:00:38. > :00:44.17 nations broker a cessation of hostilities in Syria.
:00:45. > :00:47.Certain military action is meant to stop by next weekend.
:00:48. > :00:53.But the Russians reserve the right to carry on bombing
:00:54. > :00:55.and allied air-strikes against ISIS will continue.
:00:56. > :01:00.Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan announces plans to publish league
:01:01. > :01:03.tables of the pay gap between men and women employed by
:01:04. > :01:15.European stocks have rallied this morning, but after a week of global
:01:16. > :01:19.What does it mean for the economy here and abroad?
:01:20. > :01:22.And we continue our series profiling the great offices of states,
:01:23. > :01:25.as Giles finds out what it takes to be the Secretary of State ...
:01:26. > :01:42.No Prime Minister is going to forget the responsibilities of defence. And
:01:43. > :01:43.no Defence Secretary should be naive enough to think that you are
:01:44. > :01:50.operating out there on your own. All that in the next hour,
:01:51. > :01:54.and with us for the duration former editor of the Sun, Kelvin MacKenzie
:01:55. > :02:00.and Anne McElvoy of the Economist. First, the news that world powers
:02:01. > :02:05.have agreed a nationwide "cessation of hostilities" in Syria to begin
:02:06. > :02:07.next weekend, after The agreement allows for continued
:02:08. > :02:26.allied air-strikes against islamic State fighters and Russia insists it
:02:27. > :02:32.will still bomb terrorists. The Syrian government has said it's
:02:33. > :02:34.still "cloudy" whether the agreement will trigger a new
:02:35. > :02:41.round of peace talks. They stalled in Geneva earlier this
:02:42. > :02:43.month. The Syrian army, backed
:02:44. > :02:45.by Russian air strikes, is still advancing
:02:46. > :02:53.in Aleppo province. Here's US Secretary of State,
:02:54. > :03:08.a somewhat wary John Kerry. We have agreed to implement a
:03:09. > :03:15.nationwide cessation of hostilities to begin in a target of one week's
:03:16. > :03:19.time. That is ambitious, but everyone is determined to move as
:03:20. > :03:25.rapidly as possible to try to achieve this. This will apply to any
:03:26. > :03:31.and all parties in Syria, with the exception of the terrorist
:03:32. > :03:41.organisations Daesh and Almers row. If you listen to what Mr Kerry said
:03:42. > :03:46.and what Philip Hammond said, they are clearly tentative. They have
:03:47. > :03:51.done a deal, but it is not clear that it will take off. I'm a bit
:03:52. > :03:55.cynical about this deal. I think it is an attempt by John Kerry and the
:03:56. > :03:59.British government to get back involved in a situation in Syria
:04:00. > :04:02.where, frankly, they left the door open for the Russians to take the
:04:03. > :04:06.leading role and we have already heard Moscow say today in clear
:04:07. > :04:13.terms that they do not see this as an instruction to stop bombing. What
:04:14. > :04:17.they describe as IS targets which seems to range widely for targeting
:04:18. > :04:22.a terror group. They don't seem to be bombing IS at all. It is a
:04:23. > :04:25.declaration of interest to get together around a table and that
:04:26. > :04:28.hasn't happened seriously on Syria for a long time but the Russians
:04:29. > :04:33.have the momentum there and it rather looks as though the West is
:04:34. > :04:37.playing catch up. The interesting thing although the humanitarian aid
:04:38. > :04:43.is meant to get in this weekend, the news is concentrating on Aleppo.
:04:44. > :04:48.There are 12 towns under siege, but the ceasefire, or cessation of
:04:49. > :04:53.hostilities does not begin until the following week giving the Russian
:04:54. > :04:57.forces another week. The reality is we should welcome anything with the
:04:58. > :05:01.word piece involved in it. Whether this turns out to be anything or not
:05:02. > :05:06.is not the point, it's the beginning of something and, by the way there
:05:07. > :05:10.will be no change in a week's time. Vladimir Putin doesn't care what
:05:11. > :05:17.anybody thinks about anything and Iran doesn't care and Isis doesn't
:05:18. > :05:20.care, however the majors of our world, they want peace there.
:05:21. > :05:24.Cameron will be praying for peace because if there is peace then maybe
:05:25. > :05:31.the migration issue doesn't get worse. I suspect it won't change
:05:32. > :05:40.very much. I am even more bearish than Kelvin. This is not peace in
:05:41. > :05:45.any meaningful sense. Peace in our time? It is Munich. The battle for
:05:46. > :05:49.Aleppo is now crucial. And when the president Assad forces retake that,
:05:50. > :05:53.that will show that a lot of it has been for nothing. He will still be
:05:54. > :05:58.there and backed by the Russians and I think the migration crisis, there
:05:59. > :06:03.are not that many more people to flood out of Syria who have not
:06:04. > :06:06.gone. There are 600,000 in Aleppo. We will see an emptying of Aleppo
:06:07. > :06:10.and the migration crisis has a way to go. The agreement does not
:06:11. > :06:20.mention the status of Mr Assad at all. Philip Hammond is on the Andrew
:06:21. > :06:24.Marr Show on Sunday and he will be talking about Syria and we will
:06:25. > :06:26.follow up what he has to say on the Sunday politics.
:06:27. > :06:30.It's all about a call by Lib Dem leader Tim Farron to
:06:31. > :06:35.But what is it he'd like to be made legal?
:06:36. > :06:41.b) Using a hoverboard on the pavement?
:06:42. > :06:49.At the end of the show, Anne and Kelvin will give us
:06:50. > :06:57.If they don't, because it is so easy, they will be fired.
:06:58. > :06:59.The Women and Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan has announced plans
:07:00. > :07:02.today for new league tables that will highlight the gender pay gap
:07:03. > :07:06.in companies with more than 250 employees.
:07:07. > :07:08.The new regulations are expected to affect about 8,000
:07:09. > :07:11.employers across the UK, who will also have to publish
:07:12. > :07:15.their company's gender pay gap on their website.
:07:16. > :07:19.Businesses will have to start compiling the information about pay
:07:20. > :07:21.differences from April 2017 - 12 months before the first
:07:22. > :07:27.Here's Nicky Morgan talking about what effects the new
:07:28. > :07:35.One is that companies will hopefully, and
:07:36. > :07:38.we expect them from the response we have had, to think a lot harder
:07:39. > :07:41.about where women are in their workforce, how
:07:42. > :07:44.they are distributed and what they are being paid.
:07:45. > :07:47.But I think it will also drive applications to work in certain
:07:48. > :07:53.organisations, because I think that women will look and see,
:07:54. > :07:55.what is the gender pay gap in this organisation?
:07:56. > :08:05.We've been joined by Kate Andrews from the Adam Smith Institute.
:08:06. > :08:08.And we did ask for an interview with Nicky Morgan or another
:08:09. > :08:10.government minister on this issue, but none was available.
:08:11. > :08:12.Instead, they suggested we talk to the Conservative backbencher
:08:13. > :08:15.Mims Davies who is a member Women and Equalities Committee in
:08:16. > :08:19.So we did, and she joins us from Southampton welcome
:08:20. > :08:35.If it is such a good idea, why does it take so long to implement? Isn't
:08:36. > :08:39.that complicated. I think it is complicated that the equality needs
:08:40. > :08:44.to be what women are looking for. There are lots of factors affecting
:08:45. > :08:48.women. I am asking why it will take so long to simply compile the data.
