:00:39. > :00:40.Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:43.George Osborne says the public wants less rhetoric and more facts when it
:00:44. > :00:49.This morning, he's claimed that the UK economy could be worse
:00:50. > :00:52.off by the equivalent of ?4,300 a year per household by 2030.
:00:53. > :00:57.Critics have called the figures "completely worthless".
:00:58. > :01:03.So do the Treasury's numbers really add up?
:01:04. > :01:05.There's reported to be a looming crisis in primary
:01:06. > :01:08.We'll talk to the Shadow Education Secretary
:01:09. > :01:14.Labour decides not to allow McDonalds into its annual
:01:15. > :01:16.conference, and faces accusations of snobbery against
:01:17. > :01:24.And with England cricket legend Ian Botham saying he's batting
:01:25. > :01:27.for a British exit from the EU, we'll be asking who really listens
:01:28. > :01:38.All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole
:01:39. > :01:40.of the programme today, two of our own celebrities
:01:41. > :01:44.Well, they're celebrities in our eyes anyway.
:01:45. > :01:46.It's Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng,
:01:47. > :01:54.So George Osborne has stepped in to the debate on whether the UK
:01:55. > :01:57.should vote to remain or leave the EU in the June referendum.
:01:58. > :02:01.He's bought the Treasury's firepower to bear, releasing an analysis
:02:02. > :02:04.of the economic impact of a vote to leave -
:02:05. > :02:07.and it paints a pretty bleak picture of what could happen
:02:08. > :02:12.Leave campaigners were quick to question the Treasury's
:02:13. > :02:18.credibility, and described the report as "absurd".
:02:19. > :02:22.The 200-page document claims the economy could be 6% smaller
:02:23. > :02:28.than forecast by 2030 if the UK votes to leave the EU.
:02:29. > :02:31.That's the equivalent - the report says - of ?4,300 a year
:02:32. > :02:46.The Treasury insists there will be a ?36 billion a year black hole
:02:47. > :02:49.in the UK's public finances if the it left the EU
:02:50. > :02:52.- and that - they say - could lead to an 8% rise income tax.
:02:53. > :02:54.Their calculations are based on what they call
:02:55. > :02:57.the "middle option" - where the UK would negotiate a trade
:02:58. > :03:01.deal with the EU similar to that which has been agreed with Canada -
:03:02. > :03:06.but George Osborne insisted today that in all scenarios,
:03:07. > :03:09.Britain would be "permanently poorer" outside the EU.
:03:10. > :03:12.Leave campaigners called the research "erroneous",
:03:13. > :03:15.and criticised the Chancellor's ability to predict what the economy
:03:16. > :03:23.And campaigners also argue that in all the Treasury's assumptions,
:03:24. > :03:25.Well, George Osborne has been hammering home his message
:03:26. > :03:28.with a speech in Bristol earlier today - let's have a listen.
:03:29. > :03:30.So the economic analysis shows that this Canadian-style arrangement
:03:31. > :03:33.comes at a real economic cost for Britain.
:03:34. > :03:35.The central estimate is that, in the long run,
:03:36. > :03:39.GDP would be over 6% smaller, and Britain would be worse off
:03:40. > :03:46.The people of Britain want to know the facts before they vote
:03:47. > :03:52.The Treasury analysis steps away from the rhetoric and
:03:53. > :04:01.Britain would be permanently poorer if we left the European Union.
:04:02. > :04:03.Well, let's hear now from the man we turn
:04:04. > :04:10.It's Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
:04:11. > :04:20.Paul Johnson, what do you make of this ?4,300 figure? The first thing
:04:21. > :04:23.to say is that it is broadly in the same direction as nearly all the
:04:24. > :04:28.other economic analysis that has been done. If you move to a world
:04:29. > :04:34.where you have less free trade and more expensive trade with the EU,
:04:35. > :04:38.that is likely to have a negative affect on the economy. The scale of
:04:39. > :04:40.that effect is uncertain for all sorts of reasons, partly because we
:04:41. > :04:49.don't know exactly what the agreements are that we would come to
:04:50. > :04:53.with the European Union if leaving, and secondly, the precise cost of
:04:54. > :04:55.it. If you look at the range of things that have come out from
:04:56. > :04:59.places like the London School of Economics, this is broadly in that
:05:00. > :05:06.range. Perhaps a bit above the average, but it isn't out of line
:05:07. > :05:11.with many independent forecasts. How accurately can you predict the
:05:12. > :05:16.economy that far in advance? They're talking about 2030. I looked at the
:05:17. > :05:21.calculation in the report. I'm no maths genius, but even if you were,
:05:22. > :05:26.you would pause for thought. You cannot predict it accurately. Whilst
:05:27. > :05:32.the Chancellor is using this single number, ?4,300, the report has a
:05:33. > :05:35.whole range of numbers for basing the assumptions and different trade
:05:36. > :05:41.agreements. What you can say is about the direction of travel. What
:05:42. > :05:45.this is trying to do is say not how big the economy will be in 15 years'
:05:46. > :05:49.time, but how much difference there will be under two different
:05:50. > :05:55.scenarios. It's probably a mistake to focus very much on ?4,300. For
:05:56. > :06:01.one thing, it isn't an income number. It is a GDP number.
:06:02. > :06:05.Secondly, there's a lot of uncertainty around it. In the
:06:06. > :06:09.context of the other analysis that's been done, though, they all point in
:06:10. > :06:15.the direction of a negative rather than a positive effect. Are there
:06:16. > :06:19.any scenarios in your mind where the UK would not be permanently poorer
:06:20. > :06:25.if we left the EU? If it were possible to essentially organise a
:06:26. > :06:32.set of trade agreements which are almost the same as they are now,
:06:33. > :06:36.then the big effects would be much dampened. Two things to say about
:06:37. > :06:40.that - first, there's no question that in the short run there will be
:06:41. > :06:44.a cost because of the uncertainty involved. If you look at the
:06:45. > :06:49.estimates of the amount of foreign direct investment we might lose, it
:06:50. > :06:54.will have an effect. Those Treasury figures do not take account of the
:06:55. > :06:58.short-term effects. In the long run, it is uncertain the kind of trade
:06:59. > :07:03.deals we will manage with everyone else. The sort of regulations we
:07:04. > :07:08.ourselves create will be a more or less regulated or open economy. As
:07:09. > :07:13.you get further out, you have more uncertainty. If we governed
:07:14. > :07:15.ourselves well, you can see a world in which, in the long run, we are
:07:16. > :07:17.better off. And we asked to speak
:07:18. > :07:19.to a Treasury Minister about today's claims,
:07:20. > :07:21.but were told no-one was available. Happily we can speak
:07:22. > :07:31.to my guests of the day, Kwasi Kwarteng, the report says the
:07:32. > :07:35.UK will be permanently poorer if we leave the TEU under any comparable
:07:36. > :07:41.scenario. I think these figures are absurd. The Treasury were the same
:07:42. > :07:45.people who said at the beginning of the last parliament that we would
:07:46. > :07:49.have eliminated the deficit by 2015. That hasn't happened. The Treasury
:07:50. > :07:55.did not predict the 2008 credit crunch. So for a bunch of officials
:07:56. > :08:01.and economists to say they can describe with in ?1 what the state
:08:02. > :08:07.of the British economy and what people's economic well-being will be
:08:08. > :08:13.in 2030, 14 years' time, is absurd. None of the predictions that were
:08:14. > :08:18.made in 2002 about 2016 have stood the test of time. So to project that
:08:19. > :08:22.far forward is intellectually dishonest. So we shouldn't trust
:08:23. > :08:26.anything that the Treasury says in terms of forecast? We have to use
:08:27. > :08:31.our brains as to whether it is plausible. We have just heard from
:08:32. > :08:36.Paul Johnson that the figures may not be accurate to the pound, but
:08:37. > :08:41.the figures broadly for into line with every other single piece of
:08:42. > :08:45.economic analysis that has been done by think tanks put forward by the
:08:46. > :08:51.government. It has fallen within that range. We have to look at what
:08:52. > :08:56.is happening here. The pro-EU support has not found a positive
:08:57. > :09:00.argument. They realise there is no groundswell of support in the
:09:01. > :09:06.country for the EU, so they are embarking on Project fear. They will
:09:07. > :09:12.say that British people living in Europe will have to come back, they
:09:13. > :09:16.have said we will have to lose 3 million jobs, Nick Clegg has said
:09:17. > :09:22.that, and they claim will work be poorer. There is a pattern of fear.
