:00:38. > :00:40.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:42.Will George Osborne have to raise taxes
:00:43. > :00:45.if he wants to balance Britain's books?
:00:46. > :00:48.The Institute of Fiscal Studies thinks the Chancellor may have to,
:00:49. > :00:52.or cut spending if he wants to, and the think tank is warning
:00:53. > :00:55.Mr Osborne faces a ?2 billion black hole
:00:56. > :01:00.because of turmoil on the global stock markets.
:01:01. > :01:02.The leader of the Scottish Tories, Ruth Davidson,
:01:03. > :01:04.is revving up for the elections in May,
:01:05. > :01:09.but can they do the unthinkable and come second ahead of Labour?
:01:10. > :01:19.Will MPs end up with egg on their face on pancake day?
:01:20. > :01:31.A bit of momentum behind me on that last lap! Yeah, we did all right, I
:01:32. > :01:33.thought be looked tasty. -- the competition looked tasty.
:01:34. > :01:35.And mastering the art of the great British photo opportunity.
:01:36. > :01:40.and with us for the duration, queen of photo-shoots,
:01:41. > :01:43.leader of the Conservatives in Scotland, MSP Ruth Davidson.
:01:44. > :01:48.Now first let's talk about the so-called Jungle in Calais
:01:49. > :01:51.and David Cameron, because the PM has been accused
:01:52. > :01:54.of scaremongering for claiming that leaving the EU
:01:55. > :02:01.could lead to migrant camps in Britain.
:02:02. > :02:07.Ruth Davidson, was it wise for the Prime Minister to resort to Project
:02:08. > :02:11.Fear? I don't believe that he did, and I think it is absolutely fair
:02:12. > :02:15.comment to say that at the moment we have an agreement that was worked
:02:16. > :02:19.out between Britain and France that sees the border at Calais, and it
:02:20. > :02:23.does not see these things in the UK. What has been interesting is the
:02:24. > :02:28.number of people who have come out tonight to back the PM's position.
:02:29. > :02:33.And French interior ministry sources have said otherwise, that there were
:02:34. > :02:38.no plans to cancel the agreement. You do hear that no plans line from
:02:39. > :02:41.governments quite often. The Prime Minister was talking about
:02:42. > :02:47.opposition politicians in France. But if you look at the people
:02:48. > :02:52.backing him, Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett, a former head of the
:02:53. > :02:56.border control agency, independent academics, the UK ambassador to
:02:57. > :02:59.France, all of whom say that the Prime Minister is right to highlight
:03:00. > :03:04.that this could happen. But let me just say this, I do not think any of
:03:05. > :03:08.us saw the migrant crisis two years ago, not of us can see where it is
:03:09. > :03:12.going to go or how it is going to end, what if it is going to end. So
:03:13. > :03:18.it was right for the Prime Minister to say that this is something we
:03:19. > :03:22.worked hard to get agreement on, and the agreement is working. You don't
:03:23. > :03:27.think he resorted to Project Fear, using various sources to back up its
:03:28. > :03:31.claim, but has it backfired in terms of making people think, you know
:03:32. > :03:35.what, I am going to go in the outcome? If you look at the papers,
:03:36. > :03:40.some which would normally be sympathetic to David Cameron, it has
:03:41. > :03:44.backfired. I think people to understand that when they are voting
:03:45. > :03:51.in referendum on European, whether we should stay part of the EU or
:03:52. > :03:57.not, that voting is not on the prime Minster's renegotiation... Because
:03:58. > :04:03.that is not going to sway votes one way or the other. I came out last
:04:04. > :04:09.summer and made a speech about how I thought we were on balance in.
:04:10. > :04:14.Because it is an empty negotiation. We have got conditions that make it
:04:15. > :04:18.better for us, but it is naive to suggest that we were going to get
:04:19. > :04:22.everything we wanted. I do not think any membership organisation gives
:04:23. > :04:28.any member everything it wants, but it was a better deal than when I
:04:29. > :04:33.came out a year ago to say, on balance, it was worth it. And to
:04:34. > :04:44.stay in. It is up to people across people -- across the UK to decide
:04:45. > :04:47.whether it is good for them. Look at the Scottish referendum, the
:04:48. > :04:52.positive and negative messaging played rather well in terms of the
:04:53. > :05:00.SNP, they did not win, but that is what harmed many people felt,
:05:01. > :05:03.staying in the European campaign? It is interesting you use the phrase
:05:04. > :05:07.Project Fear, the only people I heard using that were the SNP trying
:05:08. > :05:11.to disparage things going through in Scotland. We were told we were being
:05:12. > :05:16.mercilessly pessimistic to suggest we could challenge the idea that the
:05:17. > :05:20.oil price would stay and $113 a barrel in perpetuity, which is what
:05:21. > :05:22.the nationalist' white paper was based on. We will talk about that
:05:23. > :05:24.later in the programme. The question for today
:05:25. > :05:28.is which of these lots fetched the highest bid at the annual
:05:29. > :05:30.Conservative Party black and white ball,
:05:31. > :05:32.held last night in London? with mayoral candidate
:05:33. > :05:35.Zac Goldsmith, a ?1,000 voucher
:05:36. > :05:38.for Kurt Geiger shoes, At the end of the show, Ruth
:05:39. > :05:44.will give us the correct answer. Now, those in the know
:05:45. > :05:47.know that George Osborne wants to balance Britain's books
:05:48. > :05:50.by the end of the decade, but according
:05:51. > :05:53.to a new report by the IFS, there could be a number of stumbling
:05:54. > :05:57.blocks in the Chancellor's way. In fact, the Institute
:05:58. > :05:59.of Fiscal Studies says Mr Osborne will have to break a number
:06:00. > :06:01.of records "boxed in by his own rule,"
:06:02. > :06:12.the IFS say, It highlights that public spending
:06:13. > :06:18.is already at historically low levels,
:06:19. > :06:21.and that there are a number of tax promises and other mainfesto
:06:22. > :06:24.commitments still to pay for, to cover the cost of increasing
:06:25. > :06:30.the personal allowance threshold. But many of the contributors
:06:31. > :06:32.to the Treasury coffers are looking weaker than forecast,
:06:33. > :06:37.particularly income tax, highlighted last week by
:06:38. > :06:39.the Bank of England's downgrade And the IFS estimates that
:06:40. > :06:46.if average earnings rise by 1% less 5 billion of income tax
:06:47. > :06:55.and national insurance revenues. The turmoil recently experienced
:06:56. > :07:02.on the global markets could also cost ?2 billion in lower
:07:03. > :07:06.capital gains tax receipts. The IFS believes
:07:07. > :07:10.this combination of factors will mean he Chancellor
:07:11. > :07:12.will either have to raise taxes to run a surplus eight times
:07:13. > :07:21.in the last 60 years, so whatever he chooses,
:07:22. > :07:30.the Chancellor has his work cut out Joining us is the director of the
:07:31. > :07:34.IFS, Paul Johnson, welcome to the Daily Politics. Is it more or less
:07:35. > :07:37.50-50 whether George Osborne can eliminate the deficit in this
:07:38. > :07:42.parliament without further tax rises? Given what he has set out at
:07:43. > :07:46.the moment, 50-50 probably at best now, given that the economy has got
:07:47. > :07:52.worse since he made his last forecasts just three months ago, so
:07:53. > :07:56.yes, a 50-50 shot he will have to do something else, increase taxes or
:07:57. > :08:05.cut spending. Because the overall economy is not looking as strong as
