdeen is Alex Salmond territory. Nationalism is very


strong in the counterparts -- County parts of this area. But Aberdeen is


the richest city in Britain. The un employment rate is the lowest of any


city in Britain. The per capita incomes are highest. When you add


all these things together, it is likely that Aberdeen will be in the


No camp. But I would put it this way, if on the night we discover


Aberdeen is in the Yes camp, I think you can be pretty sure that this


country is heading for independence. Interesting. That is


one of many to watch on the night. Prediction time, who will win? The


No no, I am not going to do it. It is too close. There is no point in


making things up. This has been a wake-up call for commentators as


well as the pollsters. This has been unlike any campaign we have ever


covered before. I was having dinner one night and there was a rather


noisy hen party going on. They were all dressed up in costumes and it


suddenly went quiet. I said, why are they now talking among themselves


rather than shouting and screaming and laughing and joking? They said,


they are talking about the referendum and how to vote. That is


how deep it has gone into Scottish society. It is serious stuff.


Andrew, enjoy your final hours are up in Scotland.


Steve, picking up on that. There have been reports of intimidation.


Is that the general feeling you have been getting that in the closing


stages it has become so tense that the level of abuse and intimidation


on both sides has gone up? Clearly, there has been a bit. We have seen


the pictures. Ed Miliband yesterday had to stop his tour of a shopping


centre and so on. It could be that that is one of the sub themes


emerging over the next 48 hours, that there could be more of that,


because it is so intense and passionate and close. I do not think


that is the overriding feeling, as Andrew suggested himself, that the


overriding sense is one of intense engagement and politics coming


alive, exposing the complete myth that does the rounds that politics


is boring and dull. It clearly is not. It just has to be presented


certain ways and people up it up, as you and I lap it up normally. That


is positive and exciting. The problem with that argument is, the


debate they are having is, how they are ruled. It is a big debate but it


is not how you run the NHS, how you raise money. Those problems are


really thorny and involve compromises and working things


through. For example, all those voting yes will not agree on all of


those kind of issues. They are the nitty-gritty of politics. Just


briefly, what about healing after this? It has been divisive. The


country looks as if it will be split. How do you heal the divisions


at community level afterwards? I do not think they will be. If there is


a close No vote, there will be calls for another referendum quite


quickly. If the Conservatives win at Westminster and hold a referendum on


Europe and we vote to pull out, Scotland will say, we want a


referendum to have independence to stay in. That is in two years time.


I think the healing thing, it will not happen. This issue is out and


incidentally, now will apply big-time to England, Wales and


Northern Ireland. We are in for a pretty for Cannock period in British


politics. Thank you -- volcanic. What about Ed Miliband and labour?


Many have blamed the party for the recent collapse in support for the


Better Together campaign. Some suggest the situation is the result


of 20 years of complacency and failure in Scotland. Labour has been


struggling in Scotland for a number of years. In 2011, they let a big


lead in the polls slip ahead of parliamentary elections before


losing to the SNP in a landslide. According to one recent poll, 42% of


Scots who voted in the 2010 election are minded to vote yes to


independence on Thursday. The national polls have also tightened


for Labour in recent days. Earlier this week, one had the party neck


and neck with the Tories. Of more concern for the party is Ed


Miliband's personal approval rating, which remained significantly behind


Cameron's on 29%. It faces a battle on two fronts. Ed Miliband must make


real inroads with middle-class voters in the south-east of England


without alienating its core working-class base who are


increasingly attracted to the overtures of Nigel Farage and UKIP.


Joining me is a former Labour parliamentary candidate, welcome.


Where in your view has Scottish Labour gone wrong? The yes campaign


has been high on energy and low on detail. Labour needs to match that


energy but provide the tell as to how we can create a better country.