:09:23. > :09:28.Margaret Prosser, is that how you see it? Is it about fear? Is it was
:09:29. > :09:32.George Osborne is resorting to, because he sees it as one of the
:09:33. > :09:39.biggest weapons in his armoury to shoot down the Leave campaign's
:09:40. > :09:45.arguments. You almost said this yourself a moment ago. We have just
:09:46. > :09:50.had Paul Johnson from the IFS, an independent body, a professional
:09:51. > :09:54.person, who says, in his opinion, that this report is broadly in line
:09:55. > :09:59.with what they think is likely to happen. He himself has said you
:10:00. > :10:06.cannot predict that many years ahead, which seems quite sensible.
:10:07. > :10:10.14 years. It's a long time. Is it worth doing it, Margaret? There's a
:10:11. > :10:16.whole lot of other stuff in there. The thing that really gets me about
:10:17. > :10:21.all of this... Politicians keep saying, at the end of the day people
:10:22. > :10:25.are going to vote. It will be the People's decision. But some of this
:10:26. > :10:32.stuff doesn't mean anything to anybody. So we need to develop
:10:33. > :10:36.arguments, both sides are guilty of this, I think, develop arguments
:10:37. > :10:44.which something. Paul himself said that 4000 odd pounds isn't income.
:10:45. > :10:51.It is about the GDP. It is money that those households wouldn't have.
:10:52. > :10:55.It isn't money in their pockets. It is a different concept. Except,
:10:56. > :11:01.Kwasi Kwarteng, Paul Johnson said there would be this short-term
:11:02. > :11:06.uncertainty. The deal that could be done in two years' time, five years'
:11:07. > :11:11.time, may be very profitable to the UK, but there would be short-term
:11:12. > :11:15.uncertainty and problems with things like foreign investment and the
:11:16. > :11:20.markets. It's all speculation, but is it worth people taking that risk?
:11:21. > :11:25.I would argue there are equally big risks in staying in. You've got a
:11:26. > :11:28.migrant situation that no one has dealt with, Germany making deals
:11:29. > :11:33.with Turkey that we don't know the conclusions of, a Europe reserve
:11:34. > :11:38.whose problems haven't been solved... There's just as many risks
:11:39. > :11:48.of staying in the thing, and still giving a net contribution of ?10
:11:49. > :11:52.billion per year. You criticise the Remain group and the governments are
:11:53. > :11:56.talking about project fear, yet since when did you raise the
:11:57. > :12:03.question of Turkey in the past? Suddenly it is all over the agenda.
:12:04. > :12:07.It is a real, though. I am not saying that in 2030, I am not making
:12:08. > :12:13.any claims about that. I'm talking about what I see today. That's the
:12:14. > :12:22.reality. Margit Prosser, Kwasi Kwarteng does raise... It has been
:12:23. > :12:27.going on for years. In terms of risks, Paul Johnson says there is
:12:28. > :12:32.short-term uncertainty. There is uncertainty about the Eurozone and
:12:33. > :12:35.being part of the EU. From the eurozone crash, we know that had
:12:36. > :12:42.negative consequences for the UK. That could happen again. There are
:12:43. > :12:46.risks. Of course there are. There are daily risks in life. We had to
:12:47. > :12:51.make a decision, weighing the balance of what is the best thing.
:12:52. > :12:56.It seems to me that those people who are campaigning to come out other
:12:57. > :13:00.kinds of people, their history tells you this, who are not interested in
:13:01. > :13:04.the level playing field that you have to abide by as a member of
:13:05. > :13:09.Europe. You have too abide by the rules of the club, and they don't
:13:10. > :13:15.like that. Jeremy Corbyn made this point last week. If we came out,
:13:16. > :13:18.what happened to workers rights? Almost all employment protections
:13:19. > :13:25.are based upon European legislation. What would happen if we came out?
:13:26. > :13:32.Could you guarantee that? You cannot guarantee anything at this point,
:13:33. > :13:40.but there is an issue here, quasi-, about you have not said what the
:13:41. > :13:43.deal would look like. No one was a bigot champion for workers rights
:13:44. > :13:57.than Tony Benn. -- a bigger champion. But he voted in 1973. You
:13:58. > :14:03.voted to stay out in 1975. Till the day he died, he was utterly
:14:04. > :14:06.consistent on the EU. If someone like him was consistent, how can
:14:07. > :14:12.Margaret say that we will not guarantee workers' rights? It is
:14:13. > :14:18.ludicrous. Tony Benn was a champion of workers' rights. What about how
:14:19. > :14:23.it would actually look? It's very well saying that it is very negative
:14:24. > :14:29.of the Remain camp, that we would get a better deal than Canada,
:14:30. > :14:34.Norway or Switzerland. Any of the scenarios under Norway, Switzerland
:14:35. > :14:38.or Canada, the Treasury report still says we will be poorer. We have a
:14:39. > :14:44.better bargaining position than those countries. The British economy
:14:45. > :14:48.is far bigger than the Canadian, the Swiss and the Norwegian economies.
:14:49. > :14:55.By definition, we would get a better deal with the TEU trading bloc than
:14:56. > :14:59.any of those countries. What is wrong with that? That leaves us
:15:00. > :15:03.trying to negotiate a deal when we are not at the table, part and
:15:04. > :15:08.parcel of the decision-making process. I don't understand where
:15:09. > :15:12.the benefit comes from. If you look at the examples of Canada, the seven
:15:13. > :15:18.years that is quoted in terms of forming that deal, it may not take
:15:19. > :15:21.that long. If you look at Switzerland and Norway, the quid pro
:15:22. > :15:26.quo is having to contribute in some way to the European budget. What
:15:27. > :15:29.makes you think that you would get everything? If Germany and France
:15:30. > :15:35.were to allow that, everyone would leave the EU.