:08:49. > :08:53.The companies already have the pay data of their employees. You could
:08:54. > :08:58.do it in a month. There are some people trailblazing on this, but
:08:59. > :09:00.some people are putting it in there too difficult box, so it's right
:09:01. > :09:04.that the government holds their feet to the fire. You are not holding
:09:05. > :09:08.their feet to the fire, you are saying you don't have to do it until
:09:09. > :09:13.2018. Why don't you tell them to do it by September? Most companies have
:09:14. > :09:17.a fair idea of where they are on this and it is right that we give
:09:18. > :09:22.companies the time to look at their procedures. Certainly the women and
:09:23. > :09:25.equality is select committee, there are some people who find it very
:09:26. > :09:31.easy and they are attracting the right wing into the workforce. Some
:09:32. > :09:34.people think it is not important to them -- the right women. As
:09:35. > :09:39.government we have to explain why it's important for men and women and
:09:40. > :09:43.the public sector and private sector to get this right. I am a mother of
:09:44. > :09:48.two daughters and I want merit and ability to come through in people
:09:49. > :09:52.succeeding. I know the case for doing it, I'm just trying to get you
:09:53. > :09:58.to address the time it is taking. Is it an attempt to name and shame? On
:09:59. > :10:04.the select committee which started this term in Parliament, we have
:10:05. > :10:08.been highlighting areas where people feel they are not doing the right
:10:09. > :10:12.work and bringing them into a Parliament and explaining it. There
:10:13. > :10:15.are people who think it doesn't go far enough and there are people who
:10:16. > :10:20.think there is no need to do it. Give us an example of a company that
:10:21. > :10:24.does well in the area and a company doing badly? Off the top of my head
:10:25. > :10:28.I can't think of anyone very bad, but there are certain sectors where
:10:29. > :10:33.it is a little bit more shady to get in to see what they are doing. You
:10:34. > :10:37.cannot give me a company doing badly in an area in which you specialise?
:10:38. > :10:43.You cannot name a company that is not doing well? I would below is to
:10:44. > :10:48.point out one person in this. I'm not asking for a person, I'm asking
:10:49. > :10:53.for company. I would below is to do that directly, because it is
:10:54. > :10:55.important we get everybody on the same page which is why the
:10:56. > :11:00.government is giving time for people to consider it. You are going to be
:11:01. > :11:02.able to make a public by 2018 anyway, so
:11:03. > :11:06.able to make a public by 2018 identify them. If you have done some
:11:07. > :11:12.work now, I'm asking for an example of where they are not doing so well.
:11:13. > :11:15.In terms of trailblazers, I know understand young's name came up in
:11:16. > :11:20.the committee when we heard from Nicky Morgan and this is the reason
:11:21. > :11:26.that the government -- Ernst and Young. Some companies are doing it
:11:27. > :11:31.and they are seeing the value. How annoyed are you with what companies
:11:32. > :11:35.are doing on the gender pay gap? We want equality in the workplace. We
:11:36. > :11:40.take that for granted. What is wrong with publishing a list? The problem
:11:41. > :11:45.is the regulations the government set out have created manipulated
:11:46. > :11:49.statistics that the businesses will put on their website. We submitted
:11:50. > :11:51.to the consultation saying, if you want to look at the way companies
:11:52. > :11:56.break down want to look at the way companies
:11:57. > :12:00.have to have control jobs like for like, control people doing the same
:12:01. > :12:03.job and control the hours worked. What the government has put forward
:12:04. > :12:07.is the worst way one could possibly try to come up with the gender pay
:12:08. > :12:13.gap issue. Just looking at the medium and mean of female employees
:12:14. > :12:18.and male employees will compare the chief executive of the receptionist
:12:19. > :12:21.and people working in marketing, to resources, to engineering. We have
:12:22. > :12:24.no idea if the men and women in those sectors should be getting paid
:12:25. > :12:30.the same because they have different jobs. What do you say to that? There
:12:31. > :12:34.are arguments that this is not detailed enough and I understand it,
:12:35. > :12:39.but the government acting on this is very important. Not if they will
:12:40. > :12:43.come up with a bad number. It's not that it's not detailed enough, it's
:12:44. > :12:46.that the numbers will produce very manipulated statistics that people
:12:47. > :12:51.will take for granted and use all the time. It will further the idea
:12:52. > :12:55.that week -- women are victimised in the workplace and it doesn't help
:12:56. > :13:03.Sally in marketing find out if she's being paid unfairly compared to
:13:04. > :13:08.mark. It doesn't help women being sexist Lee treated in the workplace.
:13:09. > :13:12.We heard evidence in the committee that it was important that if you
:13:13. > :13:15.were in marketing or leadership, you had the same opportunities to
:13:16. > :13:19.progress in a company. If it is out there how much people are being paid
:13:20. > :13:26.and how the company handles men and women, we will see real progress for
:13:27. > :13:29.women and the parity. And the progress that the Prime Minister was
:13:30. > :13:33.talking about at his conference speech. It is right we are doing it.
:13:34. > :13:37.I understand some people feel it's not detailed enough but I think by
:13:38. > :13:41.2018 people will be shining a light on this and this is what the
:13:42. > :13:48.government wants. How bad is the gender pay gap? My apologies, I was
:13:49. > :13:53.asking Kate Andrews but I will come to you as well. Here in the UK if
:13:54. > :13:58.you are a woman between the ages of 22 and 40 you are earning equal or
:13:59. > :14:04.slightly more. So it is actually against men in that group? Once you
:14:05. > :14:08.hit 40 drops. It is no surprise that this normally has to do with taking
:14:09. > :14:11.time off to raise children. There is no pay gap between men and women in
:14:12. > :14:15.the UK, there is a mother would pay gap between mothers and non-mothers.
:14:16. > :14:22.We should talk about that. We should be focusing on that, but forcing
:14:23. > :14:26.employers to publish statistics like this is just attacking employers who
:14:27. > :14:29.actually, on average, if women are as experienced as men and working
:14:30. > :14:33.the same amount of hours, employers like to promote women and pay them
:14:34. > :14:39.more, so the real issue is whether or not women take that time of work.
:14:40. > :14:44.Maybe the husband should be staying home a bit more. These are the
:14:45. > :14:49.conversations we should have. Kelvin MacKenzie, you are nodding in
:14:50. > :14:54.agreement. I've been an employer for 35 years, and the idea that you give
:14:55. > :14:58.somebody more less money based on the agenda is absolutely absurd.
:14:59. > :15:02.Mind you, I've only been in the media, so perhaps that is a
:15:03. > :15:08.different kind of industry from the norm. The truth about the matter
:15:09. > :15:12.today, if I looked at my daughter, an English teacher, my stepdaughter
:15:13. > :15:15.in the insurance business, the toughest and cleverest people I
:15:16. > :15:22.know. The idea that a male manager would hold them back is ludicrous.