Do you broadly agree with the argument that the support that has


been bleeding from Labour in Scotland to SNP is as a result of


Labour complacency or that they have not been left wing enough in the


eyes of Scottish voters? It certainly seems people who voted


Labour in the past are considering voting yes and people who have never


voted before are considering voting yes. All of these are people Labour


should be reaching out to. Who do you blame? I think it is a long-term


issue, nobody is personally to blame. Not the Scottish Labour


figures who've come down to Westminster? They have let their


Scottish heartlands go. You see similar issues in the North of


England in other Labour strongholds, where Labour's presents


is not as dynamic as we would like it to be. This is a challenge for


the party as a whole. You talk about energy, is it about policy as well?


I think what has happened with the slip of support in both directions


is that Labour is not providing a significant battle for hope and a


better tomorrow for the country. It has two provide that. There is a


tacit admission that they have failed in Scotland. TUC that, has


there been a failure or is it just underestimating the power of the yes


campaign linked to SNP? Well, even if it is an underestimation, that is


a failure as well. It is a decline of both the big parties. The


Conservatives remain toxic in Scotland and the North of England,


David Cameron has not modernise the party so it has become acceptable in


these places. Very senior figures in the Labour Party who are campaigning


in Scotland tell me that what they get on the doorstep is that the


Labour government was no different from the Tory government.


Objectively, that is not the case, you can list many differences, but


that is the perception. So they have been complacent. But you highlight


the dilemma - how do Miliband and co-give a message that appeals both


to the south of England and the North? There are answers, but they


have not answered that because of Scotland. Tony Blair always thought


devolution was how it might end up, and that if you give away that much


power, you get closer to independence, you don't blunt the


SNP. Was he right? Well, evidently that is the case! I remember people


telling me in 1997 when the holder pollution thing kicked off, whatever


else happens, at least we kill off Alex Salmond. Anterior is running


Scotland. -- and here he is. But they had no choice in 1997, they had


to do something. If they'd gone into that election and offered nothing to


Scotland, there would then it all to reaction anyway. Clearly, that


devolution settlement has triggered the events which led to this. As did


the election of a government in 2010 which was obsessed with public


sector reform, which changed things in England when Scotland was in a


completely different place. That has widened the gap between the two.


Steve Richards says there is a perception in Scotland the two


parties are similar. You could argue Labour has signed up to the first


year of spending commitments, that there will not be wage rises for


public sector workers. These are things that could let Scottish


voters think, well, what is the difference? Did they need to be more


left wing but Scottish voters? Well, Steve also said the reality


did not conform to that. Getting rid of zero hours contracts, a higher


living wage for workers. But that message has not got across. Has it


been right to have Gordon Brown painted as the saviour of the


union? Was Alistair Darling the right person to lead the campaign? I


think Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy have done a great job. Do you


agree? Listening yesterday to Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister, a


backbench MP, offering all sorts of promises on more powers on a mandate


he doesn't really have, was that really the right thing by Labour to


do, never mind the Prime Minister? I think bringing Gordon Brown to the


fore of the campaign was a smart move. Round has a sense of Scotland


and Scottish politics and what works which has always been formidable.


John Curtis told me in an interview earlier this year that Brown, more


than anyone else on that side of the argument, had framed a message


effectively targeting the don't knows in Scotland. So I think it has


made a difference. To your broader point, Labour have emphatically got


a problem with the way the perceived in Scotland. I know that because


they are telling me that. And in northern towns as well. How big a


problem is it, briefly, in northern towns? It is a problem but I think


with hard work, Labour can change it. Why haven't they done so until


now? I think there are lots of constituencies where you have


hard-working, local MPs who really count of those perceptions.


More good news on the economy for the government today with the number


of people in employment rising by 74,000 and unemployment down to


The number of people claiming Job Seekers Allowance has also


fallen below 1 million for the first time in six years.


Wages however are still failing to keep pace with inflation and rose


Earlier I spoke to work and pensions minister Mark Harper and put it to


him that people aren't feeling the benefits of economic growth...


Of course it's the case people are not going to


feel better off until wages grow faster, but it is about making sure


We want jobs to be growing, which they are.


I also think it is worth highlighting today that the figures


are good in all parts of the United Kingdom, including in Scotland.


