25/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon, and welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron has


said the UK is ready to play its part in fighting Islamic state. The


cabinet is meeting shortly to plan for air strikes against IS in Iraq,


and Parliament has been recalled. We will have the latest. The Labour


conference is over for another year, and the party says it is within


touching distance of power. Critics say the policies don't stand up to


scrutiny. We will be looking at what Ed Miliband will offer the voters.


The Yes campaign lost the referendum but there are signs that the 45% of


voters who backed it have not given up, so how long will it really be


before the question is asked again? There is no limit to the talent of


this young European team. Nigel Farage is praising Europe, its golf


team anyway. He also thinks the vote on Iraq has been scheduled to


upstage his party conference. We will be talking to UKIP alive. All


that in the next hour, with us for the whole programme today, Phil


Collins. He writes for the times but he used to write speeches for Tony


Blair, remember him? Phil's top tip for public speaking is to avoid


cliches, at the end of the day, going forward from here, I would


literally like to welcome you to the show. Thank you. After flying back


from the United Nations in New York overnight, David Cameron is chairing


a Cabinet meeting, a war cabinet meeting, in all but name. Following


a seven hour emergency debate in the House of Commons, the vote at the


end of it looks a cure, with both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg signed up.


-- looks secure. UK action will be limited with Labour ruling out


extending the strikes to Syria. In a moment, we will speak to Alex


Forsyth in Downing Street, but first, David Cameron speaking to the


UN overnight. So we have a clear basis in international law for


action, and we have a need to act in our own national interest to protect


our people and our society. So it is right that Britain should now move


to a new phase of action. I am, therefore, recalling the British


Parliament on Friday to secure approval for the United Kingdom to


take part in international air strikes against ISIL in Iraq. Our


correspondence, Alex Forsyth, is outside number ten. Tell us exactly


how this is going to be constructive tomorrow, what will the choreography


B of this debate? As you say, in the next hour we are expecting ministers


to meet here at Downing Street to discuss, we presume, the wording of


the motion that will then be put before Parliament. David Cameron


will open the debate, it will last for some seven hours tomorrow


morning, and then there will be a closing speech from the Deputy Prime


Minister, Nick Clegg, and at that point MPs will of course vote. The


last time Parliament was recalled for something like this was last


year, when David Cameron tried to get the backing of Parliament for


the intervention in Syria. He failed similarly, he has been gathering


support before he even started to consider putting this motion forward


this time. So the vote looks pretty secure. There may of course be some


backbench MPs who are not happy or who have questions, but what's


interesting is the way we expect that motion to be framed, which is


very focused, limited, talking specifically about Britain joining


air strikes in Iraq and not Syria. That has been done because David


Cameron will be worried that he could not get support from all his


backbenchers, and also from the Labour Party and possibly coalition


partners. But he has also been criticised on the other side for


being slow, in some people's minds, for actually acting. He has had to


consider this carefully because all over this debate the shadows of the


previous conflicts of Iraq in and Afghanistan. After the Syrian defeat


last year, there is a sense that there is very little public appetite


or indeed in Parliament for Britain getting sucked into another


long-running, messy complex situation in the Middle East. So


David Cameron is conscious of fact and punch is of the fact that he


needs to be able to secure -- conscious of the fact that he needs


to be able to secure support this time. Of course, he is well behind,


because those US air strikes have already been going on in Iraq for


some time, and indeed in Syria, and the intervention written is


discussing is, to all intents and purposes, fairly limited. But by


tomorrow evening, Britain will be at war. It certainly looks that way, we


have had all three party leaders coming out to support this idea so


we could mobilise fairly quickly to send RAF planes out, but what they


are being very careful to say is that they are only talking about


Iraq, and not talking about combat troops on the ground, because there


really is no sense there is any public desire for that, and they


have been cleared to say that if it came to that, or the biggest


question of what happens about Syria, it would have to go back


before Parliament to get the approval of MPs before any further


action was taken. We are joined by the Conservative MP, James Gray. He


is in our Westminster studio, and by Chris nylon from stop the war


organisation. He is organising a protest this evening. As I have


said, it is almost certain now that the UK will deploy military strikes


against IS targets in Iraq. Wider you not support such a mission? Melo


I think it is just extraordinary that three years after the last


catastrophic intervention in Iraq ended, this will be the fourth major


attack that Britain has been involved in in the last 13 years.