:15:23. > :15:26.And honestly, I agree with your point, I actually do believe that
:15:27. > :15:28.men actually want to promote women even at the expense of their male
:15:29. > :15:41.employees. It has completely turned. Dream on, Kelvin, really! Actually,
:15:42. > :15:47.the data we have tells a different story. Young women, yes, are doing
:15:48. > :15:51.really well. There is a falloff just before 40 years of age. By the time
:15:52. > :15:57.you get into your 40s, and certainly in your 50s, as a woman, the pay gap
:15:58. > :16:01.has gone wider. To say this is just because women have taken time out,
:16:02. > :16:04.for me, is not to look at the question is, how are women being
:16:05. > :16:10.rewarded if they work part-time, and how do they get back up the tree
:16:11. > :16:14.again? To take young women and say, this is going to continue on a line
:16:15. > :16:18.going upwards is not what the data shows, not in America and not here.
:16:19. > :16:26.If for instance you have a very modestly paid guest here, now, if I
:16:27. > :16:33.were to be a presenter, or indeed Andrew's editor, a job to which
:16:34. > :16:36.everyone aspires, when I have come back into the workplace, then
:16:37. > :16:39.clearly I am not going to be in the gender pay gap in the same way. So
:16:40. > :16:45.it is often about what women get the chance to do when they come back
:16:46. > :16:49.into the workforce after motherhood. I completely agree. That is the
:16:50. > :16:54.fundamental problem. It is lifestyle choices which many women want to
:16:55. > :16:57.make, which mean they take time off for their career and do not have the
:16:58. > :17:01.same opportunities when they come back. I think a lot of women are
:17:02. > :17:06.pressured into making those choices and they do not feel they have the
:17:07. > :17:13.flexibility. It is not an issue for the government. Let me give the
:17:14. > :17:19.final word to Mims Davies. Absolutely we are looking at all of
:17:20. > :17:24.that - part-time working, agile working and the fact that women over
:17:25. > :17:27.40 are more penalised. So, this is a package of measures which the
:17:28. > :17:30.government is taking and recognising. Absolutely, I do think
:17:31. > :17:37.men want to promote women. Real equality would be the school run,
:17:38. > :17:41.dads at the plays, dads able to take time off to look after children as
:17:42. > :17:46.well. That is real equality. I am delighted that business is so much
:17:47. > :17:56.behind this as well. There are some great examples out there. We can do
:17:57. > :18:02.more! Big news has been breaking in the media world. The Independent and
:18:03. > :18:10.the Independent on Sunday are to close as print titles. The baby
:18:11. > :18:15.sister, i, is being bought by a big regional newspaper company, Johnson
:18:16. > :18:20.press, which owns the Yorkshire Post in Leeds and The Scotsman in
:18:21. > :18:25.Edinburgh. But as print publications, the Independent and
:18:26. > :18:28.the Independent on Sunday are too close. Let me get the reaction of
:18:29. > :18:36.two distinguished journalists with me now. Well, it will not be any sad
:18:37. > :18:40., to be honest. We have a fantastic array of print products every
:18:41. > :18:44.morning. The i was not one of them. And the independent has not been one
:18:45. > :18:46.of them for the last 10-15 years. Can they survive as digital
:18:47. > :18:52.publications only? Definitely not. Can they survive as digital
:18:53. > :18:57.It is very expensive actually to produce good digital news products.
:18:58. > :19:01.It is not a good online offering, and there will be no users, and
:19:02. > :19:06.therefore no advertisers. I'm afraid it is good night. I am a bit more
:19:07. > :19:10.sympathetic, partly because I used to work for the independent. It is
:19:11. > :19:14.all my fault! But it did feel a gap in terms of liberal thinking, which
:19:15. > :19:20.was not as far to the left as the Guardian. More centre-left. It
:19:21. > :19:24.became so, but actually, when it was founded, it was former City
:19:25. > :19:29.journalists... Quite centrist. Something which is missing in our
:19:30. > :19:33.debate, it is a kind of free-market liberalism. The further left it has
:19:34. > :19:38.gone, the further it has collapsed. There may be some truth in that. The
:19:39. > :19:45.i however was cheaper and aimed at young readers. It took the content
:19:46. > :19:50.of The Independent. It did. Johnson press have not said they would do
:19:51. > :19:54.that as a digital product. No, they are buying it as a paper. At how
:19:55. > :19:59.will they fill it with content? Well, they have explained. They're
:20:00. > :20:03.going to use their regional journalists, which is perfectly all
:20:04. > :20:06.right, but there is no role for the i with a load of stories about
:20:07. > :20:14.Walsall and Preston and various other places. I'm afraid I do not
:20:15. > :20:17.agree with the CEO of Johnson press. I think there is a question mark
:20:18. > :20:23.about whether he survives with that 24 million gone. It is the Russians
:20:24. > :20:30.who own these papers. They have sold the i, they are closing the print
:20:31. > :20:33.versions of the Independent and the Independent on Sunday. So what
:20:34. > :20:38.happens to the London standard? They were spreading the costs all over.
:20:39. > :20:44.Would that not make the it extended an economic? I would not have
:20:45. > :20:48.thought so, although I should declare that I do write a column in
:20:49. > :20:52.the Evening Standard. The problem is that they were spread bit too thin,
:20:53. > :20:57.and they had also invested in this television station, London Live. I
:20:58. > :21:02.would have thought they seem to be committed to the standard. They have
:21:03. > :21:06.got the losses down. The problem was that the Independent was leeching
:21:07. > :21:13.money. They now seem to have got what looks like a very good
:21:14. > :21:19.financial deal for the Independent. So, breaking news there.
:21:20. > :21:22.Global markets faced another difficult day yesterday as selloffs
:21:23. > :21:24.in Asia, Europe and America pulled the world market
:21:25. > :21:28.The turmoil has been sparked over investor fears surrounding the cost
:21:29. > :21:31.to banks of negative borrowing rates imposed by central banks
:21:32. > :21:33.as well as concerns over the market and currency volatility
:21:34. > :21:41.This week has seen significant developments on the global economic
:21:42. > :21:45.The US Federal Reserve warned of "increased volatility"
:21:46. > :21:52.The FTSE lost 2.4% overnight, with the Nikkei in Japan
:21:53. > :22:07.And Sweden joined Japan in cutting interest rates deeper
:22:08. > :22:15.So, you pay the bank to take your money.
:22:16. > :22:19.We're joined now by Linda Yueh from Oxford University.