The employment rate in Scotland is higher than


the rest of the UK, unemployment is lower, youth unemployment is low


It's a big contrast if you look at the numbers in Ireland, say, where


Scotland has recovered so much better from the economic crash.


It just goes to show we are better economically together, which I think


people in Scotland will bear in mind when they vote tomorrow.


Are you worried by the numbers of people who are in low paid


I think if you look at some of the breakdowns,


one thing which is interesting is if you look at part-time work,


particularly women in part-time work, 90% of those people wanted to


Of course, everyone would like to be paid more, but people are


generally in part-time work because they want the flexibility.


The number of people who want full-time work but can't find it


So things are going in the right direction.


Is everything perfect? No, of course it isn't.


We still have some way to go to recover from what was


the deepest recession we've had, but these figures are positive.


I suggest it is more than some way to go, because wages have been


behind inflation now for several years, and the gap that has


It will take an awful long time, much longer than predicted,


By 2015, will you be able to stand there


and say, you are feeling better off now than you were in 2010?


I think the economy is immeasurably better than was when we came


We've reduced the deficit, we've seen 2.1 million more


Wages are rising faster in the private sector.


Things are not perfect and we still have a long way to go.


That is one reason actually people next year at the general election


need to focus on voting for a Conservative government to continue


this growth and not put it at risk by going back to the poor economic


policies we saw under the last Labour government.


But you are not reaping the benefits of that economic growth,


electorally. That's what many Tory MPs feel.


Also, if you continue along a low paid, unskilled


labour force entering the market, which you have argued,


you are not going to pay that deficit down further.


The rate at which you pay it down will slow,


the deficit will not reduce in the way you want it because you are not


getting the tax receipts because of this low paid, unskilled economy.


It is a third lower than when we came to office in 2010.


I don't think you should decry the fact that we are successfully


getting into work hundreds of thousands of people who were not


Yes, some of them may be starting off in entry-level positions,


but you get an entry-level job, then you can gain more skills


It is one reason we are rolling out Universal Credit.


It will always pay to take more hours at work


One of the problems is the productivity


Even with these people coming in at whatever level they enter


the jobs market, the productivity levels are low


and there is no sign or indication of how and when they will improve.


Well, there is a dispute about how productivity levels are measured.


I've been clear these figures are very positive and they


They are positive across all parts of the UK.


And they should be welcomed by people.


They are positive across all parts of the UK.


I'm joined now by economics editor at The Economist, Richard Davies.


There are two conflicting views about how well the economy is doing.


Do you subscribe to the macro picture or the 1 broadly represented


by Labour which says people are not feeling it in their pockets? I think


he is right. On the big picture, when you look abroad, unemployment


in the US is falling but it is falling because people are giving up


and leaving the workforce. So on the international picture, that picture


is correct. But where he is wrong is the productivity puzzle. There is no


real debate. The shortfall in productivity when compared to the


precrisis trend is about 12 to 14%. Maybe 2% of that is Miss measured.


The rest is a huge gap. It means the British worker power is producing


less output, and because of that, wages, as you correctly put it to


him, have stagnated. What is the prognosis for the future? In the


short term, it is instructive to look at Bacon sees. In the data


release we had today, there were around 50,000 jobs in manufacturing.