:15:36. > :15:44.Norway voted in 1994, 52 proceeds of people did not want to join, and
:15:45. > :15:51.that has now got up to 72%. 72% of Norwegians don't want to join. That
:15:52. > :15:57.is not answering my question. More people, far more Norwegians have
:15:58. > :16:03.decided not... Do they contribute to an EU budget? They have the deal
:16:04. > :16:06.that they have but if the EU was so marvellous you would think those
:16:07. > :16:10.figures would reverse, but 22 years of being outside the EU, the numbers
:16:11. > :16:14.of people wanting to stay outside of the EU in Norway has only gone up.
:16:15. > :16:18.It is very difficult to compare us with Norway, we are a completely
:16:19. > :16:23.different country. And we could get a better deal? We could get a much
:16:24. > :16:29.better deal, we have more to offer. Potentially that is what the Leave
:16:30. > :16:32.campaign are saying, and we don't know, which is still the issue for
:16:33. > :16:35.lots of voters, is that there is still uncertainty for both sides.
:16:36. > :16:40.Today it's all about the by-election taking place this afternoon to elect
:16:41. > :16:41.a new Liberal Democrat hereditary peer.
:16:42. > :16:44.Who is eligible to vote in the by-election?
:16:45. > :16:54.Or D) all three Lib Dem hereditary peers?
:16:55. > :17:00.Kwasi and Margaret will give us the correct answer.
:17:01. > :17:03.Parents of children starting primary school in England will find out
:17:04. > :17:07.today if they've got the school place they wanted -
:17:08. > :17:13.there could be a shortage of 10,000 places by 2020.
:17:14. > :17:18.Here's the schools minister, Nick Gibb,
:17:19. > :17:23.Well, those figures are simply not true.
:17:24. > :17:25.It's claiming there will be a shortage of 10,000 by 2019-20.
:17:26. > :17:28.Over the last five years, we've created 600,000 school places,
:17:29. > :17:30.and we have plans to create another 500,000 over
:17:31. > :17:37.In fact, just last year, the school system created
:17:38. > :17:45.So the idea that there will be a 10,000 pupil place shortage
:17:46. > :17:47.in 2019 is simply not true, and they've based their figures
:17:48. > :17:54.Earlier I spoke to the Shadow Education Secretary,
:17:55. > :17:57.Lucy Powell, and began by asking if she agreed with the claims
:17:58. > :18:00.of a 10,000 shortfall in primary school places in England.
:18:01. > :18:02.Well, no, actually, I don't agree with that figure.
:18:03. > :18:05.The figure that we've calculated from those same figures
:18:06. > :18:09.How have you calculated those figures?
:18:10. > :18:12.They look more like the figures for families who are not
:18:13. > :18:14.getting their first or perhaps second choice of primary
:18:15. > :18:17.school, rather than not having a place at all.
:18:18. > :18:21.There are lots of different figures here, so the aggregates of all these
:18:22. > :18:26.figures show clearly that there is a pupil places crisis.
:18:27. > :18:30.There are figures about the number of families who won't get
:18:31. > :18:33.their first choice schools today, that's about one in ten
:18:34. > :18:37.of all families today won't be getting their first choice,
:18:38. > :18:39.and around one in 20 families won't be getting any
:18:40. > :18:45.But there is quite a big difference, to clarify, between not having
:18:46. > :18:48.a place anywhere at a primary school and not getting your first choice,
:18:49. > :18:51.because many families would still be happy or at least satisfied
:18:52. > :18:54.with a place at their second or third choice.
:18:55. > :18:57.They will have a place, it's not the same thing, is it?
:18:58. > :19:01.Well, no, but one in 20 families won't get any of their options
:19:02. > :19:06.at all, and some of those won't be offered a place at all anywhere,
:19:07. > :19:08.and that's why we're seeing a very significant increase in the number
:19:09. > :19:20.These figures are now at the highest level they've been for 15 years
:19:21. > :19:22.with nearly half a million children in class sizes over 30,
:19:23. > :19:27.We're also seeing the biggest rise in what we call Titan primary
:19:28. > :19:35.I think there were about 16 of those schools at the beginning of this
:19:36. > :19:40.Government's time in office, and now these are well into the hundreds,
:19:41. > :19:43.so we're seeing more children being pushed into larger class sizes
:19:44. > :19:47.and some schools having to get really big in order to accommodate
:19:48. > :19:52.Big schools is not necessarily a problem if the class sizes
:19:53. > :19:55.Big class sizes, yes, parents will be concerned
:19:56. > :19:59.The Department for Education says free schools will make up the gap.
:20:00. > :20:08.The issue with the free market approach, the free school approach,
:20:09. > :20:12.is that simply leaving such a big increase in demand to market forces
:20:13. > :20:19.When you say market forces, you mean free schools in areas
:20:20. > :20:22.where there are shortages will take up some of the pupils that aren't
:20:23. > :20:32.finding places in some of the state schools?
:20:33. > :20:38.Let's hope they do, but the evidence so far has been that
:20:39. > :20:41.many of the free schools that have opened so far have been in
:20:42. > :20:45.In fact, of the free schools that have already opened,
:20:46. > :20:47.only 4% are in areas of the most acute need,
:20:48. > :20:49.and simply leaving to chance, really, that some organisation
:20:50. > :20:52.or some body of parents is going to come along
:20:53. > :20:55.and want to open a school where it's needed just isn't sufficient.
:20:56. > :20:57.When you look at some of the areas like Manchester, London,
:20:58. > :21:02.areas where there's really high demand, Milton Keynes and others,
:21:03. > :21:04.this approach is just not working, and that's why local Government
:21:05. > :21:07.leaders are making the same argument as me today,
:21:08. > :21:10.Tory local Government leaders are making the same argument as me
:21:11. > :21:13.today that we've got to give local authorities both the powers
:21:14. > :21:17.and resources they need to ensure that they can meet that statutory
:21:18. > :21:20.obligation of ensuring that every child has a place.
:21:21. > :21:23.What do you think the role of immigration has played?
:21:24. > :21:25.Priti Patel, the Employment Minister, has said that
:21:26. > :21:29.the shortfall in primary school places is due to uncontrolled
:21:30. > :21:32.migration, migration from the EU, particularly in areas like London
:21:33. > :21:34.where the birth rate is increasing, and that has put pressure
:21:35. > :21:39.I think this is a bit of scaremongering by Priti Patel.
:21:40. > :21:43.Let's just disaggregate some of the figures.
:21:44. > :21:50.In terms of new arrivals to this country, families arriving now,
:21:51. > :21:52.these figures are very small in comparison to the overall
:21:53. > :21:57.What about the figures over the last five or ten years?
:21:58. > :22:00.If you look at the rising birth rate, and let's remember
:22:01. > :22:03.that is a very good thing for our country and our economy,
:22:04. > :22:05.these are the people who will be paying...