The other ones have ended in absolute disaster. Are we saying we


are leading nothing from history, nothing from those experiences? It


is not just that we are in danger of repeating the same mistakes, but


every time we launch another these assaults, we plunge the region


further and further into chaos and disarray. Look at the state of the


Middle East now, 13 years after the start of the war on terror. It is


catastrophic, and we have been part of creating that situation. But are


you saying because of what happened, the intervention in Iraq, Britain


should never again be involved in any sort of intervention, be it


humanitarian or military? That is another question. I think all the


military interventions we have been involved in in the last 13 years


have been disastrous, and I don't think we should be doing the same


thing again. That is not to say there aren't things that can be


done, but the idea that the only thing that can be done in this


situation is aerial bombardment on Iraq is absurd. How would you stop


IS rebels taking over a country and also beheading hostages that have


come from this country, America and France? One thing I would do is to


stop arming the countries that have funded ISIS. Also, I would get


involved in some aid and investment into a country that we ourselves


have damaged irreparably. James Gray, let's get your response to


that, why is the UK almost definitely now going to be launching


air strikes in a region of the country where according to Chris Nye


and lots of other people have been disastrous in the past? Chris and


others will argue against any warfare in the world, but these


people, ISIL, are the most brutal people in the history of the Middle


East, and it is important we should hit them hard where ever they be.


These pacifists are just wrong. I strongly support the proposal we


should go against ISIS, where ever they may be, and I strongly support


the fact Parliament has been recalled tomorrow to discuss it. My


own particular line is that I think David Cameron should have acted


sooner and swifter under the authority he has as Prime Minister,


rather than asking for a vote. Do you think it is unnecessary to have


this vote, and if it is within his powers and remit, he should have


just joined the US-led strikes and some of the other players in the


region and gone ahead? It is not only unnecessary, it means it is


hampering comet we have to come back to Parliament for a vote on every


single matter. ISIS are both in Syria and Iraq. Not hitting Syria


because he lost a vote on at this time last year is probably the wrong


thing to be. We need to hit these guys wherever they may be, if they


hit Turkey, we hit them there probably. Tying ourselves in knots


because of the need to get a Commons vote is quite wrong. The Prime


Minister should use his authority, as a leader, as a statesman, he


should be taking us to war if that is the right thing to do to stop


these brutal murders. What is your political settlement for after the


air strikes, let's said IS is contained and pushed back to Syria,


what would be your political settlement for the region? It has to


be a matter for the government of Iraq, I am very hopeful they can


ring to the three sides. It won't be easy, and bring in the UAE and


Jordan and other people trying to achieve that. Let me come to Phil


Collins, to take up James Gray's point that this was unnecessary to


have this vote, do you think it sets a dangerous precedent that every


time there will be some decision taken on military action, Parliament


will have today record? Reign I think it has been said, I think it


will happen every time. It is not a bad thing reign in a democracy to


have a parliamentary vote on going to war.


I think, Chris, I take your points, but you have to recognise there is a


very signal difference from the last Iraq intervention, which is to say


the Iraqi government has requested our help. But not a big difference


from Afghanistan, where we were told military strikes would get rid of


the Taliban, and actually what has happened is that Alabama, 13 years


later, is stronger than it was women first went in. Green there is


another very important difference, we have seen green there is another


very important difference, we have seen British people in video clips


in peril. You are essentially saying right now we do nothing. I am not


saying that at all. What I am saying is if we know this intervention


takes place it will make matters worse, because history tells us


that. They have all ended in disaster. Give me an example of a


similar the literary intervention that has done anything other than


actually increase bitterness... My very point is that they are not


similar. We were told exactly the same things before the attack on


Afghanistan, that we needed to wipe these people out and degrade them.