:08:06. > :08:08.we thought or indeed he thought. It was always not far off a 50-50 shot,
:08:09. > :08:13.because whilst the forecast was for a 10 billion surplus, that is a
:08:14. > :08:17.pretty small margin for error. There was always a pretty good shot that
:08:18. > :08:21.he would not do more, and it has got more likely in the last three
:08:22. > :08:27.months. He overestimated what he was going to get in terms of action
:08:28. > :08:31.revenues -- tax revenues, now average earnings have stalled. How
:08:32. > :08:35.worried are you? It is right to talk about the turmoil in the
:08:36. > :08:39.international markets, showing there is turbulence at there, and I think
:08:40. > :08:43.that is a reason for us to stick to the plan that is delivering a cut in
:08:44. > :08:47.the deficit, encouraging inward investment, growing the economy
:08:48. > :08:51.faster than other major nations, and has seen record employment in the
:08:52. > :08:55.country. Use a pointing to the global markets, that is not what the
:08:56. > :09:03.Tories did in opposition. -- you say. Either it is the Government's
:09:04. > :09:10.fold or always the fault of outside factors. I was just suggesting that
:09:11. > :09:15.in your introduction to the IFS piece, it was 2% globally wiped off
:09:16. > :09:22.markets. Buddy has not fixed the roof while the sun was shining, by
:09:23. > :09:27.promising further tax cuts. -- but he has. We had one of the largest
:09:28. > :09:30.structural deficits, and we have brought that down. People have
:09:31. > :09:35.consistently underestimated George Osborne, we had people right at the
:09:36. > :09:40.beginning, when he was talking about rebalancing the UK economy, people
:09:41. > :09:45.like David Blanchflower, and we now have record employment. I think that
:09:46. > :09:49.he has proven to be quite adept at staring elite steering our country
:09:50. > :09:52.through some difficult times globally, and other countries wish
:09:53. > :09:57.they could have the same outlook as the UK right now. Paul Johnson, is
:09:58. > :10:02.one of the problems that George Osborne could not make the cut he
:10:03. > :10:06.wanted to in terms of tax credits? The overarching issue is that he set
:10:07. > :10:09.a fixed target for 2019, not like the targets he was running in the
:10:10. > :10:21.last Parliament, and that means if he is going to keep to it, he will
:10:22. > :10:24.have to do some big tax rises or spending cuts in addition to what he
:10:25. > :10:26.has suggested. The welfare cuts are part of that, actually they do not
:10:27. > :10:29.make that much difference in terms of where he will be in 2019, partly
:10:30. > :10:32.because those welfare cuts are still there. When he went back on that, he
:10:33. > :10:35.made sure that nobody was losing in the short run, but that the system
:10:36. > :10:42.would be less generous in the longer run. So those will be less generous,
:10:43. > :10:46.and you fought those cuts to tax credits, left-wing Tories, we could
:10:47. > :10:55.call you, like you and others, told George Osborne he could not ?12
:10:56. > :10:59.billion in benefits. I welcome these changes, I said at the time that it
:11:00. > :11:03.is right we move from a high welfare, low-wage economy, but the
:11:04. > :11:07.thing that I had an issue with was the way it worked in the interim,
:11:08. > :11:11.the people who would be hurt would be the ones we are trying to help.
:11:12. > :11:16.Getting people back into work, raising the minimum wage, taking the
:11:17. > :11:20.lowest paid at tax altogether... But they will be hit in a few years'
:11:21. > :11:30.time. We are trying to make sure there is less need for in-work
:11:31. > :11:34.benefits. And increase in wages is stalling. That is why will see the
:11:35. > :11:39.increase in the minimum wage in the next this, cruel year. It is clear
:11:40. > :11:44.that George Osborne will either have to cut benefits or increase taxes to
:11:45. > :11:49.meet his own fiscal rule and have a surplus, was that a stupid fiscal
:11:50. > :11:52.rule? I don't think it was, there are people who have battened down
:11:53. > :11:56.the hatches during these last few years to try to make sure that we
:11:57. > :11:59.all pull together to get our economy back on track after the largest
:12:00. > :12:03.structural deficit of any major economy anywhere in the world, and
:12:04. > :12:07.they want to know when the sun will be shining again and we're not
:12:08. > :12:11.paying more in debt interest than we are on the budget of Scotland, which
:12:12. > :12:16.is what we do at the moment. There is no sign of that happening any
:12:17. > :12:20.time soon, so would you prefer to get to that surplus with tax rises
:12:21. > :12:27.or further cuts? I think the Chancellor has charted a course, he
:12:28. > :12:30.has been consistently second-guessed by people and he has proven them
:12:31. > :12:35.wrong. So you think he will be able to hit the surplus without those
:12:36. > :12:39.cuts or tax rises? There have been other analysts who have said that he
:12:40. > :12:43.has not been able to make the achievements that he has, and I will
:12:44. > :12:48.wait and see with interest is Budget in March. It is wait and see, these
:12:49. > :12:53.forecasts are always uncertain, we are not looking at for sure going to
:12:54. > :12:57.miss this, but we do know that he has promised 8 billion of tax cuts,
:12:58. > :13:00.which he will have to fund from somewhere, and we do know that
:13:01. > :13:04.things have got worse in the economy than they were back in the autumn.
:13:05. > :13:09.The question is, and I am sure this is a hypothetical at the moment, but
:13:10. > :13:12.if, as is certainly plausible, the forecast turns out less good than a
:13:13. > :13:16.couple of months ago, what is it going to do? That will be one of the
:13:17. > :13:20.biggest choices he has made, because he did not have to make these
:13:21. > :13:25.choices in the last Parliament. He was able to push them back, he will
:13:26. > :13:29.not be able to this time around. He has not got much wiggle room, I know
:13:30. > :13:40.it is hypothetical, but whatever happens. He really doesn't, 10
:13:41. > :13:43.billion sounds like a lot of money, but out of more than 700 billion
:13:44. > :13:46.four years out, it is a small amount of space that he has given himself.
:13:47. > :13:49.That is why the OBR, they are saying there is a 45% chance he will not
:13:50. > :13:54.make this, unless he does something additional. We're not saying he will
:13:55. > :13:59.definitely do it, but there is a good chance, and then the question
:14:00. > :14:01.is, which way will he go? Paul Johnson, thank you.
:14:02. > :14:02.Now, are the Tories guilty of over-spending
:14:03. > :14:06.An investigation by Channel 4 News seems to think so.
:14:07. > :14:14.The Conservatives were badly losing members to Ukip, and votes.
:14:15. > :14:17.But what Tory high command feared most was Ukip getting their first
:14:18. > :14:23.Farage and his party had to be stopped -
:14:24. > :14:32.Channel 4 News has obtained a wealth of information which reveals just
:14:33. > :14:36.how much the Conservatives spent on three Parliamentary by-elections
:14:37. > :14:42.in 2014, and appeared to show a contempt for the law,
:14:43. > :14:46.a law designed to create a level playing field and prevent any party
:14:47. > :14:54.These detailed receipts seem to show how, in each case,
:14:55. > :14:58.the Conservatives simply bust the ?100,000 legal spending limit
:14:59. > :15:10.And Michael Crick from Channel 4 News is with us now.