:22:06. > :22:10.Only a quarter of the new births in this country are from foreign-born
:22:11. > :22:15.mothers, and many of those will have British fathers.
:22:16. > :22:18.A rising birth rate is a good thing for the country, these
:22:19. > :22:23.are people who will pay our pensions and pay for our NHS going forward.
:22:24. > :22:27.You might remember, as I do, 15, 20 years ago, the big policy issue
:22:28. > :22:29.and problem for our country was a falling birth rate
:22:30. > :22:32.and an ageing population, and how are we going to pay
:22:33. > :22:37.Is that why Labour was very keen to increase immigration figures,
:22:38. > :22:40.in order to increase the population in areas where, as you say, it
:22:41. > :22:45.It wasn't about increasing, necessarily being keen
:22:46. > :22:51.to increase immigration, but overall, where immigration has
:22:52. > :22:54.had a net benefit on our country in terms of people coming
:22:55. > :22:57.here to work and contribute and so on, of course
:22:58. > :23:00.there are parts of the country where we need to deal with that
:23:01. > :23:03.and where it is particularly acute, and place planning is part of that.
:23:04. > :23:08.But that is about local areas having the powers and the resources
:23:09. > :23:13.they need to deal with these issues, but overall the increases to place
:23:14. > :23:17.planning and the places crisis that we are seeing
:23:18. > :23:20.is because of a rising birth rate, which is a good thing
:23:21. > :23:25.for the country, which we've known is coming for a long time,
:23:26. > :23:27.and which the Government have woefully failed to deal
:23:28. > :23:30.with because they want to leave it to the free market.
:23:31. > :23:33.You've admitted we have known about it for an awfully long time,
:23:34. > :23:36.some of that will have fallen under Labour's final years in Government,
:23:37. > :23:40.and that Government has been blamed for not planning properly,
:23:41. > :23:44.you knew there would be a demographic bulge
:23:45. > :23:51.and you didn't plan for it in terms of school places at the time
:23:52. > :23:55.It is not nonsense, you said yourself...
:23:56. > :23:58.We built over 1,000 primary schools, and this is about the efficiency.
:23:59. > :24:01.The families who are today finding out whether they got a place or not,
:24:02. > :24:04.their children are aged three or four, they were not even born
:24:05. > :24:07.at the time of the last Government coming into office.
:24:08. > :24:10.To try and blame Labour is a bit rich, quite honestly.
:24:11. > :24:15.Except that this problem has been going on for quite a number
:24:16. > :24:18.of years, you have been predicting it for a number of years.
:24:19. > :24:25.It has been coming, new places have been created over a number of years,
:24:26. > :24:35.over a number of years, but not enough, and there are not
:24:36. > :24:38.going to be enough coming on stream over the next few years,
:24:39. > :24:40.which is what the LGA and others are saying today,
:24:41. > :24:45.You would not want, ten, 15 years ago, to have classrooms
:24:46. > :24:49.with teachers in it with nobody in them, that would be that would be
:24:50. > :24:51.a surplus of places, so you have to have sufficient
:24:52. > :24:54.number of places, and the Government are not creating sufficient number
:24:55. > :24:57.of places, and that is the issue, it is not about actual absolute
:24:58. > :24:59.numbers, it's about sufficient places, and that is something
:25:00. > :25:02.they are woefully neglecting and they are not putting in place
:25:03. > :25:04.the powers that people need locally to plan for their areas
:25:05. > :25:06.and make sure that parents are not disappointed.
:25:07. > :25:11.Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of British men and women have
:25:12. > :25:13.travelled to Syria to support, fight for and, in some cases, die
:25:14. > :25:18.If they return to the UK, they face prosecution and imprisonment.
:25:19. > :25:21.But a much smaller number have also travelled to Northern Syria
:25:22. > :25:30.So what should happen to them when and if they return?
:25:31. > :25:34.Last year, the BBC's Quentin Somerville spoke to
:25:35. > :25:37.one fighter, known only as "Jim", about his reasons for
:25:38. > :25:40.The particular thing that brought me here was seeing
:25:41. > :25:43.a photo of an Isis fighter, holding up the severed head of
:25:44. > :25:49.When I saw that, although I didn't know it was possible then
:25:50. > :25:54.to come here and make a contribution, I felt I had to.
:25:55. > :25:58.I think it's very important to make a clear distinction in the law
:25:59. > :26:01.between those who are coming here to fight against Isis and those
:26:02. > :26:13.This issue is being raised in the Commons this week
:26:14. > :26:16.He's become involved after a constituent who fought
:26:17. > :26:18.in Syria was arrested on his return to the UK.
:26:19. > :26:28.What are you raising in terms of what you think should happen to
:26:29. > :26:31.people who do go out to fight against IS? The problem here is the
:26:32. > :26:36.Government doesn't have a clear policy. We have an increasingly
:26:37. > :26:41.clear and quite strong policy on those individuals who choose to go
:26:42. > :26:45.and fight against the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi army by
:26:46. > :26:48.joining IS, but we haven't really come to a settled view on how we
:26:49. > :26:52.treat those individuals who you might say do the right thing,
:26:53. > :26:56.because they are certainly driven by a strong moral mission in many cases
:26:57. > :27:01.to go and joint Kurdish militias, and this is an issue that goes back
:27:02. > :27:05.hundreds of years, 50,000 Brits went to fight in the American Civil War,
:27:06. > :27:09.several thousand went to fight in the Spanish war, and those
:27:10. > :27:13.individuals who went out there and thought they would come back to a
:27:14. > :27:15.heroes welcome but in fact came back to suspicion from the security
:27:16. > :27:19.services and workplace discrimination, and I think we are
:27:20. > :27:22.starting to see the same with this growing group of Brits going to
:27:23. > :27:27.fight on the right side of this conflict. But there are problems
:27:28. > :27:31.with this group, too. Are you suggesting that Britain to go
:27:32. > :27:35.abroad, undertake military training, fight and kill people, should come
:27:36. > :27:38.back to the UK and not face sanctions? It is a complicated
:27:39. > :27:45.situation. The concern I have is that the Government are not doing
:27:46. > :27:48.anything to discourage individuals from going out there in the first
:27:49. > :27:52.place, so you can go online, Google search groups like the main foreign
:27:53. > :27:57.fighters' organisation, go to their Facebook account, make contact with
:27:58. > :28:02.them, for 400 or ?600 you can book a flight and be out there in a week's
:28:03. > :28:05.time, that is what happened to my constituent, who was working in a
:28:06. > :28:12.care home in Newark one week and a couple of days later was on the
:28:13. > :28:18.being trained to be a fighter with the YPG. To be clear, you are not
:28:19. > :28:22.encouraging these people to go out and fight, even if they are fighting
:28:23. > :28:25.against IS. Are you saying the Government is doing that by not
:28:26. > :28:29.stating the dangers of the other side? It is all over the place. We
:28:30. > :28:32.are not discouraging people from going out there, you can give the