Green do you not think that is true? No, I don't think we can deal with


these situations thousands of miles away by bombing people. A bunch of


bandits are attempting to claim the mantle of a state and you are


essentially saying do nothing. No, I am saying I don't want to kill


innocent civilians because it will make things worse. We have got


people coming across the border from Syria to Turkey, they are getting


ever closer to European shores, in that sense. If you left them


unchecked, what do you think would happen? Look at the situation back


in 2001. The problem with terrorism was located in Pakistan and one or


two other areas, now it is spreading around the world, which is what this


action will do, deepen the problem. A recruiting sergeant for different


jihadi groups, which we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now we


are seeing it across this region of the Middle East, perhaps this is not


the right strategy? It was the wrong strategy in Afghanistan, we should


not have been there for eight to ten years, we should have gone in and


hit Al-Qaeda very hard, taken out Osama bin Lardner and got out again.


That that is what we should do, with IS, destroy them. The Pasha fist --


the pacifist approach to say was bad and we should not do them, it would


consign Britain to the backwaters. We must get out there and do the


right thing. These brutal people are beheading children because they


won't denounce Christ. These are awful people and we must stamp out


from this world, the only way to do that is by military force. Do you


think you will be decades before this issue is resolved, which is


what President Obama has said? But we will not be responsible for that.


That will be for the government of Iraq. But isn't that the problem,


that when British support and American sport has pulled out of


regions like Afghanistan for example, all that happens is those


extremists comeback in? If they come back end, we will come back too.


Just sitting in Afghanistan, for eight to ten years, it is quite the


wrong thing to do. We could not rebuild the state, and we can not do


that in Iraq either. It is a job for the neighbouring Arab states too.


Our job is to take out the bad guys and then leave again. What about


boots on the ground? There has been equipped by quite a fume military


commander saying it will have to be boots on the ground in order to


defeat ISIS rather than contain them -- quite a few. The notion of


sending in a brigade of infantry, tanks and so on, that is completely


absurd. We would not possibly want to do that. I think if we can


destroy these people from the air, and my goodness, the force America


are unleashing is terrifying to see, let's destroy them from the air and


leave it to the new Iraqi government and Iran come for example, who are


looking quite helpful, to put the whole thing together again.


Is it sustainable to say that Labour will support air strike, not in


Syria when people say unless you attack both, it will not work? Not


over time but there was a clear difference, the Iraqi government is


legitimate and want someone to negotiate and talk with them whereas


in Serbia that was not true and you were working in a vacuum with no


opposition. There is a difference and we have requests from the Iraqi


government for help. In the end, it will not last because the murderous


bandits of Islamic State will not observe that distinction and they


are spreading. Thank you both very much.


So the Red Flag has been sung and Labour has packed up its party


Yesterday saw some rousing speeches in Manchester from the likes


of Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham and Harriet Harman told delegates


the party was in touching distance of power.


A lot of the attention has been on the things Ed Miliband forgot to


mention in his speech, like the deficit and immigration.


But they also told us quite a lot about their policies going


His spoke for a 66 minutes without notes and famously missed out on a


couple of important passages so this time we were letting cheat a little


bit. The Health Service takes centre stage, including a promise for more


NHS staff, funded partly by a mansion tax on homes over ?2 million


as well as a levy on tobacco companies and a crack down on tax


avoidance. There is a pledge to increase the minimum wage to ?8 by


2020 and Police Commissioners will be given marching orders, as will


the migration cap. 16 and 17-year-olds will have the vote and


he reiterated the promise to build 200,000 homes a year by 2020. Less


popular with delegates was a plan to limit the rise in child benefit to


1% for the first two years of the parliament. This popular with the


Shadow Cabinet was a plan to cut the wages of ministers by 5% and freeze


them until Labour has achieved its promise to balance the books.


And we're joined now from Leicester by the


Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Jon Ashworth and from our Westminster


studio by the Conservative Party Chairman, Grant Shapps.