:15:11. > :15:18.It can you summarise what has happened in your mind? During the
:15:19. > :15:21.by-election campaigns, I covered all three, there were strong suspicions
:15:22. > :15:26.the Conservatives were spending a huge amount of money. The Liberal
:15:27. > :15:29.Democrats Inuit accuse them of spending a quarter of a million, the
:15:30. > :15:37.legal limit is 100,000. We have obtained hotel bills from several of
:15:38. > :15:38.the hotels in each of those campaigns, and they are huge
:15:39. > :15:45.amounts. Rochester, campaigns, and they are huge
:15:46. > :15:49.?56,000. The electoral commission guidance, whereby candidates and
:15:50. > :15:54.agents fill in forms at the end of the campaign and said they fitted
:15:55. > :15:57.within the ?100,000 limit, say you have to include hotels for party
:15:58. > :16:00.workers, and the bills we have obtained not only showed the amounts
:16:01. > :16:06.but which party workers were staying there and how much each room cost.
:16:07. > :16:11.Would it have changed the outcomes of those by-elections? No, the
:16:12. > :16:17.Conservatives won new work fairly easily by a majority of 7000, and
:16:18. > :16:22.Ukip one in Clacton and Rochester, but there are important principles
:16:23. > :16:28.here. What was notable about all three campaigns is how pathetic,
:16:29. > :16:31.frankly, the Labour campaign was, and Labour argued privately, we
:16:32. > :16:35.cannot mount a proper campaign here because we will be outspent,
:16:36. > :16:38.whatever we do, by the Conservatives, so they didn't
:16:39. > :16:42.bother. I think there were political reasons why they didn't bother, at
:16:43. > :16:46.one point Newark and Rochester were Labour seats but they had problems
:16:47. > :16:52.with Miliband and so on. Which laws have been broken if your allegations
:16:53. > :16:58.are backed up? Representation of the people act makes it clear you have
:16:59. > :17:02.to stick within limits the level playing field and so on. The trouble
:17:03. > :17:05.is it is too late to prosecute for the by-elections because you can
:17:06. > :17:10.only prosecute within 12 months. Some lawyers think it might be
:17:11. > :17:14.possible to put together a conspiracy charge, whereby he would
:17:15. > :17:19.argue there was a deliberate attempt to deceive and mislead, mislead
:17:20. > :17:23.rather than deceive, I think, returning officers in these three
:17:24. > :17:32.constituencies. What is the Conservative Party saying? They are
:17:33. > :17:38.denying it? They said they have Obeida Nahas but they have not
:17:39. > :17:42.explained why the hotels were attributed to the home address of
:17:43. > :17:44.one of their leading officials rather than Conservative
:17:45. > :17:51.headquarters, was it a deliberate attempt to mislead or not? -- they
:17:52. > :17:53.said they obeyed the laws. We did try to get somebody from the
:17:54. > :17:57.Conservative Party did talk about it but have not managed to. They said
:17:58. > :18:01.they stayed within spending limits, so does it stay with the police,
:18:02. > :18:05.even if it is outside the time limit, or does it go to the
:18:06. > :18:13.electoral commission, or both? The trouble with this, nobody really
:18:14. > :18:17.wants to handle it. The electoral commission said they only handle
:18:18. > :18:21.national limits, they say it is the job of the returning officers. The
:18:22. > :18:25.returning officers take the return in, look after it, make it available
:18:26. > :18:30.to the public, but they say it is not their job to check the returns,
:18:31. > :18:34.they say it is for the police. The police say, we don't want to get
:18:35. > :18:38.involved. So nobody really polices that! The electoral commission have
:18:39. > :18:49.asked for greater powers from the Government but said the Government
:18:50. > :18:51.has not responded. Should there be greater power was for the electoral
:18:52. > :18:54.commission to investigate this? Is this a serious allegation and, if
:18:55. > :18:57.found to be flouting the law, is it a serious charge? We are holding
:18:58. > :19:02.talks in Scotland, we know the rules regarding by-elections and always
:19:03. > :19:06.declare everything with regards to the law. I think the rules exist for
:19:07. > :19:11.the reason Michael says, to make sure that democracy in the UK is
:19:12. > :19:17.preserved. I think it is important that people uphold the law. Would
:19:18. > :19:22.you like to see it investigate it? If there is something that needs to
:19:23. > :19:26.be looked at... Michael Crick says he has the evidence, should the
:19:27. > :19:29.party be scrutinised? All parties should be scrutinised at every
:19:30. > :19:32.election for what they declare, it is the reason for the declarations
:19:33. > :19:36.in the first place, but I would stress my colleagues in the party
:19:37. > :19:40.down south said they declared everything required to them under
:19:41. > :19:46.the law. Is that the end of your investigation? No, we will have more
:19:47. > :19:51.tonight on what happened in Thanet South during the general election,
:19:52. > :19:54.for which the 12 months is not yet up. All right, thank you.
:19:55. > :19:56.Now hands up who wants to succeed David Cameron
:19:57. > :20:02.Our guest of the day says she doesn't, and she doesn't
:20:03. > :20:04.necessarily think the so-called front runners,
:20:05. > :20:06.like George Osborne, Boris Johnson or Teresa May, should either.
:20:07. > :20:08.Instead, she thinks someone young and fresh
:20:09. > :20:11.from the 2010 intake might do better.
:20:12. > :20:13.So who's in the running? I know a man who knows.
:20:14. > :20:18.Alex Donohue from Ladbrokes is on College Green.
:20:19. > :20:29.What are the odds on the front runners? Of that 2010 intake, Sajid
:20:30. > :20:33.Javid has a at odds, ten - one. He was 25- won a short while ago but
:20:34. > :20:35.his odds have been coming in as a lot of people maybe start to look
:20:36. > :20:40.for alternatives to the hot favourites like George Osborne at
:20:41. > :20:46.2-1 will stop we have put roof on the board at 50-1. Is certainly
:20:47. > :20:56.dogged the opposition but at one time on this board at 100 to one, so
:20:57. > :21:05.anything is possible! -- a certain leader of the the. You have to say
:21:06. > :21:12.that every time! We have got Nicky Morgan on 25-1, Liz Truss on 33-1,
:21:13. > :21:17.Jacob Rees Mogg is the outsider at 100-1. We think Sajid Javid has the
:21:18. > :21:21.best chance because he was around 33-1 but his odds are definitely
:21:22. > :21:24.coming in and it would not surprise me if his odds shorten against in
:21:25. > :21:31.the coming months. If it heating up already? It certainly will do, the
:21:32. > :21:34.referendum have a big say on that but people are looking to back some
:21:35. > :21:39.outsiders at longer odds the further out we are. Thank you very much.
:21:40. > :21:47.And with us now is a 2010 Conservative MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg.