:28:33. > :28:35.throw and tell the immigration officer what you are doing and they
:28:36. > :28:39.will allow you onto the plane, and get when you come back some
:28:40. > :28:51.individuals will pass freely through immigration
:28:52. > :28:54.into the country, and others, like my constituent, will be arrested
:28:55. > :28:56.under the terrorism act, questioned, potentially charged with a very
:28:57. > :28:59.serious offence, and have it on their record for the rest of their
:29:00. > :29:02.life. You are saying they should be stopped from going in the first
:29:03. > :29:04.phase, not go and be allowed to come back? We should have a policy that
:29:05. > :29:07.stops you from going in the first phase and treat you fairly and
:29:08. > :29:10.consistently when you come back. Meaning you should be arrested and
:29:11. > :29:13.face some sort of sanction? You should be questioned because we
:29:14. > :29:17.don't do what these individuals are doing out there but you should not
:29:18. > :29:20.be charged under the terrorism activities would be lulled all you
:29:21. > :29:26.have done is bike with our allies. These are individuals, many using
:29:27. > :29:30.British aircraft, giving them cover out in the field but are charged
:29:31. > :29:34.with terrorism on their return. Are you surprised to hear there are
:29:35. > :29:37.individuals who do explain their legitimate, as they see it, reasons
:29:38. > :29:42.for going out to fight, even if it is against IS on the side of the
:29:43. > :29:47.Peshmerga, and then being allowed to go? I'm not surprised they want to
:29:48. > :29:51.go. But are you surprised they are allowed to go? I don't see how you
:29:52. > :29:55.could prevent them if they are fighting with our allies. But how do
:29:56. > :29:59.we know they are acting legally? We do not know which militias they will
:30:00. > :30:03.be fighting with and the rules of engagement. That is true, it is
:30:04. > :30:11.right I would question them coming back because you have to make it
:30:12. > :30:13.clear who they are fighting for but if it is established that they are
:30:14. > :30:16.fighting with our allies I don't see how you should treat them on the
:30:17. > :30:19.same basis as people fighting for IS. How would you feel it in terms
:30:20. > :30:22.of treatment of these people when they come back? I think the question
:30:23. > :30:25.of going out is a difficult one because how do you know they are
:30:26. > :30:28.telling the truth? You are hardly going to go to the immigration
:30:29. > :30:34.officer and say, I'm going to join Isis. They could say anything, so
:30:35. > :30:37.you don't know. As you say, it is hugely complicated and of course
:30:38. > :30:42.there are so many different groups in Syria, so how do we know which
:30:43. > :30:46.people they are going to get involved with? That is a key point
:30:47. > :30:50.because the YPG, the most popular group British citizens have gone out
:30:51. > :30:55.to, there are widely diverging views on this group. Some people glorify
:30:56. > :30:58.their actions as brave individuals fighting against IS, Amnesty
:30:59. > :31:01.International think they are guilty of war crimes, the Turkish
:31:02. > :31:06.Government claim they are allied to the PKK and over the weekend we
:31:07. > :31:09.heard two British nationals and an Irish citizen were arrested crossing
:31:10. > :31:28.from Syria back into Iraq having been with the YPG, and we
:31:29. > :31:32.presume it is under diplomatic pressure from Turkey to the Iraqi
:31:33. > :31:34.Government to discourage people from doing this, so British citizens have
:31:35. > :31:36.got to understand they are getting themselves into a war zone and an
:31:37. > :31:38.extremely complex political and diplomatic situation, and I think it
:31:39. > :31:41.is incumbent on the British Government to discourage citizens
:31:42. > :31:43.from doing that. All of these groups could be interpreted as terrorists
:31:44. > :31:45.or freedom fighters. The years we have had protocols about the
:31:46. > :31:49.circumstances, haven't we? But the other aspects of the new way of
:31:50. > :31:54.doing things is the use of drones. I'm a member of the joint committee
:31:55. > :31:57.on human rights in the house, and we have been conducting an inquiry into
:31:58. > :32:02.the use of drones because the Government has no real policy about
:32:03. > :32:06.that either. There are many things that have arisen through these
:32:07. > :32:12.Middle East conflict in more recent times. And we are playing catch up.
:32:13. > :32:19.It is also to do with the rise of social media and the Internet. It
:32:20. > :32:23.has never been so easy to go online and find out about a conflict in
:32:24. > :32:27.another part of the world, and to be on a plane out there.
:32:28. > :32:29.The good old high street betting shop is under threat, according
:32:30. > :32:32.But is a flutter at the bookies harmless fun,
:32:33. > :32:36.We'll be discussing that in a moment, but first,
:32:37. > :32:38.here's Malcolm George from the Association of British
:32:39. > :32:44.Britain, we are told, is awash with opportunities to gamble.
:32:45. > :32:48.Online, in casinos, at bingo, in arcades.
:32:49. > :32:51.But one sector seems to unfairly attract more attention than any
:32:52. > :33:00.Casinos are now more accessible than they've ever been before.
:33:01. > :33:04.This casino in Central London has an open-door policy,
:33:05. > :33:08.which means you can walk straight in and gamble right away.
:33:09. > :33:15.But for their roulette, the stake limit is an eye-watering ?5,000.
:33:16. > :33:20.If you are over 16, you can buy as many National Lottery
:33:21. > :33:23.scratch cards as you want, but the staff are not trained
:33:24. > :33:30.If you do have problems, there's no information about where to go.
:33:31. > :33:34.But one sector seems to unfairly attract more
:33:35. > :33:38.attention than any other - high street bookies.
:33:39. > :33:49.Staff can monitor what everyone is staking, winning or losing,
:33:50. > :33:52.and if someone is starting to bet more than usual.
:33:53. > :33:55.Of course, people can develop problems, but staff here are trained
:33:56. > :34:01.There's a plethora of information about how to get help,
:34:02. > :34:06.and a self-exclusion system, so a punter can bar themselves.
:34:07. > :34:10.A bookmaker's is the safest place to have a flutter,
:34:11. > :34:14.but high street bookies are closing at a rate of close to one a day.
:34:15. > :34:19.Regulation, taxes and myth-spinning are combining to kill off
:34:20. > :34:35.If they die out, then the safest place to gamble will disappear.
:34:36. > :34:48.Welcome. Are you saying that betting is the lesser of evils in terms of
:34:49. > :34:55.gambling, or that the Keys perform a social good? It is a mixture of the
:34:56. > :35:00.two. Betting has existed for hundreds of years. It is the
:35:01. > :35:03.location that you put it in and the support mechanism that you put in
:35:04. > :35:10.place. Once you move out of that, yes, bookies social environment, a
:35:11. > :35:15.place where people have fun and a flutter. The interaction with staff
:35:16. > :35:20.makes it a very safe environment. But you can still rack up tens of
:35:21. > :35:26.thousands of pounds in debt. You talk about being able to gamble an
:35:27. > :35:32.eye watering ?5,000 at casinos, but fixed odd terminals allow people to
:35:33. > :35:40.bet up to ?100, in spite of restrictions introduced last year.