Welcome. John Ashworth, let us pick up on the deficit. How can Labour


bring it down? Ed Miliband has a good grace to admit he forgot those


lines but what we did here was Ed Balls saying we have a plan to


reduce the deficit and balance the books when it comes to current


spending and no manifesto commitment that we will make will be paid for


by borrowing, we will cost every single commitment that we put in


this manifesto so that was in his speech. How can you bring down


borrowing? And the deficit? If you win next year? Over the next eight


months we will outline further plans on the deficit and it must wait for


the Autumn statement from the Chancellor and the budget for next


year as well because we can see the expect picture but the key thing was


we were seeing no commitment will be paid for by borrowing and I wonder


if Grant Shapps can make the same promise? That is not capital


spending, you'll give yourself room to manoeuvre on that soon you could


borrow to invest? No commitment in the manifesto will be paid for the


Berlin, every single commitment this week is funded. The commitment to


increasing number of doctors and nurses in the NHS will be paid for


partly by the mansion tax and other measures so those are the policies


we were outlining and they will be costed, not paid for by borrowing


and I wonder if the Tories can say that? Let us look at the Tories,


Grant Shapps, how can the deficit -- how is the target cutting going? We


know that we inherited a deficit that McGrath I know, I know! You can


tell me because we know the figures, how is it going? Don't take it one


month at a time. By the time of the next election we can go into that


saying we have halved the deficit. What Labour says is they will keep


within whatever the budget rules are and they mention only the current


spending and not the structural part, that is the other money, and


the did not say they would make that by banging up taxes, taxing the


pension and the family home, what they call goods like cigarettes. The


point is, the only way they can balance this is the same old way


from Labour, more taxes and spending. We will come to that. I


want to clarify, so far, borrowing has been ?2.6 billion higher than


last year, you are not on target to cut the deficit in the way that


George Osborne claimed and it is not easy, even with all of your talk


about austerity, to balance these books? It is not. We have seen a


very significant figure, more than one third off, and we shall go into


the election doing even better but the job is not done by giving the


keys back to the people who crashed the economy and letting them borrow


and tax all over again. Before they have even sorted out the last mess,


and that does represent the biggest risk to the economy. How can you do


this? More taxes? That is what we have heard. A mansion tax and a


higher top rate. You want a higher minimum wage for businesses. Where


are these cuts? The spending cuts in public borrowing? Or is this all


from tax rises? It is true we have said we will increase the tax for


millionaires, which grant shops has cut back, and also the mansion tax.


-- Grant Shapps. In Hertfordshire, he lives there, and over the last


five years, there are 133 houses sold and only three of them went for


over ?2 million, so the vast majority of homes don't even go for


that. Is this all going to be about tax rises? Well, there's the lead


roles said we would have to freeze or cap child benefit at 1%. That


rings in a few hundred million. That is not the sort of policy that goes


down well at Labour Party Conference is but Ed Balls also said we would


cut ministerial pay, I do not know if that is something Grant Shapps is


prepared to sign up to. We have to outline further policies but we must


wait and see the Autumn Statement to see what the fiscal position is. Let


us go to the mansion tax. How many houses will be affected by this? And


what will the average cost be? We think we can raise ?1.2 billion or


so from this. How many houses? We will have to look at the details and


we shall have some consultation on this. We think we can raise about


?1.2 billion for the National Health Service. I do not understand how


this will work, how can you value the zones? ?2 million homes that


were bought at that price or houses that have risen in value since they


were bought 20 years ago? This is what we have to work on. How do you


know you will get this much money? If you have not even worked out the


basic details? We think we will get ?1.2 billion but these are good


questions, which is why we think the Office for Budget Responsibility


should test all of the opposition policies so that when people come to


making decisions at the General Election, they will know whether


those policies add up. That is something that the Tory party are


not alone in custody, I do not know what they are scared of but if they


were prepared to do that, we could look into this and have thus laid


out. Grant Shapps, what is your reaction to the mansion tax? You


have always been against this but what is wrong with people who either


have recently bought or own ?2 million homes paying a percentage


and property tax quiz night he has let the cat out of the bag, they


have not thought this through. The amount of money required to revalue


homes, a process you would have to go through in advance, costs ?400.