:21:48. > :21:55.Welcome, are you heartened that you odds have been shortened? No, I was
:21:56. > :21:59.not paying attention to this amusing game! But there is one good point in
:22:00. > :22:03.it, which is that the Conservative Party, since the war, has only
:22:04. > :22:08.chosen the front runner once, and that was a disaster, it was after
:22:09. > :22:14.Anthony Eden it has always been the outsider. David Cameron, Iain Duncan
:22:15. > :22:22.Smith, Alec Douglas Hume came from nowhere to win. It is not likely to
:22:23. > :22:27.be one of the front runners. So you don't think George Osborne? I also
:22:28. > :22:30.think, which comes on to this, it won't be somebody that backs the
:22:31. > :22:43.stage campaign because the bulk of the voters are out-ers. The majority
:22:44. > :22:46.of the party makes me look like a Europhile, the majority is sceptic
:22:47. > :22:51.and will not want somebody who played a prominent role in the stage
:22:52. > :22:56.campaign. What do you say on that point, is Jacob Rees Mogg right? I
:22:57. > :23:01.never had you down as one of the 2010 intake, I thought you were a
:23:02. > :23:04.member in the 19th-century! But I like the fact that I appear to be
:23:05. > :23:08.twice as likely to become the next leader despite the fact I'm not an
:23:09. > :23:13.MP and does it in the House of Commons! Would you like to rule
:23:14. > :23:23.yourself out?! I have no interest at all! You would be brilliant! As for
:23:24. > :23:27.the question about whether the candidate supports remaining in the
:23:28. > :23:34.EU or breaking away, that it won't be somebody that wants to stay in? I
:23:35. > :23:39.think it depends a lot on timing, if there is a change of in leadership
:23:40. > :23:42.post to the referendum it will play a part but if there is clear water
:23:43. > :23:46.it will be less of that. The thing that unites all of the leadership
:23:47. > :23:50.contests we have had in the party, the party may pick outsiders but
:23:51. > :23:53.they always look like winners, unlike the Labour Party who prize
:23:54. > :23:57.purity of thought over efficacy of results. Although we could look at
:23:58. > :24:04.William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Howard, they were not
:24:05. > :24:09.winners in that sense. I think if you look particularly at how William
:24:10. > :24:12.Hague has gone on to develop, I think we're missing from the House
:24:13. > :24:18.of Commons, you must remember. He was a man of infinite gifts. In your
:24:19. > :24:21.mind, you wrote an article where you suggest the next leader could come
:24:22. > :24:25.from the 2010 generation, what is wrong with anyone who came before
:24:26. > :24:32.that? You thought Jacob Rees Mogg was there before... He won't thank
:24:33. > :24:36.me for mentioning it again, but somebody from 2005, Stephen Crabb,
:24:37. > :24:42.the current Welsh Secretary, somebody that I have a real
:24:43. > :24:47.friendship with, and whose gifts and warmth and life story is much closer
:24:48. > :24:50.to the people of Britain, he is a very good communicator. I would like
:24:51. > :24:53.to see him get a big job in Government. But I think what is
:24:54. > :24:59.interesting about this is how many people you can see on the road to
:25:00. > :25:03.Number Ten, but you cannot see that the current Labour leader. Do you
:25:04. > :25:08.agree of the current 2010 intake, could there be a generation skipped?
:25:09. > :25:14.It often happens, Michael Crick said to me before I came that the
:25:15. > :25:17.Conservative Party to go with the person that entered the house most
:25:18. > :25:24.recently and is the youngest, so it may well be 2015. It tends to be
:25:25. > :25:28.that the new leader is a fresh face. But where we are lucky, and this
:25:29. > :25:32.must be to David Cameron's credit, we have got so many people to pick
:25:33. > :25:39.from who are credible, good candidates, and that is a good
:25:40. > :25:44.position to be in. Let's stick with the Tories for the moment, that is
:25:45. > :25:57.the party would you both belong to. Talking about inners and outers, who
:25:58. > :26:00.would represent the out campaign? The high-profile figures in the
:26:01. > :26:05.party are making up their minds as to which way to jump. Which ones?
:26:06. > :26:10.The great Mayor of London is still making up his mind, but if he jumps
:26:11. > :26:14.to stay in his chances of getting the leadership vanished because he
:26:15. > :26:18.offers nothing against George Osborne all the others who want to
:26:19. > :26:26.stay in. At an intermediate level, I think there are so many people
:26:27. > :26:30.thinking of going for out, Sajid Javid's chances would be
:26:31. > :26:36.fundamentally improved in that final round backing out. Would he get your
:26:37. > :26:44.vote? I hold him in the highest regard. So, yes? He is really good
:26:45. > :26:48.news and he has a brother living in my constituency, he has a strong
:26:49. > :26:56.Somerset connection so I always back, set when I can! Do you rule
:26:57. > :27:03.yourself out? I don't need to rule myself out because nobody would rule
:27:04. > :27:08.me in! That is the honest truth! In terms of being on the winning side,
:27:09. > :27:12.would that not be more important in terms of leadership contenders,
:27:13. > :27:17.whichever side wins? No, oddly being on the losing side could be very
:27:18. > :27:22.helpful, because, as a nation, we always like a gallant loser, so the
:27:23. > :27:28.person who leads the leave campaign, which I think will actually win, but
:27:29. > :27:38.the person who lost would be seen as brave, courageous, and appealed to
:27:39. > :27:42.the grassroots. Likewise, the people on the stay site may find that if
:27:43. > :27:47.they fail they are more easily forgiven them if they succeed. As in
:27:48. > :27:53.Scotland, they vote to stay in the United Kingdom but then vote SNP. We
:27:54. > :27:57.will see something similar happen. Before we let you go, to go back to
:27:58. > :28:01.your comparison of Anthony Eden, left waiting too long, do you think
:28:02. > :28:07.that could happen to George Osborne? George Osborne is brilliant and
:28:08. > :28:10.successful as Chancellor, he may be on the wrong side of the European
:28:11. > :28:11.argument and that will make his leadership ambitions very hard to
:28:12. > :28:15.aspire. Thank you. If the press is to believed,
:28:16. > :28:23.Ruth Davidson here is popular in Scotland, with the media and even
:28:24. > :28:26.with people who will probably She's gay, likes a drink,
:28:27. > :28:31.is a Christian, used to be a member of the TA and doesn't mind
:28:32. > :28:33.pulling a punch or two. And it appears she is turning
:28:34. > :28:37.round the fortunes of She doesn't expect to become
:28:38. > :28:41.First Minister in May when Scotland goes to the polls, but she does
:28:42. > :28:43.hope to come second. The other contest gripping Scotland
:28:44. > :28:50.is the battle between Labour and the Conservatives for second
:28:51. > :28:54.place in the summer's elections. Here is the Scottish
:28:55. > :28:57.Conservatives' game plan. Number one,
:28:58. > :29:00.suggest that Labour are so weak, only they can oppose the SNP
:29:01. > :29:03.in the Scottish Parliament. Number two, talk up their
:29:04. > :29:06.charismatic leader, Ruth Davidson. And number three, bring in a whole
:29:07. > :29:09.load of new candidates All of this became clear
:29:10. > :29:16.when I went leafleting with a pair of first-time
:29:17. > :29:19.candidates, Adam Tomkins, a professor of constitutional law
:29:20. > :29:22.who helped come up with plans for more devolution,
:29:23. > :29:25.and Annie Wells, a manager at a famous department store known
:29:26. > :29:28.for its pants and quality food. When did you realise that