:22:20. > :22:27.She used to be the BBC's chief business correspondent, but now
:22:28. > :22:31.she's respectable! Let me just get to what I think is the kernel of
:22:32. > :22:34.this. It has been clear since the end of the last year, and
:22:35. > :22:40.increasingly this year, but the markets have lost faith in the
:22:41. > :22:44.central banks, that they know what they are doing? And I would add to
:22:45. > :22:49.that, policymakers in emerging markets. You look at the two big
:22:50. > :22:52.drivers, it is uncertainty over what the Federal Reserve is going to do
:22:53. > :22:56.next, what major central banks are doing. And this is depressing bank
:22:57. > :23:01.shares. The other big uncertainty is around what China and other emerging
:23:02. > :23:05.markets are doing. Are they going to be able to manage a slowdown? That
:23:06. > :23:10.is hitting commodities and minerals. If you luck at these of two sectors,
:23:11. > :23:14.they are leading the decline. That is why the British stock market is
:23:15. > :23:18.in a bear market, and globally, stock markets are also in a bear
:23:19. > :23:25.market, down 20% from their peak. But I should also emphasise that
:23:26. > :23:31.cheap money, since 2008, a lot of it has gone into equities. So the FTSE
:23:32. > :23:35.had a record high last April. So even if it has topped by 20%, it is
:23:36. > :23:42.still very high relative to what it was before the crisis. If you are
:23:43. > :23:42.thinking, I'm not sure what is going to happen with interest rates or
:23:43. > :23:47.global growth, then maybe you should take a little bit of your money out
:23:48. > :23:51.of the market, what is called profit-taking, and see how it goes.
:23:52. > :23:58.That is what people are doing, people are buying bills in America,
:23:59. > :24:03.gilts in Britain, and buying gold. If not a huge amount. Are they right
:24:04. > :24:10.to do that? I think if you wanted to diversify your portfolio, I would
:24:11. > :24:13.say yes. By the way, the UK is not as bad as the United States. The
:24:14. > :24:18.number of record highs which has been hit by the SNP, by the down
:24:19. > :24:21.Jones, that market was always going to deflate. So taking some of your
:24:22. > :24:26.money out and putting it into government bonds, as you mentioned,
:24:27. > :24:29.you get low returns but the volatility will be less. That being
:24:30. > :24:34.said, interest rates of course also affect government bonds, the
:24:35. > :24:39.interest that government pays. And so there is I think quite a lot of
:24:40. > :24:46.volatility and into all of these classes. The big question, of course
:24:47. > :24:50.cash is a better thing to be in now if there is no inflation, because it
:24:51. > :24:54.does not lose its value, even with derisory interest rates. But the big
:24:55. > :25:00.question which I think a lot of our viewers would like to know is this -
:25:01. > :25:03.these collapses of the stock exchanges, are they a harbinger of
:25:04. > :25:09.another recession on the way this year or not? That is what we want to
:25:10. > :25:13.know! Because we know the stock exchanges have predicted nine of the
:25:14. > :25:20.last five recessions. Yes, five of the last nine. Absolutely. In the
:25:21. > :25:24.US, a stock market is... Actually it is nine of the last five, because
:25:25. > :25:29.they predicted a lot more than actually happened! That is a nice
:25:30. > :25:33.way of putting it. In the US, they are known as a leading indicator.
:25:34. > :25:38.But in Europe it has not had a similar track record. So I would not
:25:39. > :25:41.necessarily say that... So are we heading for a recession? Not
:25:42. > :25:45.necessarily because of the stock markets. Obviously, if things get
:25:46. > :25:48.much worse in the stock market, you cannot divorce the two. But right
:25:49. > :25:53.now if you look at the underlying health of the British economy, the
:25:54. > :25:57.Eurozone, the American economy, it is not stellar but it is not clear
:25:58. > :26:01.that there is any real economy drivers pushing them into recession
:26:02. > :26:06.again. That being said, however, if the stock market plunges too far, or
:26:07. > :26:10.if China has a hard landing, or if the emerging markets really have
:26:11. > :26:14.problems, of course the two cannot be divorced for too long. The
:26:15. > :26:19.reality was that we were printing money with no basis for it. Rupert
:26:20. > :26:23.Murdoch, give him his credit, nine months ago forecast all of this. He
:26:24. > :26:26.said, there is too much money splashing around. These shares are
:26:27. > :26:30.miles too high in Wall Street and they are coming down. Businessmen
:26:31. > :26:33.and women have got to get on with it. That is the truth about the
:26:34. > :26:41.matter. Things go up and they go down. Mining has been ridiculous,
:26:42. > :26:46.oil has been $113, it is now at $30. Who can tell? It is great news for
:26:47. > :26:50.us, the consumer. It is not great news if you are a stockholder in
:26:51. > :26:55.some big oil company. The collapse of oil prices is like a massive tax
:26:56. > :26:59.cut but it is not having an impact on the growing economies. It affects
:27:00. > :27:02.liquidity in lots of different areas, that is true. But the fact
:27:03. > :27:09.is, we are not in bad shape in our country. The US is doing well. Doing
:27:10. > :27:13.OK. Yes, but it is doing well. How well do we expect it to be? We do
:27:14. > :27:19.not expect China to grow at 7-10% any more. They are becoming like us.
:27:20. > :27:23.Truth is, we should not get too knocked out of bed by all of this.
:27:24. > :27:26.Someone who might is George Osborne. He came in after the election
:27:27. > :27:30.suggesting that if he simply held his course, the message was that
:27:31. > :27:35.things were going a lot better. Then I noticed, when he spoke at the
:27:36. > :27:39.World Economic Forum at Davos, the message had changed quite abruptly
:27:40. > :27:44.to global gloom, which is the Chancellor or code for, it is not my
:27:45. > :27:48.fault if the economy starts to falter. He has got a five year
:27:49. > :27:52.parliament, he has got a majority. Labour is really nowhere on the
:27:53. > :27:57.economy at the moment, for most people anyway. So he can do with it
:27:58. > :28:00.at a time when things are bad and bumpy. But he does need to keep that
:28:01. > :28:06.narrative going, that it has been worth it. That the cuts in public
:28:07. > :28:10.spending are actually getting us somewhere, that our productivity is
:28:11. > :28:13.improving. If he cannot make back argument at the very time when he
:28:14. > :28:18.wants to run for the leadership, I suspect, then he could have a
:28:19. > :28:22.slightly bumpy ride. The Chinese economy is slowing down, but even
:28:23. > :28:26.more importantly, it is moving from a smokestack to a consumer driven
:28:27. > :28:31.economy. The emerging markets are now part of the problem, not the
:28:32. > :28:37.solution, unlike in 2008, when they were part of the solution. The
:28:38. > :28:41.Eurozone is growing by 1%, confirmed by figures today. The British
:28:42. > :28:45.economy is struggling to stay over 2%, so is the American economy. You
:28:46. > :28:49.add all of that up and we are fragile. It would only take one
:28:50. > :28:54.major shock to blow that fragility apart, is it not the case? I think
:28:55. > :28:57.it is absolutely the case. That's why if you are worried that we could
:28:58. > :29:03.be facing recession... The thing with crises is that they will never
:29:04. > :29:08.be foreseen. Or we foresee the wrong one! But can policymakers do
:29:09. > :29:11.anything about it? And the reason we keep talking about negative interest
:29:12. > :29:18.rates is because interest rates are barely 0%. They are being cut
:29:19. > :29:21.further to try to get growth up. If you have a big crisis, how much more
:29:22. > :29:29.ammunition could central banks do, and the tools they have have really
:29:30. > :29:33.fuelled, I think... Cheap cash has fuelled for instance equity markets.
:29:34. > :29:37.So I think the answer is fiscal. Now, fiscal is all about politics.