There is already a cost involved before you start to get anybody.


Some of his colleagues have suggested it would affect homes that


come down to only ?400,000, that would be in the North as well, and


John has let... High with that the? They have talked about how much they


want to raise from this and there is doubt is whether it would raise


that. -- how would that we. In that clip, the discussions you are


having, that's it everything you need to know about Ed Miliband and


the Labour Party, they got us in this mess, they have not worked out


any long-term plan and what they are coming up with is clutching at


straws, they didn't mention that one of the new taxes they want to


introduce will effectively tax people's pensions, ordinary people


watching this programme will have higher pension tax and higher home


tax and they will be back to borrowing and spending. Is that


true? I will not take lessons from Grant Shapps... Is that true? Is a


tax on people's pensions? I do not accept that. That is exactly what


was announced. You have been putting a silly messages saying Labour will


tax family homes, and in your village, only three houses... You


have said that. Is it true about the tax on pensions? No! I do not know


what he is talking about. Scare stories. Why doesn't he say, we will


cost all the opposition parties. So that people can be confident that


those party manifestoes have been costed. It is a very reasonable


request. Why can't that happened? It is for the Labour Party dissenter


policies. Why can't the OBR that those policies? Because that


institution independently looks at the budgets of government, that is


the point. What are you frightened of? They do not cost Conservative


policy. Just government policies. Some of the other things. Where do


you stand on the proposal to impose a levy on tobacco companies? Argue


against that? That is absolutely fine to talk about those proposals


for taxing things like tobacco. You would agree? I would argue that


those plans do not stack up. John was very confused about introducing


the tax and pensions, they have, they talk about raising money


through pension funds meaning pensions will be worth less, just as


when Gordon Brown raided those pensions in Europe at the time, they


are going to do that again. And the only thing I was tweeting was how


extraordinary it was to have the Labour leader who forgot to mention


the most important issue facing this country. The deficit that was


created by them. Before we let you add to that point, it is clear you


are against the mansion tax, not the proposal to impose a levy on the


profits of tobacco companies. Are you ending tax relief which allows


hedge fund is to avoid paying tax? This is where you end up taxing


ordinarily pensions? You are against that? You will fall into the trap of


being on the side of the wealthy and millionaires. You're against the top


rate of tax and mansion tax? The tax relief or head funds. You'll be


accused of being on the side of the few? We have tightened up all manner


of loopholes and we are bringing in more money from the wealthiest


people in this country. Secondly, it is not the case that Labour are


doing these things and it will not hit ordinary people, it will. And we


have made sure that 25 million people in this country, including


people on minimum wage, who pay one third of the tax paid when Labour


was in power, are paying far less tax so we either people on the side


of ordinary hard-working taxpayers. And for Labour, adding nearly


bankrupted this country, to ask us to do the same thing again is


asking... You can have the final word, about those tweets? You will


pay more VAT when you promise you want but up VAT, they have had tax


credits cut and you promised they would not and many disabled and


foldable people pay the bedroom tax, that very pernicious tax and you


have given greater tax cuts to millionaires. We will have to leave


it there. Gentleman... Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Thank you


both very much. Are you suffering


from withdrawal symptoms now that Because UKIP begins its annual


gathering today in Doncaster. Whatever can have led them to decide


to hold their conference in Nigel Farage has been talking


about his position on plans for air strikes in Iraq, but he's


made one other attention-grabbing I am Nigel Farage and I love you. ,


the food, the excellent transport, the greatest golfers in the world.


The Ryder Cup is upon us and here are my reasons why everybody should


get kind Europe. There is no, no, no, no limit to the


talent of this European team. So, come on you lot, swing for Europe,


your continent. Goodness. That was Nigel Farage on


the fairway and joining us from consulate, UKIP's deputy leader,


Susan Evans. That was for Paddy Power, an online gambling adverts.