That is great, because the average weekly wage in manufacturing is


high, around ?550. There were ten times more jobs in the services


sector, many in restaurants and hotels. Those are lower paid jobs


which indicates wages are not going to pick up much. This feeds into


your question about the fiscal puzzle. He was a bit unclear on


that. Personal income tax receipts that are flowing to the Exchequer


are falling and the reason they are falling is because of this generous


increase in the amount you are in tax-free. It was ?6,000 five years


ago, it has gone up to ?10,000. That is great for people on low pay. The


problem is, there are so many people earning a bit more than that ?10,000


but the deficit is not coming down as quickly as the Conservative Party


hoped. Interest rates, that is the big debate between now and the


election. Do you expect them to go up before the election? There is a


possibility they might go up by 25 basis points. Very little


possibility of them going much higher than that. Briefly, that is


because of a big surplus in the labour market. We still have 2


million people unemployed, 6% unemployed. That can probably go


down to 5% before we start to see wage pressure. That wage pressure is


what the Bank of England will be really looking at. The problem is


the political message. It looks as though growth will continue, Britain


racing ahead. What has Labour said? As you have implied, in both your


discussions on this, there are still high levels of insecurity and wages


that are relatively low compared to price inflation and so on. In


theory, they have still got material to go. I think the problem is the


recent past witches and a motive part of British politics and I


gather is strong in opinion polls -- the recent past which is an emotive


part of British politics. Miliband and Ed Balls' response has been to


not talk about the recent past and they have left the space open for


George Osborne to get the message across which the polls are saying is


powerful. It is a bit like they used to play on the Winter of discontent


which happened in 1979 for years and years after with great force. Unless


there is a response and an effective response, the two rain is there.


Thank you. Following the beheading of British


aid worker David Haines by Islamic State jihadis, military intervention


against IS looks increasingly likely but it's still unclear where that


intervention will take place. Will airstrikes be confined to Iraq


or will British and American forces There was confusion last week when


the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond appeared to rule that out but was


then corrected by Downing Street. Here's what Foreign Secretary Philip


Hammond had to say on the matter after a meeting of


foreign leaders in Paris on Monday. I am sorry if I created confusion


last Thursday. I gave the position in relation to a strike but what


people are talking about here is the possibility that there may be some


action against Isil in Syria at some point in the future. I have said


already in parliament that would be an order of magnitude more difficult


than air strikes in Iraq for many reasons, legal and technical. We


have not ruled it out. We have not made a final decision yet. I have


said that Britain is clear that it will play a leading role in this


coalition. The Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond.


There are question marks over the legality of military action


With me to discuss these is Dominic Grieve who was


the government's Attorney General up until July of this year.


Welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron says we would not need the


permission of President Assad to launch air strikes in Syria. Do you


agree? That is probably correct. If the decisions are right in relation


to the necessity to protect the population from gross mistreatment


or genocide which IS seems to be perpetrating, then under the


international law it would be possible to do that. You have said


there is a human rights argument, that is what was used in the Balkans


and Kosovo by Tony Blair for that intervention. But is it wrong to say


the Assad regime is illegitimate and that would provide a sound basis for


bombing ices in Syria. That is not how I understood what the Prime


Minister was saying. Normally you take action on behalf of the


government of that country but the way Syria has been behaving has been


so bad. The government does not wish to cooperate with such a regime. In


those circumstances, cooperation with the Syrian regime would I think


be possible. David Cameron's words word that the Iraqi government is an


illegitimate government. Is he wrong to say it is an illegitimate regime?