:29:38. > :29:40.Are you willing to use government spending to boost the economy,
:29:41. > :29:44.should the economy go into recession? And that economy and
:29:45. > :29:48.think will be no for major economies. This will be the real
:29:49. > :29:52.problem. Very quickly, on the recession for the UK, I think the
:29:53. > :29:55.indicator to watches actually interest rates, because the high
:29:56. > :30:02.amount of household debt in Britain is more likely to be... The markets
:30:03. > :30:08.do not think until 2019. Exactly. So what is the point of Mark Carney? I
:30:09. > :30:11.don't know! Why has he spent three years telling us, you have got to
:30:12. > :30:18.get your mortgage settled in and all of that? No point asking me! Why is
:30:19. > :30:24.he still in a job? He has been wrong. Trying to predict markets is
:30:25. > :30:27.a fool's game. You might as well go into the betting shop. The man has
:30:28. > :30:32.been a disaster. I hope he goes back to Canada. On that friendly view of
:30:33. > :30:36.the Governor of the Bank of England, we will thank Linda and move on!
:30:37. > :30:39.Now, the row over whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU
:30:40. > :30:42.was never going to be overly-friendly, and this week we've
:30:43. > :30:44.seen accusations from both sides that the other has resorted
:30:45. > :30:46.to scaremongering to make their case.
:30:47. > :30:48.And earlier this week it turned out that even the prime minister,
:30:49. > :30:51.the man who once proclaimed that sunshine could win the day,
:30:52. > :30:53.wasn't above issuing a gloomy warning.
:30:54. > :30:55.Here's what he had to say about what would happen to British
:30:56. > :31:01.On the issue of Europe and our borders, look,
:31:02. > :31:06.Yes, this is a bilateral agreement, it is a good agreement.
:31:07. > :31:09.It is an agreement which means that our borders are effectively
:31:10. > :31:11.in Calais, not in Dover.
:31:12. > :31:17.I work very hard with my French counterparts, as does
:31:18. > :31:20.the Home Secretary, to make sure we do keep that.
:31:21. > :31:23.That is why we have helped with financing, why we have helped
:31:24. > :31:25.with finances, with border guards and co-operation
:31:26. > :31:31.But the fact is, there are an awful lot of opposition politicians
:31:32. > :31:34.in France who would love an excuse to tear up that treaty,
:31:35. > :31:37.and who would like the border not to be in France
:31:38. > :31:44.I do not want to give people an excuse to do that.
:31:45. > :31:47.And we're joined now by James McGrory, head
:31:48. > :31:49.of communications for Britain Stronger in Europe,
:31:50. > :31:55.and Richard Tice, founder and CEO of Leave.eu.
:31:56. > :31:58.So after all these accusations and counter-accusations
:31:59. > :32:02.of scaremongering we've devised a Daily Politics quiz,
:32:03. > :32:07.loosely inspired by the Generation Game,
:32:08. > :32:10.to try and get to the bottom of some of these stories.
:32:11. > :32:16.James, Richard, you're going to see a series of images,
:32:17. > :32:19.and as they pass by on the conveyor belt, I want you to identify
:32:20. > :32:25.which scare stories have been pushed by which campaign.
:32:26. > :32:47.Here we go. There we go. OK. 4% inflation. Biscuits, which one is
:32:48. > :32:57.that? The NHS. These. One of hours I think. Mr Putin. One of yours. So
:32:58. > :33:03.you did identify some of them. I think were mainly on the remaining
:33:04. > :33:11.side. Got to be for each, it's the BBC. Which ones were the remaining
:33:12. > :33:19.scare stories? This is tough, you have to remember what they are.
:33:20. > :33:26.Football was ours. What was the point though? You couldn't buy
:33:27. > :33:31.players any more. You were allowed to travel freely in the EU and
:33:32. > :33:38.footballers, like Hector Bellerin at Arsenal, he would not be allowed to
:33:39. > :33:42.play. Remember, they are scare stories. 4% were city banks saying
:33:43. > :33:52.that inflation would go to 4% if we left. Who knows where Citibank got
:33:53. > :33:58.that figure? The Bees, that was the remain campaign, something to do
:33:59. > :34:06.with the European bees. Mr Putin was Remain because he would love us to
:34:07. > :34:10.leave. The out stories were Turkey, that flag would be flying over
:34:11. > :34:14.Downing Street. Biscuits, interfering with how we prepare
:34:15. > :34:19.biscuits. The NHS would have to privatise unless we got out. And the
:34:20. > :34:29.Eurozone. That is a perennial scare story. It's the most important one.
:34:30. > :34:34.So, James, how many votes do you think there are in warning people
:34:35. > :34:40.that it is bad for British bees? I don't think it's the be all and end
:34:41. > :34:47.all. It's got nothing to do with our membership. The bee population will
:34:48. > :34:51.decline across the world, and you have to take action whether you are
:34:52. > :34:54.in or out. But the future of the country should not be determined on
:34:55. > :34:58.the bee population? I think it will be about the economy and security.
:34:59. > :35:05.How many votes are there in biscuits? There are no votes in
:35:06. > :35:10.biscuits. Why make it an issue? The reality is people want to focus on
:35:11. > :35:15.issues like sovereignty and security. So why are both sides
:35:16. > :35:22.focusing on this? These are trivial issues. The big issues are
:35:23. > :35:26.sovereignty and economics. Why is the Prime Minister scaremongering as
:35:27. > :35:33.he was earlier, suggesting migrant camps are coming? The Prime Minister
:35:34. > :35:36.implied that the reason we had the Calle arrangement was because of
:35:37. > :35:40.membership of the EU and if we left the EU that would be ripped up and
:35:41. > :35:46.the camps would move to Kent. We know none of that is true. The camps
:35:47. > :35:50.RA result of the bilateral arrangement by France and Britain
:35:51. > :35:55.and even if we did stay in the EU, France could rip the treaty up
:35:56. > :35:59.tomorrow if it wanted to. It is not connected with EU membership. There
:36:00. > :36:03.is a greater risk they would rip it up if we left the EU. The former
:36:04. > :36:09.head of the UK border end and she -- agency said that. French politicians
:36:10. > :36:13.are queueing up to say the same thing. Hold on, the French
:36:14. > :36:17.politicians are queueing up to say that regardless of whether we are in
:36:18. > :36:22.or out, Nicolas Sarkozy says he will rip up the agreement, regardless of
:36:23. > :36:26.whether Britain is in or out of the EU, so the membership is not the
:36:27. > :36:33.factor. He's already saying he would do it. The guy who ran the borders
:36:34. > :36:37.in this country... He doesn't run France, and Mr Sarkozy could be the
:36:38. > :36:40.next president. He says he will do it even if we stay in. It was a
:36:41. > :36:44.deliberate attempt by the Prime Minister to scare the British
:36:45. > :36:49.people. He is bullying his cabinet ministers and frightening his junior
:36:50. > :36:56.ministers. And now he's trying to terrify the British public with
:36:57. > :37:01.suggestions of tents all over Kent. And you are saying people will be
:37:02. > :37:05.overrun by Turks if we stay in. We are not trying to terrify people.