:29:29. > :29:33.you were a Conservative at heart? I grew up in Springburn,
:29:34. > :29:38.and it's a very Labour area, It was very industrial,
:29:39. > :29:41.my dad worked And it was just asking my dad,
:29:42. > :29:47."Why do we vote Labour?" And he said, "It's
:29:48. > :29:50.just because we do." And I decided to go away
:29:51. > :29:53.and have a look at other parties, and the aspirational side
:29:54. > :29:58.of things and the opportunity is what got me with the Scottish
:29:59. > :30:00.Conservatives and conservatism. Now, just listen to how
:30:01. > :30:03.they introduce themselves. Can I give you a wee leaflet
:30:04. > :30:06.this morning for Ruth Davidson? We are campaigning
:30:07. > :30:08.on behalf of Ruth Davidson, Scottish Conservatives in the
:30:09. > :30:09.Parliamentary elections. You only have to stand
:30:10. > :30:16.Ruth Davidson next to the Prime Minister or the Chancellor
:30:17. > :30:19.to see that she is different. She's comprehensively educated,
:30:20. > :30:22.rather than privately educated, she was not born with a silver
:30:23. > :30:25.spoon in her mouth, she's a working class,
:30:26. > :30:28.blue-collar, aspirational Tory. So do you think George Osborne
:30:29. > :30:31.and David Cameron were born with silver spoons
:30:32. > :30:32.in their mouths? I think that Ruth
:30:33. > :30:37.Davidson represents a sort of Scottish conservatism
:30:38. > :30:39.that is blue-collar, working-class, aspirational
:30:40. > :30:50.Toryism, which is cutting through on the doorstep
:30:51. > :30:52.all of the time as we speak. Ruth is up against the other first
:30:53. > :30:55.ladies of Scottish politics - who wants another independence
:30:56. > :30:58.referendum, just not yet, and Labour's Kezia Dugdale,
:30:59. > :31:00.who has unveiled an eye-catching pledge to put
:31:01. > :31:03.a penny on income tax in Scotland The Tories seem to be
:31:04. > :31:07.onto something. I wouldn't normally say this,
:31:08. > :31:10.but I think for the first time in my life I'm going
:31:11. > :31:12.to vote Conservative, which I never would
:31:13. > :31:14.have done in England. Really?
:31:15. > :31:15.Because of Ruth Davidson? Yeah, and because I think
:31:16. > :31:17.the Labour Party aren't giving Wow, it's like you have memorised
:31:18. > :31:22.the Scottish Conservative leaflets there that some people
:31:23. > :31:24.have just been handing out. But are they in need
:31:25. > :31:29.of a reality check? We've been here before
:31:30. > :31:31.with the Scottish Conservatives, so in 2010 there were
:31:32. > :31:34.predictions that the party would get ten or 11 seats
:31:35. > :31:36.in the Westminster elections But certainly there has been not
:31:37. > :31:44.just one opinion poll but several opinion polls that show some
:31:45. > :31:46.movement in the Conservatives' favour, though we have to remember
:31:47. > :31:49.that Ruth Davidson has a big mountain to climb, so even a net
:31:50. > :31:54.gain of three seats would take them up to 18, which is just back
:31:55. > :32:00.to where they were in 1999. So to move beyond that
:32:01. > :32:02.and to really move to their best ever result
:32:03. > :32:04.in the Scottish Parliament The Tories coming second in May
:32:05. > :32:08.would be a huge deal, although right now people do seem
:32:09. > :32:12.a bit more interested in the rugby. And with us now from YouGov,
:32:13. > :32:16.the This pollster Peter Kellner. And with us now from YouGov,
:32:17. > :32:27.the pollster Peter Kellner. Peter Kellner, your poll has the
:32:28. > :32:34.Scottish Conservatives one point ahead of Labour, but it is still
:32:35. > :32:41.just one point, not much to celebrate for the Tories. It is not
:32:42. > :32:44.a statistical difference, I would not care to predict whether Labour
:32:45. > :32:49.the Conservatives will come second, but the key thing is, quite clearly,
:32:50. > :32:53.the Conservatives have at least closed the gap on Labour, whether
:32:54. > :33:03.they have overtaken them or not, who knows? But what we find in our poll
:33:04. > :33:07.for Times, 12% of people who voted Labour in the last general election
:33:08. > :33:11.say they will both Conservative in the Holyrood elections. It make me
:33:12. > :33:16.think that some of that will be true converts, some will be people who
:33:17. > :33:19.voted tactically for Labour to stop the Nationalists, unsuccessfully,
:33:20. > :33:24.but whatever the reason, the fact that it is a tight race, that is
:33:25. > :33:29.remarkable. Psychologically, it could make a big difference that
:33:30. > :33:41.both Labour and the Conservatives, if the Tories came in second, but as
:33:42. > :33:43.you say, statistically, it could be in the margin of error. To talk of a
:33:44. > :33:46.revival of the Scottish Conservatives is premature, isn't
:33:47. > :33:49.it? What we have got compared with a few years ago is a slight revival in
:33:50. > :33:56.the Conservatives, but far more Labour crashing down. It is not
:33:57. > :34:02.massive. So it is not to do with you, not the Tories, it is the poor
:34:03. > :34:08.performance of Labour? We have had four polls since the turn of the
:34:09. > :34:13.year, and every single one of them shows a record high in voting
:34:14. > :34:18.intentions for the Scottish Conservatives. How many show you
:34:19. > :34:22.ahead of Labour? This is the first crossover poll, and the task I have
:34:23. > :34:26.said for my team and my candidates is that, irrespective of anybody
:34:27. > :34:30.else in Scottish politics, we want the best result that we as a party
:34:31. > :34:36.have had since devolution, that is the test for us. How many more seats
:34:37. > :34:46.do you predict the Tories will get? I do not put a number on it with 86
:34:47. > :34:49.more campaigning days to go. As a minimum? The best we have added 18,
:34:50. > :34:54.and I am asking for more. 19 is the minimum. I think we are on course to
:34:55. > :34:59.do that, a lot of people are changing to us, not just Labour, but
:35:00. > :35:11.Lib Dem voters as well. We are the only one of the pro UK parties that
:35:12. > :35:15.are not ashamed of our part in the referendum. There is still a big
:35:16. > :35:21.divide about independence and a second referendum, and we are the
:35:22. > :35:24.only party saying... Can I come in? We will stand firm in saying there
:35:25. > :35:31.will be no second referendum in Scotland, so there is a lot of work
:35:32. > :35:37.to do ahead of the referendum, but a lot of messages to take to the
:35:38. > :35:42.people of Scotland. I think it is significant, Kezia Dugdale, the new
:35:43. > :35:48.Labour leader, still has a badly negative rating, far more people
:35:49. > :35:54.think she is doing badly done well. Ruth has a positive rating. In spite
:35:55. > :35:58.of the party? It is despite the Conservative Party, Ruth is reaching
:35:59. > :36:03.beyond the traditional Tory tribes in Scotland, and that must be a
:36:04. > :36:09.precursor to the possibility of gaining votes. You mentioned an
:36:10. > :36:14.independence referendum, Scottish Labour have talked about allowing
:36:15. > :36:21.their members to campaign for independence, the Lib Dems too, you
:36:22. > :36:27.will not do that. Absolutely not, we are the Conservative and Unionist
:36:28. > :36:30.Party. Will that limit your potential votes? I care more about
:36:31. > :36:34.the country than I care about the Conservative Party, I stood for two
:36:35. > :36:39.years and fought to keep the country together. So you do not want to
:36:40. > :36:43.appeal to those voters? I want to appeal to them to keep the country
:36:44. > :36:49.together, we are better off together. How do you come to the
:36:50. > :36:53.fact that one Conservative Party MP was sent to Westminster? It must be
:36:54. > :36:58.clear that David Cameron is still a toxic brand for you over the border.