I do not think that is the issue. People can say if they think a


regime is legitimate or not. Also, it is clear that it's writ does not


run through the country. I think what the Prime Minister was saying


is this was a regime with which we could not under any circumstances do


business. So it is not a problem for the Prime Minister to ignore


President Assad if air strikes were launched in his country? If the


correct grounds were there because of humanitarian necessity and the


steps that were taken were reasonable, necessary and


proportionate to address that, it can be justified under customary


international law. Although it is a concept which is challenged in some


countries but it is one that the UK has always maintained a close. There


are many parts of the world where well-documented atrocities are


committed and we have not got involved. Where in your mind do you


draw the line between human rights abuses justifying intervention and


where it does not? For humanitarian necessity to come in, it has to be


more than human rights abuses. The scale has to be such that it


justifies taking military action without going to the UN for a


resolution or if a UN resolution is impossible. So it has to be a very


serious situation. I have to say, from what one has seen that is going


on in northern Syria, that is a situation which has risen over a


number of times over the past number of years. The ground may be there


for taking such action. It has to be aimed at protecting the civilian


population. It has not got to be aimed at trying to remove IS, it has


to be with one specific purpose in mind which has to be providing


protection. What you do has to be able to be justified by showing you


are achieving that particular aim. So it would be limited? David


Cameron and President Obama have said they need to defeat Isis? It


would have to be limited to achieving a particular end. Not to


the end of specifically defeating Isis, although one does have to bear


in mind that in view of Isis' behaviour, it is a bit difficult to


see how the 1 is not inextricably entangled with the other. Legally


the aim would have to be protecting the civilian public, not to go in


and get rid of ices because it is a threat here as well? The aim would


have to be preventing ices from murdering minorities. Key think it


will be problematic for David Cameron to launch air strikes in


Syria against Isis? It depends what you mean by problematic. In terms of


getting the House of Commons to endorse it, I detect a big shift


from the vote on Syria a year ago which he lost. You can measure it


with people like Ming Campbell and others saying in some circumstances


he would be willing to say he would consider military action. I think


the political obstacle is not as steep as was just over year ago. The


practical one is, it is interesting hearing Dominik explain the legal


argument. There are not many parallels with the Iraq war in 2003.


One is Tony Blair. The legal argument is we want to get rid of


the weapons of mass destruction but in doing so Sadam Hussein would


fall. There was an endless debate about it. Now we are saying it would


be humanitarian crusade in Syria but as a result of that, would IS be


able to survive. The practical issue will be that voters will expect the


consequences to be the collapse of a vile regime. I am not sure how that


comes about as a result of this action. Should the UK have


intervened in Syria last summer? That was a matter for Parliament.


The legal basis was President Assad's use of chemical weapons. The


justification was to prevent him using chemical weapons, not to


remove the regime. America's top military officer yesterday raised


the point of ground troops being involved. Is that something you


think Britain should consider at all? That again is a policy choice.


Whether you are using aircraft to drop bombs or you have boots on the


ground, in legal terms, it does not make a significant difference. They


are both aggressive acts or acts with a purpose. It is for the Prime


Minister to determine how best we should go about this. He has made it


clear that the idea of putting ground troops into Iraq and northern


Syria is not an option he is currently considering and there are


perfectly good and valid policy reasons why he should not go down


that road. Ultimately, this problem is only going to be solved in the


medium to long-term when the people, who are there, take action to


restore their civil society and get rid of individuals who are behaving


appallingly. Dominic Grieve, thank you.


It was in the summer of 2012 that the Yes Scotland and Better Together


Now, after more than two years of debates, leafleting,


white papers, devolution offers, and the occasional egging,


It all comes down to the votes cast tomorrow - let's look back at the


We owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive.


Ladies and gentlemen, that was quite a launch. Let's make sure it is


quite a campaign. Thank you. Chairing this campaign is one of the


most important things I have ever done in politics. On Thursday the


18th of September 2014, we will hold Scotland's referendum. An historic


day where the people will decide Scotland's future.


I think the first debate should be between the First Minister of


Scotland who wants independence and the Prime Minister of the UK who is


trying to stop Scotland getting independents. Thank you very, very


much and Scotland, stay with us. I could not, as Chancellor, recommend


that we could share the pound could not, as Chancellor, recommend


an independent Scotland. Scotland could not keep the pound if it


chooses independence. It is clear to me that a currency union would not


work for Scotland if it wasn't dependent. It would not work for the


rest of the UK. We are in a campaign. It is the interests of Ed


Balls and Danny Alexander to talk up what they describe as uncertainty.


We are making the case for something which is right for the rest of the


UK as well. Any eight-year-old can tell you the flag of the country,


the capital of the country and the currency. I assume the flag is the


Saltire, I assume the capital will be Edinburgh but you cannot tell us


what the currency is. They cannot stop us using the pound. The most


important revelation in the debate this evening. We want Scotland to


win the Yeses vote to separate from England. I will nominate David


Cameron. This weekend poll put the Yeses campaign slightly ahead for


the first time. We are proposing that we agree a programme that the


Scottish Parliament should have increased powers. Tomorrow, the


right place to be is not in Westminster at Prime Minister 's


questions, it is in Scotland. We have the entire Westminster


Establishment in a total panic. If you are fed up with the effing


Tories, give them a kicking, this is totally different from a general


election. It is about the next century.


That's all for today. Thanks to our guests.


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


I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the


Download Subtitles