:37:06. > :37:11.It's a clear thing about whether we want to stay in or out. There is no
:37:12. > :37:15.prospect of Turkey joining. You ask some people on the Remain side... We
:37:16. > :37:22.have seen the transcript of the Turkish resident dealing with Mr
:37:23. > :37:28.Task, and the biggest complaint was that in 30 years they have made no
:37:29. > :37:34.progress. -- Mr Task. Why are you scaring people? I have not been
:37:35. > :37:40.scaring people. Your side has. Others might have done. Are you
:37:41. > :37:43.elevated by the debate on the future of the nation? Not particularly but
:37:44. > :37:48.you expect a big scrap, and if you have a referendum, you have a big
:37:49. > :37:53.punch-up. I'm not appalled either. It is interesting given Mr Cameron's
:37:54. > :37:57.position on renegotiation I hadn't expected him to go into
:37:58. > :38:04.scaremongering so early. I think he knows he has perhaps he has a bit
:38:05. > :38:08.more to do, bit more worried than we anticipated and to respond quickly
:38:09. > :38:13.to the fact that the renegotiation deal is broadly seen as pro-or
:38:14. > :38:20.anti-as not much of a deal, so he has to move the argument elsewhere.
:38:21. > :38:24.I agree with that. I was astonished. This is the kind of throw of the
:38:25. > :38:29.dice I would expect with ten days to go, but four months in advance, I
:38:30. > :38:33.reckon his own private polling is telling him that things look very
:38:34. > :38:38.gloomy and the other aspect is, it gives the members of the league
:38:39. > :38:43.campaign a push, because if they say that the Prime Minister is running
:38:44. > :38:47.the race and migrants argument, I will run my own race and migrants
:38:48. > :38:49.argument. Look at those 11 million people from Syria. Either way, they
:38:50. > :38:56.are making their way the A2. I people from Syria. Either way, they
:38:57. > :39:01.by him. He is flogging himself to death, seven days a week, and even
:39:02. > :39:05.fronting up prison reform is right in the middle of these negotiations.
:39:06. > :39:11.I think he is overworking. He is overstretched. He is scaring people
:39:12. > :39:13.at a time when he gags his own ministers. We love the
:39:14. > :39:17.scaremongering because the truth is that the British people will not be
:39:18. > :39:23.bullied, we will not be scared or threatened and I am convinced we
:39:24. > :39:28.will vote to leave. When will we move on, and in your case, when will
:39:29. > :39:34.we start to hear the positive, uplifting case for remaining in the
:39:35. > :39:38.European Union? I try to make it every day, the economic benefits
:39:39. > :39:41.from being in the EU, the jobs linked to the membership, lower
:39:42. > :39:43.prices in the shops and the huge amount of investment we get in the
:39:44. > :39:49.country because big companies know they can trade to the world's
:39:50. > :39:54.largest trading block on their doorstep. I'd rather talk about that
:39:55. > :39:57.than biscuits or bees. When will we get a clear idea of what sort of
:39:58. > :40:04.nation we would be if we are no longer in the EU? We make the
:40:05. > :40:08.message all the time. Britain would be outward facing, globally facing.
:40:09. > :40:14.Big businesses, when they address the issues, they realise, forget the
:40:15. > :40:18.myths, there are no concerns about jobs and their investment and plans
:40:19. > :40:23.for the UK. Take Toyota, Nissan, Vauxhall, they all said they would
:40:24. > :40:28.make more. We have run out of time but you can see it is actually more
:40:29. > :40:33.interesting that we get onto the important issues and then we will
:40:34. > :40:38.come back and forget about the bees. Or the birds.
:40:39. > :40:40.If you're an assiduous follower of the Daily Politics,
:40:41. > :40:42.you'll know by now that Giles has recently been rubbing shoulders
:40:43. > :40:44.with huge numbers of the great and good.
:40:45. > :40:46.He's talked to handfuls of former home secretaries,
:40:47. > :40:48.oodles of former health secretaries, and a smattering
:40:49. > :40:53.Today, in the latest of our series, "So you want to be a Secretary
:40:54. > :40:56.of State?", Giles has been getting to grips with the job of Defence
:40:57. > :41:16.Whitehall, the heart of government, but could you be in charge of the
:41:17. > :41:20.Army, Navy and air force and still be responsible for all the nuclear
:41:21. > :41:27.weapons and the lives of all service personnel, so you want to be
:41:28. > :41:29.Secretary of State for Defence. It's the only department where I can
:41:30. > :41:34.remember even if I was walking down the corridor, even civil servant
:41:35. > :41:39.would say good morning, sir. I walked down Downing Street as Shadow
:41:40. > :41:43.Secretary of State for Scotland with a staff of three, and I walked back
:41:44. > :41:48.down the Secretary of State for Defence with 383,000 employees.
:41:49. > :41:58.Being dropped out of the helicopter onto the flat deck of a submarine
:41:59. > :42:06.was not wholly fun. No Prime Minister will forget the
:42:07. > :42:09.responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Defence and no Prime
:42:10. > :42:12.Minister -- Secretary of State should think they are operating on
:42:13. > :42:16.the right. I could not say anything about the fiancee of my friend being
:42:17. > :42:21.killed. Without a shadow of a doubt, that was the low point. Jill Rutten
:42:22. > :42:24.was a senior civil servant and is now at the Institute for local
:42:25. > :42:30.government. She says being Defence Secretary is about being strategic.
:42:31. > :42:34.To be a good Secretary of State for Defence you've basically got to
:42:35. > :42:39.fight on three fronts. Get a grip of a big department, big budgets. By
:42:40. > :42:42.watering numbers. Still, you have to be credible with the military and
:42:43. > :42:46.the interesting thing about the military is they have direct access
:42:47. > :42:52.very often to the Prime Minister and the media. And you also want to be a
:42:53. > :42:55.player in the debates the government is having about national security,
:42:56. > :42:59.and the best Secretary of State of defence are the people who can win
:43:00. > :43:03.all those three fronts at the same time. General Guthrie, the first
:43:04. > :43:09.chief of defence staff when I arrived in October 1999, described
:43:10. > :43:13.the Ministry of Defence is a three legged install. I found that an
:43:14. > :43:18.attractive description of the military, civil servants and
:43:19. > :43:23.politicians. They all had to work together to keep this stool up
:43:24. > :43:28.right. But in a sense they were struggling to argue their case.
:43:29. > :43:35.In defence, the general rule is, know your enemy. But it isn't always
:43:36. > :43:42.do you think. We often used to say when ministers of defence met
:43:43. > :43:47.together that the common enemy was not an external enemy, it was the
:43:48. > :43:51.ministries of finance. When you have a very big budget it's not just the
:43:52. > :43:55.Treasury who are after your money, pretty well every other department
:43:56. > :44:02.is as well. But the MoD has its ways of fighting back. The ministry are
:44:03. > :44:11.very professional. They know the dangers and they have what I think
:44:12. > :44:14.is called a long-term costing, I think, the next ten years every
:44:15. > :44:19.penny has been spent. They will tell you exactly where it is going, and
:44:20. > :44:22.they do that so they can say to the Treasury there is no money left.