:35:41. > :35:47.Roulette is ?5,000 per spin. Why is it a safer place to have a flutter?
:35:48. > :35:57.Our staff are trained. 90% is ?50 and below. The average loss in
:35:58. > :36:07.quasi-pozmack constituency is ?7. You said that ?7 is the average in
:36:08. > :36:11.that constituency, but there was a case of a man who took his own life
:36:12. > :36:22.after racking up debts in a bookmakers. So it can happen. Though
:36:23. > :36:26.vast majority of people with a problem can gamble in lots of
:36:27. > :36:30.different areas. If you take away bookmakers, those people would
:36:31. > :36:36.gamble elsewhere. It could be online, in concealers or other
:36:37. > :36:39.bookies. But the environment of the bookmakers, combined with the staff
:36:40. > :36:45.interaction, makes it genuinely the safest place to gamble. Are you
:36:46. > :36:51.convinced, Margaret Prosser? Is it a loss to the high street, losing
:36:52. > :36:56.these bookies? The way I look at it is, we have people who are desperate
:36:57. > :37:00.alcoholics who drink far too much and drink every day. No one is
:37:01. > :37:07.suggesting we should close every pub or wine bar. I think we have to keep
:37:08. > :37:14.these things in proportion. Clearly, the ability of staff to watch out
:37:15. > :37:18.when somebody they can see is in trouble, the availability of
:37:19. > :37:22.councillors, the willingness of the person themselves to go for
:37:23. > :37:27.counselling, all of that has to be thrown into the mix. I don't think
:37:28. > :37:32.closing down betting shops is going to change any of that, really. The
:37:33. > :37:37.only thing I would say is, you ought to go into a betting shop with your
:37:38. > :37:47.eyes wide open. As my mum used to say, you never see a bookie on a
:37:48. > :37:53.bike! Very wise. It's true. Kwasi Kwarteng, bookmakers have been
:37:54. > :37:58.described as the fixed odds betting terminals as sirens on the rocks of
:37:59. > :38:05.the week will. Has she got a point was blue Margaret made a very good
:38:06. > :38:08.point about pubs. We have people who have serious problems with alcohol
:38:09. > :38:14.addiction, but no one is suggesting we should ban pubs. Generally, most
:38:15. > :38:21.people have some degree of self control. We are not talking about
:38:22. > :38:26.banning them. But perhaps, as a result of other circumstances, they
:38:27. > :38:29.are beginning to close down. Should there be more regulation,
:38:30. > :38:33.particularly on fixed-odds betting terminal is, that seem to feed
:38:34. > :38:38.addiction? I think there shouldn't be. The big problem facing due is
:38:39. > :38:45.the competition from online betting. That's the same as any retail
:38:46. > :38:49.outlet, if that's what you describe your business as. Every retailer on
:38:50. > :38:55.the high street is under the same pressure from online competition. Is
:38:56. > :39:00.that just the way it is going to go. You can defend your corner of the
:39:01. > :39:05.community in that way, but in the end, it may be overtaken by
:39:06. > :39:09.technology what ever you do? That is the challenge for policy. All
:39:10. > :39:14.sectors of the industry pay significant tax. What needs to be
:39:15. > :39:18.decided is the balance. With the range of gambling options, where is
:39:19. > :39:23.it best for people to gamble? And does the betting shop defied
:39:24. > :39:27.potentially the best environment? That is the challenge for policy
:39:28. > :39:32.makers. If things continue, we are going to see a decline. Is it better
:39:33. > :39:37.for society that gamblers who use betting shops now move into other
:39:38. > :39:40.environments, which may not be as safe? Thank you very much.
:39:41. > :39:43.Let's have a look now at some of the big events likely to be
:39:44. > :39:45.making the political weather this week.
:39:46. > :39:48.Today is your last chance to register to vote if you want
:39:49. > :39:50.to take part in the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland
:39:51. > :39:52.elections or local, mayoral and Police Commissioner
:39:53. > :39:54.Resident Commonwealth and European Union citizens
:39:55. > :40:02.Union will decide whether to formally recommend a vote to stay
:40:03. > :40:06.in the European Union at a closed session of their conference.
:40:07. > :40:11.Commons clash between Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron
:40:12. > :40:18.Scottish National Party will launch its manifesto for
:40:19. > :40:25.Later in the week, US President Barack Obama is in London -
:40:26. > :40:28.on Thursday he'll meet the Queen, who will be
:40:29. > :40:34.He's also expected to make his much-publicised intervention
:40:35. > :40:38.in the EU referendum debate, saying he believes Britain
:40:39. > :40:44.We're joined now by two political journalists enjoying the bracing
:40:45. > :40:47.spring air on College Green outside Parliament.
:40:48. > :40:49.It's the closest they'll get to a holiday this side
:40:50. > :40:53.it's Rafael Behr of the Guardian and Sebastian Payne
:40:54. > :41:08.Welcome to you both. Rafael Behr the first day of official campaigning
:41:09. > :41:14.was on Friday. Doris attacked the Prime Minister and his allies with
:41:15. > :41:20.both barrels. -- Boris Johnson attacked. This rift is only going to
:41:21. > :41:25.deepen further in the coming weeks. Yes, and it's hard to see how the
:41:26. > :41:28.two bits of the Conservative Party will put themselves back together.
:41:29. > :41:33.Going back to the end of last year, there was quite a lot of optimism in
:41:34. > :41:37.number ten and among the Conservative whips that somehow the
:41:38. > :41:42.Tories would just agree to disagree about this amicably. Then it would
:41:43. > :41:46.be a comfortable win for Remain, and everyone could just muddle through
:41:47. > :41:52.afterwards. Even when Michael Gove went off and joined the Leave
:41:53. > :41:56.campaign, number ten people were saying, this will be civilised,
:41:57. > :42:00.because he is a friend of the Prime Minister. That is now completely
:42:01. > :42:05.forgotten, and the levels of animosity and passion are very, very
:42:06. > :42:09.high. The things people are saying behind the scene is so toxic and
:42:10. > :42:16.poisonous, it could get very nasty indeed in the next six weeks. Do you
:42:17. > :42:20.agree that it has now got so toxic, Sebastian Payne, that it will be
:42:21. > :42:23.impossible to pull the relations together after the European
:42:24. > :42:29.referendum? It will be fascinating to see what the party does next.
:42:30. > :42:33.Eurosceptic MPs do feel it has become very angry very quickly. What
:42:34. > :42:36.we have seen today with the Treasury figures, saying that every household
:42:37. > :42:45.will be ?4,300 worse off, that is the project max here we keep hearing
:42:46. > :42:49.about. -- project fear. The way they are arguing about it is what we are
:42:50. > :42:55.going to see every day in this campaign. The government says
:42:56. > :43:00.something, and the Out campaign say the opposite. There is an important
:43:01. > :43:06.personal driver. A lot of the public are saying that they don't have the
:43:07. > :43:12.facts and they don't know what to think. For both sides, lots depends
:43:13. > :43:16.on the message givers. If you are on the Leave side, to achieve your goal
:43:17. > :43:21.of getting out of the EU, you have to destroy the credibility of the
:43:22. > :43:27.Prime Minister. It's very difficult. Ukip don't mind doing that anyway,
:43:28. > :43:30.but you now have a section of the Conservative Party whose biggest
:43:31. > :43:35.political objective is to tarnish the reputation of the Prime
:43:36. > :43:40.Minister. And that is very serious. To some extent, it is unavoidable.