:36:59. > :37:04.It says to me, let's work harder to get more MPs in in 2020, and you
:37:05. > :37:08.start by rebuilding your party. I am trying to take it from our worst
:37:09. > :37:12.ever result in a Holyrood election, before I became leader, to our best
:37:13. > :37:15.ever result in one Parliamentary term, and we are on course to do it
:37:16. > :37:24.and potentially beat the Labour Party. You said she was being
:37:25. > :37:27.modest! I wanted to ask Ruth a question comedy you think the
:37:28. > :37:32.Scottish Conservatives needs to have a different, more generous policy on
:37:33. > :37:37.welfare than in England? The bad news in our poll is that the Scots,
:37:38. > :37:43.unlike the English, are quite content to sit taxes rise in order
:37:44. > :37:47.to have more spending on public services, more spent on welfare. Do
:37:48. > :37:51.you see your party moving to a slightly more left-wing position on
:37:52. > :37:55.these issues than the English party? The Scottish voters are more left
:37:56. > :38:00.wing on these issues. I think we are going to put that to the electoral
:38:01. > :38:05.test in 86 days' time, two parties will be saying we are not putting up
:38:06. > :38:10.taxes, two will say we are, and we will see which way voters jump. I
:38:11. > :38:18.would suggest the SNP and the Conservatives may have a better
:38:19. > :38:21.election than the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, who both say
:38:22. > :38:24.they will put up tax on every worker in Scotland. In terms of welfare, do
:38:25. > :38:27.you give up from the Conservatives at Westminster? You have mentioned
:38:28. > :38:33.the times I have spoken out, and there is way too much you can look
:38:34. > :38:37.at the other there, but let's not forget the title caters Scottish
:38:38. > :38:48.attitude survey, the gold standard for this, so it is a mixed picture.
:38:49. > :38:54.Are you still damaged by association with the Westminster wing of your
:38:55. > :38:59.party? Are you damaged by the images of David Cameron and George Osborne?
:39:00. > :39:03.I don't think that we are, and if you look at the poll, more people
:39:04. > :39:06.say the Prime Minister is doing a good job in Scotland than currently
:39:07. > :39:10.say they are indicating they will vote for the Conservative Party. You
:39:11. > :39:15.are happy to campaign with him? You will see him up in Scotland very
:39:16. > :39:19.soon, we had him up two weeks ago for the Aberdeen city deal, no
:39:20. > :39:28.problems at all. But this is about who will take on Nicola Sturgeon,
:39:29. > :39:30.and I think the Labour Party, nine years as the official opposition,
:39:31. > :39:33.have not laid a glove on the SNP, so something has to change. If the
:39:34. > :39:36.voters do not change the government, I think they should change the
:39:37. > :39:42.opposition. So why is the term Tory delay term of abuse for some people
:39:43. > :39:49.in Scotland? What is it? I think, why you think opposition parties in
:39:50. > :39:54.a 0-sum game in an election use Tory as some form of abuse? It is because
:39:55. > :39:58.they are opposition parties, because we're all in competition against
:39:59. > :40:02.each other. I do not use the word separatist as an idea that is
:40:03. > :40:06.somehow good, that is kind of what you do in politics, isn't it? I do
:40:07. > :40:13.not think that is just Scotland, it is down here as well, calling people
:40:14. > :40:18.within the Labour Party a Tory as well. That is exactly the point, it
:40:19. > :40:24.is a deflection tactic, why is Toryism a term of abuse for so many
:40:25. > :40:28.people? This is historic roots. Still? 40 or 50 years ago, the
:40:29. > :40:31.Conservatives were the biggest party in Scotland, there was a period when
:40:32. > :40:36.I was a young lad many decades ago when they were more popular in
:40:37. > :40:42.Scotland than in England, and that crashed away in the 1970s and 1980s.
:40:43. > :40:49.Margaret Thatcher was unpopular, the poll tax came first to Scotland
:40:50. > :40:51.before England, and a lot of Scots still feel not just strongly about
:40:52. > :40:55.the poll tax, but about how Scotland was used as a laboratory by a
:40:56. > :41:01.right-wing London government, so there is a lot of baggage. If the
:41:02. > :41:07.Conservatives come second in Scotland in May, it will only be
:41:08. > :41:11.21%, not 35% or 40%, there is a long way to get back to where they were
:41:12. > :41:13.when I was growing up. Peter Kellner, thank you.
:41:14. > :41:16.Crunch talks resumed this yesterday but broke up without agreement
:41:17. > :41:18.on the financial arrangements to accompany the Scotland Bill.
:41:19. > :41:20.Everyone says they want a new fiscal framework agreed soon
:41:21. > :41:22.so it can be scrutinised by Holyrood.
:41:23. > :41:28.if it ran up and bit you in the rear?
:41:29. > :41:30.Do you know what the fiscal framework is?
:41:31. > :41:33.No, I've got no idea, something to do with economics,
:41:34. > :41:35.but I'm not really interested in that, sorry.
:41:36. > :41:37.Well, you are in the right field, I suppose!
:41:38. > :41:42.No, it's to do with devolution of income tax raising powers.
:41:43. > :41:48.No, it's not a big issue for you, then, is it?
:41:49. > :41:50.So you know that they are going to devolve powers
:41:51. > :41:53.to the Scottish Parliament for raising more income tax,
:41:54. > :41:56.but it's to make sure that Scotland doesn't lose as a result.
:41:57. > :41:58.There you go, you can tell all your friends.
:41:59. > :42:05.If I was to ask you what the fiscal framework is,
:42:06. > :42:07.would you know what I'm talking about?
:42:08. > :42:09.Something about money? Good guess, yeah.
:42:10. > :42:16.Well, yes, it is a framework to do with money, correct, yes!
:42:17. > :42:18.Do you know what the fiscal framework is?
:42:19. > :42:21.I do, yeah. Oh, what is it?
:42:22. > :42:24.It's a new framework for financial policy in the UK.
:42:25. > :42:26.You are the first person who has known that.
:42:27. > :42:29.Are you studying it at uni or something?
:42:30. > :42:31.No, I'm a geographer at university but yeah.
:42:32. > :42:34.Do you think it's something that more people should know about?
:42:35. > :42:37.I think on a large level more people should engage with politics
:42:38. > :42:44.Do you think people understand what it's all about?