Why? I have no idea, this is the first I have heard of it. Your


reaction? I suppose as he says, UKIP has never been against Europe, just


against the EU. Why do it for Paddy Power, was a paid? I have no idea,


I'm afraid. We will find out later on. Do you agree with your leader


that the Prime Minister recalling Parliament for tomorrow is a cynical


ploy to detract attention from your party conference? I do, Private eye


hit the nail on head that the threat level had been raised from


substantial Boris to severe Farage. Now on the day the UKIP party


starts, he does something that several people have been calling him


to do the Whigs, recall Parliament to try to sort out the problem of


this barbaric death cult in Iraq and Syria. Surely that is at the


forefront of his mind? Surely an important debate on Britain joining


air strikes against, as you say, barbaric people in IS is really more


important than anything else at the moment whenever he had decided to


recall Parliament? Indeed, I totally agree and it has been very important


for weeks. When we were asking for a recall of Parliament weeks ago when


it first came to light, Cameron said no and he stayed in his wet suit on


the beach in Cornwall. I think it is a cynical ploy, I'm afraid. As James


Gray said earlier, this recall is unnecessary. Cameron was at the UN


last night saying Britain was prepared to join air strikes, he has


made his mind up, there is no need for him to go to Parliament. What do


you think, do you think it is a cynical ploy? I think the self


absorption that the finalist is thinking of the UKIP conference when


he is recalling Parliament to think about air strikes is bizarre. Do you


not think it is the session at the United Nations that figured quite


large? I think it has nothing to do with the UKIP conference. Let's look


at the by-elections coming up, how would you rate your chances of


winning either/or birth? I think obviously we have a very, very good


chance in Clacton. I was at a public meeting the last night and the


audience was absolutely 100% behind UKIP. Interestingly, Nigel asked


them to fill up their hands if they were members, actually he said put


up your hands if you are not a member and 90% of the audience put


their hands up, so it is not just the dedicated UKIP people at that


meeting last night. Hayward and Middleton is interesting. Labour are


doing so much in the wake of the Rotherham affair, they are doing so


much worse, people lined the doubly disappointed with Labour. Listening


to the arguments on your programme, I think Labour has descended once


again in a party more interested in class warfare than it is about doing


its best for Britain. Nigel Farage said I want to give millions of


ordinary people in this country the opportunity to live a better life


and do better. What is the tax regime that UKIP will put forward in


its election manifesto? First and foremost, we will take everyone out


on the minimum wage out of tax altogether. If a wage is deemed to


be the minimum, why should it be taxed? The other issue is to raise


the 40% threshold of tax and stop it is lower now than clear micro the


one thing we can do to improve inward investment from international


countries is to cut taxes. The tax rate was misunderstood, it was


combined with national insurance and we did not get that message across,


so it is going. So it will be a flat rate of 40% for the highest owners?


Yes, Labour keeps going on about tax cuts for millionaire 's but they are


paying more tax than they ever were under a Labour government and as a


result become tree is not getting -- the country is not getting the MS


would it deserves. I I grew up close to Hayward and


Middlewood. The message will work there very well. I suspect it won't


work well enough to win but they are certainly competitive, no doubt.