:43:41. > :43:44.How else do you drive that message home if you don't say that what the
:43:45. > :43:50.other side is saying is complete nonsense? Absolutely. Look at what
:43:51. > :43:56.Boris Johnson has been saying. He is a format schoolmate and colleague of
:43:57. > :44:00.the Prime Minister. What we are seeing now is a lot of those
:44:01. > :44:03.tensions coming into the public, and number ten and Downing Street are
:44:04. > :44:07.keen to discredit what the outers are saying, saying that they do not
:44:08. > :44:13.live in reality and don't understand what is going on. It will get a lot
:44:14. > :44:18.worse. It will get more personal. The outer is really do see this,
:44:19. > :44:23.they are attacking the personalities of the people involved. George
:44:24. > :44:29.Osborne was saying today, did he really believe that Brexit was not
:44:30. > :44:33.-- was going to be an option? I think on the outside there's a lot
:44:34. > :44:38.of anger towards In people, who say they are keeping all options open,
:44:39. > :44:43.where is in fact, they were remainders all along. Thank you.
:44:44. > :44:49.Only six or seven weeks of this to go! Kwasi, would you use the
:44:50. > :44:55.language that Stuart Jackson used in his tweet, that George Osborne is a
:44:56. > :45:01.hypocrite? I didn't see the tweet. I don't think that personal abuse is
:45:02. > :45:05.helpful. Temperature -- obviously, tempers are fraying. I do believe
:45:06. > :45:12.that the party would come together. If you are calling the Prime
:45:13. > :45:18.Minister the Gerald Ratner of modern politics, and on the other side,
:45:19. > :45:22.George Osborne is saying it is nonsense economics. Illiterate that
:45:23. > :45:27.you and your colleagues are for saying we should come out. How do
:45:28. > :45:31.you reconcile that? Somebody put it to me, a rugby player, that if you
:45:32. > :45:37.have a very hard rugby match... You are playing the people, not the
:45:38. > :45:41.ball. You are playing a complex match. That does not mean that the
:45:42. > :45:45.party will not come together. I think it will. When we look at the
:45:46. > :45:51.contrast with Labour, with Jeremy Corbyn, that will unite the party.
:45:52. > :45:57.Can the Prime Minister legitimately be in the negotiating team in the
:45:58. > :46:03.event the UK votes to come out? I don't see why not. Do you think it
:46:04. > :46:06.is likely to happen? I don't know, I don't know what is going on in his
:46:07. > :46:11.head, what his motivation is, whether he would be motivated to
:46:12. > :46:14.stay on, but I don't see any logical reason why he shouldn't be part of
:46:15. > :46:22.the team. Would it be credible for the Leeds side, somebody who has
:46:23. > :46:27.campaigned to stay in, would then be part of the trade deal to come out?
:46:28. > :46:31.I don't have a problem with it. Ken Clarke said Mr Cameron will not last
:46:32. > :46:37.30 seconds in his job if we vote to leave. The Prime Minister has a huge
:46:38. > :46:41.fund of goodwill, it is remarkable that he achieved a majority after 23
:46:42. > :46:47.years in which the Conservatives had not had one, and he is a very
:46:48. > :46:51.powerful political figure so I don't see why he cannot carry on.
:46:52. > :46:53.Now, the fast food chain McDonalds says
:46:54. > :46:55.it's disappointed that Labour's ruling body has decided to ban it
:46:56. > :47:04.from running a stand at the party's annual conference.
:47:05. > :47:07.According to the Sun On Sunday, the company wanted to set up
:47:08. > :47:09.an "interactive experience" display to support British farm produce
:47:10. > :47:13.The Tories and SNP have allowed McDonalds to set up similar stands
:47:14. > :47:15.at their conferences, and vetoing the stand
:47:16. > :47:16.will reportedly cost the party ?30,000.
:47:17. > :47:21.It's a decision that's angered some Labour MPs.
:47:22. > :47:42.The former minister Ian Austin tweeted:
:47:43. > :47:44.And Walthamstow MP Stella Creasey said she found McDonald's the best
:47:45. > :47:51.Well, Labour says it doesn't comment on its commercial decisions
:47:52. > :47:54.but my guest of the day Margaret Prosser is a former
:47:55. > :48:03.Was it wise to turn down 30 grand? No! We are not in a position to be
:48:04. > :48:06.turning down money. But, having said that, clearly if you have got a
:48:07. > :48:10.principled position then money has to come second. But what is a
:48:11. > :48:15.principled position against McDonald's? I don't get it. I was
:48:16. > :48:20.hoping you did and you would be able to tell us! My view is, you look at
:48:21. > :48:24.an organisation in the round. One of the things that McDonald's is famous
:48:25. > :48:30.for is almost every year coming in the top ten of good employers. They
:48:31. > :48:34.are good employers, they provide apprenticeships and trading, some of
:48:35. > :48:38.us might be sniffy about the idea of flipping burgers for a living but
:48:39. > :48:42.lots of people do it and the way in which McDonald's conduct themselves
:48:43. > :48:47.with their workforce is really pretty good. Do you think it is a
:48:48. > :48:54.snobby attitude? It is a snobby attitude. You'd think it is just
:48:55. > :48:59.snobbery turning down ?30,000? I think it is a mixture of a snobby
:49:00. > :49:04.attitude and somebody looking for a healthier option. What would you say
:49:05. > :49:08.to the NEC? It is the executive that made the decision, isn't it? I would
:49:09. > :49:11.have argued, let's look at how much money they have got in the bank
:49:12. > :49:15.year. Do you think they will change their minds? It sounds like the
:49:16. > :49:20.decision has been made. I don't think they would because the NEC
:49:21. > :49:24.would have to do that and I think it is as it is. Do you think they
:49:25. > :49:27.should explain why? They said they do not make comments on commercial
:49:28. > :49:32.decisions, does it sound like they don't want to say the reason behind
:49:33. > :49:35.it? We are not talking about discussing a contract or something,
:49:36. > :49:40.which clearly do not want to see discussed, but to just say, I can't
:49:41. > :49:44.see why they cannot say why they have made that decision. It doesn't
:49:45. > :49:49.seem to me that it ought to be top secret. In your mind it is the wrong
:49:50. > :49:55.decision? I think so, yes. What do you say, Kwasi? I don't understand
:49:56. > :49:59.it, McDonald's is a respected company that employs thousands of
:50:00. > :50:03.people, Ian Austin said his first job was there, people generally like
:50:04. > :50:06.the product, it is a successful company, I don't understand what
:50:07. > :50:11.they would turn them away. On the snobby side, what do you think of
:50:12. > :50:15.Wes streeting saying it is not exactly a falafel bar, what is he
:50:16. > :50:21.trying to say? I think he is trying to imply that certain people would
:50:22. > :50:25.only find themselves in a falafel bar or some equivalent. If it were
:50:26. > :50:30.reading or dangerous for the Labour Party to be seen in that now take
:50:31. > :50:35.drinking Islington residing falafel eating non-McDonald's eating why? I
:50:36. > :50:39.don't think it is helpful, particularly as huge numbers of the
:50:40. > :50:44.members will not be in that class, shall we say. In that vein, the
:50:45. > :50:48.Tories are famous for having a champagne bar and Harvey Nichols...