:42:45. > :42:47.I think they've got a good understanding, aye,
:42:48. > :42:50.I think they do have quite a good understanding, aye.
:42:51. > :42:52.I have to say most people here in the Meadows
:42:53. > :42:56.Well, it's one thing to know the nuts and bolts,
:42:57. > :42:58.and another thing to have an intuitive appreciation
:42:59. > :43:01.of what's coming your way or not, as the case may be.
:43:02. > :43:04.Are you looking at the fiscal framework on your phone?
:43:05. > :43:07.I am not at all, I have no interest in that whatsoever.
:43:08. > :43:10.Fair enough, I thought you might be looking at the negotiations
:43:11. > :43:17.that are happening today, looking to see the latest.
:43:18. > :43:22.Good try, Adam, lucky old hymn, having to do the fiscal framework
:43:23. > :43:27.with the people! Not many people know what it is, but it is extremely
:43:28. > :43:32.important, it has not been well explained. It is important, I think
:43:33. > :43:35.people do understand about the powers that are coming, income tax
:43:36. > :43:40.powers for the first time, so they're vote in the Holyrood
:43:41. > :43:45.election could cost them money. It is quite a technical issue about how
:43:46. > :43:49.you make deductions from the block grant that can then be topped up by
:43:50. > :43:54.devolving income tax, and it is about the methodology. Do you think
:43:55. > :43:58.a deal will be struck? We have had crunch talks, they broke up without
:43:59. > :44:02.agreement, the SNP are saying they will scupper any deal if there isn't
:44:03. > :44:07.a fair offer for Scotland. There is a deal to be done, a deal that is
:44:08. > :44:14.good for both the UK and Scotland. I want to see powers come to Scotland,
:44:15. > :44:17.I would be disappointed if the SNP used a grievance narrative to walk
:44:18. > :44:22.away from these talks. But if there isn't a fair deal on the basis of a
:44:23. > :44:25.population that is growing more slowly, the oil price, of course,
:44:26. > :44:30.then Scotland will lose out financially. There is already a
:44:31. > :44:38.model in place for a proportion of income tax to be withheld, and that
:44:39. > :44:41.was not thought to be appropriate for the wholesale devolution of
:44:42. > :44:44.income tax, and we have put another model on the table with no
:44:45. > :44:48.detriment, and technically no detriment to the UK or to the
:44:49. > :44:53.Scottish people, so back and forward on different models. I think the
:44:54. > :44:56.negotiations are quite a delicate point, I know my colleagues in the
:44:57. > :45:00.UK Government want a deal to be done. I think it has been an
:45:01. > :45:05.helpful, the amount of... Should they improve their offer is they
:45:06. > :45:08.want a deal to be done? They have come back, having moved
:45:09. > :45:12.substantially on this. We have not seen as much movement from the
:45:13. > :45:14.Scottish Government. I think it has been unhelpfully linked to a
:45:15. > :45:16.negotiation in public by the Scottish Government, so I do not
:45:17. > :45:28.want to go down that same road here. Would you accept that if it was on
:45:29. > :45:32.the table now? It is better than the Barnett Formula that we already
:45:33. > :45:36.have. The SNP, as you would expect this close to an election, are being
:45:37. > :45:39.very political about this but I hope wiser heads prevail and they do not
:45:40. > :45:44.use a narrative that has built up for so long for so many years to
:45:45. > :45:48.scupper a deal that hands power to Scotland that the people expect. Do
:45:49. > :45:52.you think they have made up their mind to walk out on the talks? I
:45:53. > :45:56.think you need to ask Nicola Sturgeon and not me. I think it is
:45:57. > :46:01.good that the other Tory deadline of Valentine's Day has been moved and
:46:02. > :46:06.they have been flexible enough to keep the talks going for a bit
:46:07. > :46:10.longer, it shows good faith. I am encouraged by that. But you would
:46:11. > :46:14.accept it as it stands now? You are happy with the deal? It is better
:46:15. > :46:19.than the current Barnett formula that we have. It is the role of the
:46:20. > :46:23.Scottish Government to get the most that they can but I think the
:46:24. > :46:28.brinkmanship that they are playing could be damaging to Scotland and I
:46:29. > :46:34.want wise heads to prevail and I want a deal done. One to ten, how
:46:35. > :46:37.likely is that deal? That is a question for the Scottish
:46:38. > :46:38.Government, because the UK Government is committed to make sure
:46:39. > :46:39.it happens. Let's cross now
:46:40. > :46:41.to Parliament Square, because a protest is taking place
:46:42. > :46:43.outside the House of Commons, and the protesters have really
:46:44. > :46:53.gone to town. This is my regular route to work
:46:54. > :46:56.every morning but this morning I was surprised to see they have started
:46:57. > :47:01.fracking, hydraulic fracturing to get gas out of the ground right in
:47:02. > :47:07.front of Parliament. I will let you into a secret, it is not real, it is
:47:08. > :47:11.a protest by Greenpeace, they set up this baked fracking Ricky, it is
:47:12. > :47:17.quite impressive. There we go, the tower with the drill going into the
:47:18. > :47:22.ground, probably the least realistic bit! Some weird liquid at the side,
:47:23. > :47:26.the occasional puff of smoke, and it is really, really noisy. Earlier
:47:27. > :47:28.this morning we had planes coming out of the top but apparently that
:47:29. > :47:37.is not working for technical reasons. It has been set up by a
:47:38. > :47:40.fake company called Frack and the reason is because there is a
:47:41. > :47:44.long-running issue in Lancashire where a company called Cuadrilla
:47:45. > :47:47.want to do fracking in the countryside, the local council said
:47:48. > :47:52.no, and now it has gone to the next stage to be investigated by the
:47:53. > :47:55.planning Inspectorate and the communities and local minister.
:47:56. > :47:59.Greenpeace want to highlight the issues around it. I imagine is the
:48:00. > :48:05.Government or Cuadrilla were here they would say they stick rigorously
:48:06. > :48:08.to rules about health and safety and a proper planning process is
:48:09. > :48:12.followed to make sure this is entirely safe when it happens in the
:48:13. > :48:15.real world. This has gathered a big crowd, people taking pictures on
:48:16. > :48:20.their lunch break, office workers, members of the public having a look,
:48:21. > :48:23.and also the police are here, they don't look too nervous, they look
:48:24. > :48:26.quite relaxed but they have asked Greenpeace if they would like to
:48:27. > :48:32.move on because the organisation does not have permission to do this.
:48:33. > :48:37.They turned up at 6am and pitched their fracking drill and hope to be
:48:38. > :48:40.here until about 5pm. It would be impressive if next week they could
:48:41. > :48:46.do a full sized nuclear power station, that would be amazing.