What about the policies on things like tax, if you are going to cut it


to the 40p top rate of tax, there would also be cut in public


spending, will those appeal to constituents where? UKIP take the


worst of the two main parties, Labour always burning too much and


conservatives desperate for tax cuts. The thing about UKIP's


policies is that public spending will go down naturally as we


introduce our policies. Clearly one of the main issues... By how much


would it go down? If you are controlling your borders and fewer


people are coming into the country and you are controlling the sort of


people who come in, like the 190 countries around the world that have


controlled immigration policies, then you are only encouraging in


people who can pay their way, so you are cutting costs on housing,


benefits, schooling, health. Our manifesto is being costed at the


moment, and ours really is going to be costed. You will have to pay for


a lot if you are to raise the tax threshold for low income families,


and scrapping inheritance tax. How will you meet those costs? For a


start, our fundamental concept is to leave the European Union, we will


also be looking at smaller sums, I am making a welfare speech to


conference on Friday. One of the first things we will be doing is


stopping millions of pounds being paid in child benefit to children


that don't even live in Britain. There are lots of ways that we will


be making cuts and announcing them in the next few days. Thank you very


much. While we have been on-air, viewers in Scotland have been


watching First Minister's Questions from Holyrood but they have just


joined us. It was the first time Alex and has been back in the


chamber since announcing he is to stand down as First Minister. I


think there is an expectation after the referendum, a way to canvas,


that given the comments for example not of Gladstone but certainly of


Gordon Brown, what he was espousing was home rule is close to federalism


as it possibly can be, then people want to see a genuine powerhouse


parliament coming from the steps being taken at Westminster, rather


than the insipid group of proposals that were published last spring. So


in terms of securing the jobs test for a powerhouse parliament, then I


shall be standing shoulder to shoulder with William Gladstone,


Gordon Brown and Willie Rennie. That was Alex Salmond, speaking at


Holyrood short while ago. They may have lost the referendum, but those


who voted for independence last week are showing no sign of backing down


in the demand for autonomy. A Facebook campaign group, called we


are the 45%, in reference to the proportion of people who voted in


favour of Scotland leaving the union, has been set up by those


determined to keep the dream of independence alive. We are joined


down the line from Glasgow by one such person, the former MSP, Tommy


Sheridan. Welcome back to the Daily Politics. As you know, 55% of Scots


voted to stay part of the union, do you accept the result? Of course, it


is a democratic election, it was interfered with unfortunately by a


lot of big businesses who tried to bully and intimidate people, and


obviously the BBC played its part. But 45% of people voted yes. The


last-minute intervention that should have broken all conventions and


rules, but again the BBC and others never really pointed that out was


the promise on the back of a fag packet that Scotland would get all


of these new powers. We were told it would happen on the 19th of


September. I think it is the 24th today and we are still to see them.


We will come on to the promises that were made. You include the BBC, in


terms of scaring and intimidating people, our business is not entitled


to have an opinion and have their say? Everyone is entitled. It is


just you did not like what they said. They are not entitled to


threaten people would lose their jobs if they voted yes, which is


what businesses did, and that is a disgrace, and you guys in the media


should have done more to point that out. This was a democratic and


apparently free election. You gave, for instance, coverage to the


Deutsche Bank, who said if we voted yes they would bring in a new great


oppression, a lot of nonsense, but you guys gave it coverage. I think


we have to accept that coverage of the referendum did not cover the BBC


in glory. I hope you will accept that, I am not having a go at you


personally, but the BBC as an institution backed up written, that


is what they did. You seem to be laying the blame for the fact you


did not win that. Let's come to the issue of independence, when do you


think it will be revisited? I hope in 2020, I hope next May we will


have a massive majority for the pro-independence parties at the


general election. I think one of the clear outcomes of this referendum is


that not only are the blue Tories finished in Scotland, but the red


Tories are finished in Scotland. Labour could have celebrated and


hugged with all of the Tory friends last Friday, but it was a pyrrhic


big three. They should look that up. -- pyrrhic victory for stock they


have lost Glasgow, Dundee, West Dunbartonshire they have lost


traditional Labour areas who will never vote Labour again. You say


that, you are right of course, those Labour heartlands were lost in that


independence referendum. Do you think he is right that there could


be, and in his mind should be, another vote for independence in


2020, and that Labour has lost those heartlands like Dundee and Glasgow


forever? I don't think they have lost them for ever, but I think


there is a severe threat to Labour in Scotland. That is one of the


outcomes and Labour people are very concerned about that. Whether there


will be another referendum that quickly, I doubt. I suspect the


argument for independence will get weaker as Scotland get older and the


oil but it is perfectly reasonable to complain for another -- to


campaign for another referendum. As if the Scottish people are Jutes who


see what is on the telly and read what is the paper and do as they


told is really patronising. Everyone did say it was amazing to see so


many people engaged in the debate on both sides. When it comes to the


negotiation with UK parties over reform,


Download Subtitles