:44:23. > :44:28.Until they want something different, and then they change it. It is not
:44:29. > :44:34.just the civil servants who have their ploys. Part of what the chief
:44:35. > :44:37.of staff does is to give military advice, but they are also the trade
:44:38. > :44:42.union representatives of the uniformed personnel that they are
:44:43. > :44:46.ahead of. They are fighting for their own particular profession's
:44:47. > :44:50.interest. That will often be in the public interest and easy to support,
:44:51. > :44:53.but sometimes it will not necessarily be in the public
:44:54. > :44:56.interest any more than the views of the British Medical Association as
:44:57. > :44:59.to what doctors should have and receive and how they should be
:45:00. > :45:03.treated. It's not always in the interest of the wider public. Liam
:45:04. > :45:09.Fox came into the job in 2010 with a mission to cut budgets and Project
:45:10. > :45:10.overspends, and that was going to -- upset both civil servants and the
:45:11. > :45:18.military. Some of my colleagues spoke about
:45:19. > :45:23.the difficulty of the relationship with the civil service. And I said,
:45:24. > :45:27.times two, for what you get in defence. I generally found that at
:45:28. > :45:31.the top, it was a fairly good relationship. But further down you
:45:32. > :45:36.had enormous resistance to change. And we brought in a tsunami of
:45:37. > :45:40.change with us in 2010. He is soon decided to scrap the improvement
:45:41. > :45:46.project to the RAF's Nimrod aircraft. And he had to take action
:45:47. > :45:50.to prove he meant it. I was met the next day with a little campaign
:45:51. > :45:55.which said, there is going to be a campaign to save the Nimrod. Having
:45:56. > :46:01.just been elected, I said, not if we cut the wings of it, there will not.
:46:02. > :46:05.So we did cut the wings of them. Make it very clear, when this
:46:06. > :46:10.government said it was going to do something, we had to make it clear
:46:11. > :46:13.that it would do it. Liam Fox was a doctor, not a soldier. But once upon
:46:14. > :46:20.a time the job was often taken by someone who had been in the
:46:21. > :46:23.military. In my day, when I was the Secretary of State for Defence and
:46:24. > :46:28.foreign secretary and so on, we had all really, or almost all of us, had
:46:29. > :46:32.been in the Second World War. And so we understood a bit about it and
:46:33. > :46:39.were concerned about it and knew a bit about defence. I think the more
:46:40. > :46:43.remote the Second World War becomes, the more difficult it is for
:46:44. > :46:50.ministers who know nothing whatever about it, who have never been in the
:46:51. > :46:55.services, to adjust to it. But actually, today, some ministers
:46:56. > :47:01.think that lack of military experience can be an advantage. I
:47:02. > :47:04.have never been a soldier. I was a little bit nervous at first as to
:47:05. > :47:08.how the chiefs of staff would react to a Secretary of State who had
:47:09. > :47:14.never served in the Armed Forces. In fact I found they were relieved,
:47:15. > :47:18.because a number of my predecessors had been captains, majors, thought
:47:19. > :47:21.they knew it all, thought they could tell the generals how to run an
:47:22. > :47:26.army, and did not have that degree of experience. I didn't have no
:47:27. > :47:32.illusions of that kind. Of course, there is one area which does not
:47:33. > :47:38.give room for illusions. It is a hard reality. What a lot happened on
:47:39. > :47:44.my watch. And you never, ever do it lightly. You never, ever take a
:47:45. > :47:48.casual view about sending people into what is known as harm's way.
:47:49. > :47:59.Because you know the responsible at Eli is on your shoulders. -- the
:48:00. > :48:04.responsibility lies. I established the idea of having repatriations
:48:05. > :48:08.ceremonies, and rightly, I went to the first one, I went to a number of
:48:09. > :48:13.them. And afterwards I went to see the families of those who had died,
:48:14. > :48:16.in some cases only a matter of days after their loss. That was probably
:48:17. > :48:21.the most difficult thing I have ever had to do in my life. The Prime
:48:22. > :48:24.Minister is commander-in-chief and makes the decision whether to commit
:48:25. > :48:29.troops. But if anyone doubted the importance of defence, one Labour
:48:30. > :48:33.Secretary of State is clear - electorally, there are warnings from
:48:34. > :48:39.history. You do not play politics unnecessarily in defence. In my
:48:40. > :48:43.subsequent career, I used to tell a lot of countries, don't play
:48:44. > :48:47.politics with defence. The Labour Party did and went out of power for
:48:48. > :48:51.18 years. Whoever is in government, defence is an office which involves
:48:52. > :48:56.great burdens, budgets and bureaucracy. And yet those who have
:48:57. > :48:57.done it often say it is one of the most fascinating honours of their
:48:58. > :49:01.career. Now in case you missed
:49:02. > :49:04.it earlier this week, there was quite a result
:49:05. > :49:07.in the New Hampshire primary over Both the Republican and Democrat
:49:08. > :49:13.parties are in the process of choosing who their candidate
:49:14. > :49:16.will be for the presidential And on Tuesday night Hilary Clinton
:49:17. > :49:20.suffered a set-back, In the Republican race Donald Trump
:49:21. > :49:23.exceeded expectations, Here are the two winners
:49:24. > :49:30.from Tuesday night. We are going to make
:49:31. > :49:37.America great again, but we're going to do it
:49:38. > :49:39.the old-fashioned way. We're going to beat China,
:49:40. > :49:42.Japan, we're going to We're going to beat all of these
:49:43. > :49:49.countries that are taking so much of our money away from
:49:50. > :49:52.us on a daily basis. Given the enormous
:49:53. > :50:04.crises facing our country, it is just too
:50:05. > :50:08.late for the same old, same old establishment
:50:09. > :50:12.politics and establishment We've been joined in the studio
:50:13. > :50:24.by Jan Halper, chairman of the UK branch of Republicans Overseas,
:50:25. > :50:27.and in our Oxford studios by none other than the brother
:50:28. > :50:33.of Bernie Sanders, who has this week just been made the Green Party's
:50:34. > :50:42.health spokesman, Larry Sanders. That is the Green Party here in
:50:43. > :50:44.Britain. Let's begin by looking at some
:50:45. > :50:48.of the Republican Donald Trump, 69, is a billionaire
:50:49. > :50:52.business mogul worth He leads the polls nationally
:50:53. > :51:01.and in some key states. As Daily Politics viewers know,
:51:02. > :51:03.his comments about muslims have caused some controversy,
:51:04. > :51:06.though not with Katie Hopkins! Ted Cruz is a Texas Senator
:51:07. > :51:14.who shot to fame in 2014 for speaking for 24
:51:15. > :51:15.hours against Obamacare. He gained a surprise victory
:51:16. > :51:24.in the Iowa caucuses last week. He came third in New Hampshire -
:51:25. > :51:28.respectable. 44-year-old Macro Rubio
:51:29. > :51:30.was born in Miami to He's been a Florida senator since
:51:31. > :51:36.2011 during which time his part in a bipartisan immigration reform
:51:37. > :51:52.package is thought to have cost him He has since changed his views on
:51:53. > :51:54.that during the primaries. And now look at the Democratic Party
:51:55. > :51:58.frontrunners, there is only two of them.