:48:47. > :48:47.You might need a hard hat for that one! Enjoyed, maybe take a few
:48:48. > :48:50.pictures yourself. Now, flipping heck,
:48:51. > :48:52.it's that time of year again - when MPs drop everything,
:48:53. > :48:55.don their pinnies and take on the House of Lords and the ladies
:48:56. > :49:06.and gentlemen of the press. Since 1445 for some reason the
:49:07. > :49:09.tradition of looking ludicrous running along with a pan tossing a
:49:10. > :49:15.cake made with eggs, flour and that have entered British cultural
:49:16. > :49:19.tradition. The politics of this may be lost in the mists of history as
:49:20. > :49:23.to why MPs, Lord and Westminster media types do it, but I have a
:49:24. > :49:27.theory. It is a sad truth of our political
:49:28. > :49:31.and public discourse that a lot of people think MPs are flipping
:49:32. > :49:37.useless. This is the one day of the year they get to prove it will stop
:49:38. > :49:41.the wonder of this annual event is the verve, effort and sheer cheating
:49:42. > :49:48.that our political masters put into it. It may not be the Olympics but
:49:49. > :49:52.they seem to strive for pancake perfection, even in training. How
:49:53. > :49:57.athletic are you feeling? I am more flop than flip but I was training
:49:58. > :50:05.around the park at 7am because I am so athletic. Were you really running
:50:06. > :50:13.around this morning? Yes! Trying to get an edge! Go on, flip it. And on
:50:14. > :50:59.that note, they were off. Sort of. It is all in a good cause, raising
:51:00. > :51:04.money in this case for Rehab, disabled charity. But from the MPs
:51:05. > :51:10.he would have thought they had won the general election. I had a bit of
:51:11. > :51:13.momentum behind me on that last lap! We did all right, I looked at the
:51:14. > :51:18.competition and thought they looked a bit tasty! They did not let
:51:19. > :51:22.victory go to their heads, much. I want to thank my parents, my wife,
:51:23. > :51:25.my children and my constituents for making possible. That is either the
:51:26. > :51:41.favouring of victory or total crepe. We are joined by the captain of the
:51:42. > :51:43.winning team, Stephen Pound, and the captain of the losing team, Lord
:51:44. > :51:49.Reid still, you looks happier despite having lost!
:51:50. > :51:54.I could not have been prouder, to defeat the press, present company
:51:55. > :52:00.excepted, is a wonderful thing, and, I may say, to destroy those with a
:52:01. > :52:03.sense of genetic entitlement in the upper house. You look to
:52:04. > :52:07.competitive! I have taken part in this race and would like to put on
:52:08. > :52:12.the record that you are supposed to prosper Blind date a minimum of at
:52:13. > :52:16.least ten to 20 times. You lot are run around without tossing the
:52:17. > :52:25.pancake! There is an exemption clause because of the wind! The
:52:26. > :52:36.point you made is a good one, we have age on our side. And wisdom. I
:52:37. > :52:39.managed to push one MP. Who? Sur Alan Duncan, straight off, and I
:52:40. > :52:45.managed to disable a couple of others because I ran twice. We
:52:46. > :52:49.flipped the pancake but the Commons didn't, they missed the point. I
:52:50. > :53:01.think you should be deprived of the cup. Would you like to... Lets see
:53:02. > :53:08.if you can do it, Steve Pound. I don't want it landing on my head.
:53:09. > :53:17.All right, twice, very good. Ruth will have a go in a moment. You can
:53:18. > :53:23.take that with deep. Do you want to see the winners' medal?
:53:24. > :53:27.take that with deep. Do you want to gorgeous. He is overdoing it, it is
:53:28. > :53:33.for charity! As a member of the Labour Party I'm not used to
:53:34. > :53:37.winning! It is for Rehab, a charity that helps people recovering after
:53:38. > :53:40.head injuries, and that was the point. We were there for the
:53:41. > :53:45.charity, the MPs were out for themselves! There was no competition
:53:46. > :53:50.from our side at all, although I did sprint... You looked as though you
:53:51. > :53:56.were leading did around there on the green! Victoria Atkins was on our
:53:57. > :53:59.side, running in rather glorious red slippers like Dorothy from the
:54:00. > :54:06.Wizard of Oz, and she stopped to let people catch up! But Lord Redesdale
:54:07. > :54:10.is right, Rehab is a fantastic charity that helps people in need of
:54:11. > :54:14.often very very long-term support, and anybody who knows about it knows
:54:15. > :54:19.what an incredible charity is but most people don't so hopefully we
:54:20. > :54:20.have raised the profile of it. You have certainly raised the level of
:54:21. > :54:24.debate, if nothing else! Now talking of golden photo
:54:25. > :54:27.opportunites, it's fair to say the antics of Ruth Davidson rivals
:54:28. > :54:32.that of fellow Tory Boris Johnson. The Conservative Leader
:54:33. > :54:36.in Scotland is, in fact, renowned for her antics
:54:37. > :56:04.in front of the camera. What a shy retiring type who does
:56:05. > :56:06.not like dressing up at all! We did not want to deprive her of one more
:56:07. > :56:10.photo shoot! With us now, top
:56:11. > :56:20.snapper Sean Dempsey. What do you make of her antics? They
:56:21. > :56:25.make for great pictures! You have already got a reputation amongst the
:56:26. > :56:28.photographers! I take politics very seriously but in Scotland you cannot
:56:29. > :56:32.take yourself too seriously or people will cut you down to size. It
:56:33. > :56:35.is good fun, people want to be closer to their politicians so I
:56:36. > :56:40.think it shows an accessibility, having a bit of a laugh. Except it
:56:41. > :56:45.is dangerous because you would have taken loads of photos of politicians
:56:46. > :56:49.who ended up flat on their faces? Yes, classic ones like Mr Kinnock
:56:50. > :56:54.and stuff like that. Looking at the picture behind you in particular, we
:56:55. > :57:00.all go back to, I was around when Margaret Thatcher was around and she
:57:01. > :57:03.was fantastic, and there is a perfect example. Ruth Davidson
:57:04. > :57:10.following her lead. We will get you to take some shots. Stand over
:57:11. > :57:18.there, we've stand over there and strike your best pose for the
:57:19. > :57:23.camera. Sean, instruct Ruth. Come forward and little bit for me.
:57:24. > :57:34.Lovely. Nice and high, as I as you dare go. But missed the light! Have
:57:35. > :57:40.you got a good one? Photographers are never happy, so we will have a
:57:41. > :57:45.couple more. Great, thank you. Williams. Nice and relaxed, no
:57:46. > :57:53.paranoia. She cannot wait to take the Hacked Off! Just check my hair
:57:54. > :58:00.is OK and all that! -- to take the hat off. Some politicians in
:58:01. > :58:06.particular get so nervous and so frightened of something going wrong.
:58:07. > :58:09.I can't imagine why! Thank you very much for taking those snaps, I'm
:58:10. > :58:09.sure we can send them to Ruth Davidson.
:58:10. > :58:13.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:14. > :58:16.The question was which of these lots fetched the highest bid
:58:17. > :58:18.at the annual Conservative Party black and white ball,
:58:19. > :58:28.with mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith?
:58:29. > :58:35.A ?1,000 voucher for Kurt Geiger shoes?
:58:36. > :58:47.I wasn't there, so I will have a guess, maybe the helicopter ride?
:58:48. > :58:52.No, it was the day of campaigning with Zac Goldsmith, it fetched to
:58:53. > :58:56.something like ?35,000! That is marvellous, but if people want to
:58:57. > :58:59.help him for free, they can help with... That is the end of the
:59:00. > :59:02.political broadcast, you are not allowed to do that! That is it from
:59:03. > :59:07.us, goodbye.