:51:59. > :52:00.Hilary Clinton first came to the world's attention
:52:01. > :52:04.She is seen as the Democrat's front runner and was President Obama's
:52:05. > :52:14.in the New Hampshire primary shows, not least is Bernie Sanders
:52:15. > :52:17.a self-defined democratic socialist and has been in Congress for more
:52:18. > :52:36.So, these are the runners and riders on the Republican side. Let me come
:52:37. > :52:42.to you first, Larry Sanders. New Hampshire is overwhelmingly white.
:52:43. > :52:47.He did very well amongst the white liberals. The race now moves to
:52:48. > :52:52.Carolina. He does not do so well among Hispanics or black voters -
:52:53. > :52:57.why is that? Hello. I don't know and I'm not sure it will be true. That
:52:58. > :53:01.is the reason for the campaign. He does not just do well among white
:53:02. > :53:06.liberals. That I think it is very important, and the experts seem to
:53:07. > :53:10.have missed it, what Bernard is doing, for the first time for a
:53:11. > :53:15.left-wing politician in America for a long time, he is reaching to the
:53:16. > :53:19.lower paid people, the people who have been called moderates. But I
:53:20. > :53:23.think they are not moderates, they want a decent way of life. And the
:53:24. > :53:26.way this economy has been stacked, they have not been getting at. So I
:53:27. > :53:33.think something very new is happening. Well, that makes Nevada,
:53:34. > :53:36.where there are lots of low paid Hispanic voters, and South Carolina,
:53:37. > :53:40.where there are lots of low paid black voters, that makes it a real
:53:41. > :53:44.test for him. He needs to get their votes to be the man who will carry
:53:45. > :53:49.the Democratic nomination? Well, of course they are both very important
:53:50. > :53:53.states. This nomination process I think will go on for a long time.
:53:54. > :53:58.They are not the beginning and end of all things but they are very
:53:59. > :54:08.important. What is worrying is that the Clinton camp now is trying to
:54:09. > :54:13.suggest that Bernard is not really concerned with black voters. It is
:54:14. > :54:18.not true. He cut his teeth as a very young man in the civil rights
:54:19. > :54:24.movement. He played an important role, not a major role, but an
:54:25. > :54:27.important role in Chicago, in desegregating the university housing
:54:28. > :54:31.stock. His whole career is based on support for people who need more,
:54:32. > :54:37.and in many areas, black people fit that bill. So if they succeed in
:54:38. > :54:40.splitting that, the white working class off from the black working
:54:41. > :54:47.class, there are bad times ahead. Stay with us. I want to bring in Jan
:54:48. > :54:50.Halper now on the Republican side. Wasn't New Hampshire just about the
:54:51. > :54:54.worst possible result for the Republican establishment? The one
:54:55. > :55:00.they want to stop, Mr Trump, won by a large margin. Their favourite son,
:55:01. > :55:04.Marco Rubio, came up poor fifth. And there are still about five or six
:55:05. > :55:08.candidates in the race, which means that the anti-Trump forces still
:55:09. > :55:12.cannot coalesce around a single candidate? Not at all. And you're
:55:13. > :55:16.not going to see that. Because right now, they have nothing to lose and
:55:17. > :55:21.they're going to stay in the race through Super-G was day. That is
:55:22. > :55:29.what I mean, that is not what the party wanted? It is not, and Bush
:55:30. > :55:33.has his brother campaigning with him in South Carolina, and I'm not sure
:55:34. > :55:40.that is a good thing. Because the contrast of how folksy George is,
:55:41. > :55:46.versus Jeb... Low-energy, Mr Trump has called him. Exactly. But Mr Bush
:55:47. > :55:52.is well-organised in South Carolina. Ted Cruz is the most organised
:55:53. > :55:57.throughout the South. Mr Trump did not win in Iowa, was not really
:55:58. > :56:00.expecting to. He won the time in New Hampshire. What has he got to do in
:56:01. > :56:05.South Carolina to remain the front runner? As he said in his acceptance
:56:06. > :56:10.speech in new doctor, he has finally understood the ground game. And so
:56:11. > :56:16.he has hired some of the best people to extend the ground game. He
:56:17. > :56:20.realises it is not just these rallies of 10-15,000 people. And so
:56:21. > :56:28.he is starting to balance traditional ways with
:56:29. > :56:32.nontraditional. Mr Sanders, is your brother now thinking, I really could
:56:33. > :56:38.be the Democratic nominee? Yes, I am sure he is. And not only that he can
:56:39. > :56:42.be the Democratic nominee, that will be the hard part, but that he will
:56:43. > :56:46.be the president. He must be aware that if that was to happen, almost
:56:47. > :56:51.none of the things he wants to do could ever get through Congress?
:56:52. > :56:57.Well, his view is that you do not win by giving up - first. First you
:56:58. > :57:05.go and fight. And he will be a very formidable opponent. He is working
:57:06. > :57:08.in a real situation. We have had 40 years in which the wealth and income
:57:09. > :57:12.of the country has been flowing from the bulk of the population to the
:57:13. > :57:15.very rich. There are millions of millions of people who know that.
:57:16. > :57:21.That is where he is strong. Thank you for that. And Donald Trump has
:57:22. > :57:27.gone from being almost like, oh, he will burn out by the autumn of 2015,
:57:28. > :57:31.to, now, the Republican candidate who is the one to beat, the
:57:32. > :57:39.favourite - will he get the nomination, in your view? The issue
:57:40. > :57:43.is, our super delegates. And 168 of them are part of the Republican
:57:44. > :57:47.National Committee. Which is more the establishment. Exactly. But I
:57:48. > :57:53.was at the Charleston debate, and we had the committee meet, and every
:57:54. > :57:56.night people were going around the table, if you had to vote today, who
:57:57. > :58:02.would you vote for? And they said Trump. Well, we will see. It is
:58:03. > :58:06.certainly the strangest American race I have ever covered, which also
:58:07. > :58:09.makes it the most interesting, certainly since the days of the
:58:10. > :58:14.Vietnam War. Thank you both for joining us. Is trump going to get
:58:15. > :58:20.the nomination? Yes, definitely, it is going to be great. Clinton must
:58:21. > :58:26.still be favourite but Sanders is doing well? I would still put big
:58:27. > :58:32.money on Hillary Clinton, however. Can you remember what Tim Farron
:58:33. > :58:37.called to be legalised? It is the quiz question. It is easy... Well,
:58:38. > :58:41.he was following our cover this week in saying that cannabis should be
:58:42. > :58:48.legalised, and here is how to do it. Yes. Thanks to all of my guests. I
:58:49. > :58:52.will be back on Sunday with The Sunday Politics on BBC One at 11
:58:53. > :58:56.o'clock. I will be speaking to Matt Hancock. We will be testing how many
:58:57. > :58:58.promises the Tories have kept so far, and how many they have broken.
:58:59. > :59:07.BBC One, Sunday morning. As Ireland head to France
:59:08. > :59:09.in search of a first victory, As Ireland head to France
:59:10. > :59:15.in search of a first victory, can Wales use home advantage
:59:16. > :59:19.to beat a deflated Scotland? And jubilant England enter
:59:20. > :59:22.the Stadio Olimpico