:50:49. > :50:55.I don't know what you are talking about! Do these things matter at
:50:56. > :50:59.conferences? I think some people get very, very tied upon this, and
:51:00. > :51:05.actually a week or two after the conference no-one cares. Usually
:51:06. > :51:10.because they are too drunk to care! As a journalist you can speak for
:51:11. > :51:15.yourself! I am only the one reporting and following on this! But
:51:16. > :51:18.there is a worrying point about Labour being anti-business, it is
:51:19. > :51:21.worrying they should be so hostile to McDonald's, it is extraordinary
:51:22. > :51:24.to me. I would like to know the reason why they have turned down
:51:25. > :51:30.McDonald's because I think it is a myth that people like you, Kwasi,
:51:31. > :51:33.like to generate and continue to grow that we are anti-business,
:51:34. > :51:40.because I don't think, there is no evidence for that. If the Labour
:51:41. > :51:42.Party would like to offer a full response, they can do so any time! I
:51:43. > :51:45.shall see what I can find out! Now, whose opinion will you listen
:51:46. > :51:48.to when it comes to casting your As we've amply demonstrated this
:51:49. > :51:52.morning voters are being bombarded with information, statistics
:51:53. > :51:54.and perhaps even a bit of rhetoric from politicians
:51:55. > :51:58.and campaigners on both sides. But if you don't fancy listening
:51:59. > :52:02.to George Osborne or Boris Johnson, could a celebrity convince you one
:52:03. > :52:05.way or another? Let's have a look at some
:52:06. > :52:08.of the famous faces to have publicly Former England cricketer Ian Botham
:52:09. > :52:14.came out for the Leave campaign yesterday, saying Britain has "lost
:52:15. > :52:20.the right to govern itself, to make our own laws
:52:21. > :52:22.and to choose who comes here". Also in the Leave camp
:52:23. > :52:24.is Downton Abbey creator and Conservative peer
:52:25. > :52:27.Julian Fellowes, who claims remaining in the EU
:52:28. > :52:28.would be like "chaining yourself to a radiator
:52:29. > :52:33.in a burning building". And the Oscar-winning
:52:34. > :52:37.actor Michael Caine, who says we "cannot be dictated
:52:38. > :52:40.to by thousands of faceless civil Backing the campaign
:52:41. > :52:47.to stay in the EU are TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson -
:52:48. > :52:49.he thinks "Britain, on its own, has little influence
:52:50. > :52:51.on the world stage". He's joined by Virgin
:52:52. > :52:53.boss Richard Branson, who says leaving the EU would be
:52:54. > :52:58."very damaging" for Britain. And the actress Emma Thompson
:52:59. > :53:10.who argues we'd be "mad not to" stay And in the last hour Ian Botham has
:53:11. > :53:22.been speaking to the BBC about his decision to back the British exit.
:53:23. > :53:26.It is an island. Remember that and be proud to be English. The economy,
:53:27. > :53:30.economics, we are hearing this number and that number but I think
:53:31. > :53:36.with ?350 million plus per week going into the EU, getting 50% back
:53:37. > :53:39.if you are lucky, it is a lot of money and maybe we could address a
:53:40. > :53:41.lot of our own problems with that money.
:53:42. > :53:43.So do celebrity endorsements really change the way people vote?
:53:44. > :53:46.To discuss this we're joined by the psychotherapist Lucy Beresford.
:53:47. > :53:53.Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Do people listen to celebrities?
:53:54. > :53:56.They do, all the time, not least because so much of our
:53:57. > :53:59.decision-making is unconscious, so it is not so much that we listen to
:54:00. > :54:03.the celebrity but that we are paying attention without realising it to
:54:04. > :54:07.our emotional connection to that celebrity. Much more likely than
:54:08. > :54:11.when people listen to politicians, for example? Yes, though your own
:54:12. > :54:14.party political persuasion will mean you have allegiance to some people,
:54:15. > :54:36.but in terms of celebrities it is very
:54:37. > :54:40.much more under the radar. Does it depend on the celebrity how deeply
:54:41. > :54:42.you listen to it, even subconsciously? Yes, and it depends
:54:43. > :54:45.on whether that celebrity appears to fit with what they are talking
:54:46. > :54:47.about. You can see why someone like Ian Botham, for example, might
:54:48. > :54:50.favour Brexit because he has had a career which is very much about
:54:51. > :54:52.leading from the front and being a bit of a maverick, a have an
:54:53. > :54:54.emotional attachment to him that goes all the if you have an
:54:55. > :54:57.emotional attachment to him that goes all the you think, this guyto
:54:58. > :54:59.events at Headingley in 1981 and you have a powerful connection, you
:55:00. > :55:03.think, this him and pay attention. If you don't know who we use because
:55:04. > :55:05.you are too young or you think he is just a has-been sportsman, you won't
:55:06. > :55:08.pay attention in the same way. Does it liberate people if what the
:55:09. > :55:11.celebrity says resonates in a way you describe with Ian Botham, does
:55:12. > :55:13.it mean they are free to boys their own opinions? I think they decide
:55:14. > :55:16.that they don't have to pay attention to this too carefully,
:55:17. > :55:20.they can just pass their allegiance over to someone else and get them to
:55:21. > :55:26.do the talking. If you have got something as obligated as this kind
:55:27. > :55:29.of reverend, where there are so many facts and figures being thrown at
:55:30. > :55:33.you, not least today, a lot of people think, because we are group
:55:34. > :55:37.creatures be preferred to the like belonged, we find it hard to run
:55:38. > :55:43.against the herd, so if we find a celebrity that appeals to us we will
:55:44. > :55:47.follow what they said. Do you agree celebrity endorsements are
:55:48. > :55:52.important? I think they can cut through, I just about old enough to
:55:53. > :55:58.remember 1981! I was six years old. What he did, for cricket lovers...
:55:59. > :56:03.He was a hero. It will never be forgotten, people will identify with
:56:04. > :56:09.that. I agree, I think people do, certain people will be really swayed
:56:10. > :56:13.by Emma Thompson, because she stands for different approaches, different
:56:14. > :56:18.attitudes towards politics and the way society is organised, etc, so
:56:19. > :56:23.some people will be very influenced by that, I would have thought. What
:56:24. > :56:26.about the politicians, because this band 's political spectrum is, you
:56:27. > :56:32.have got people for in and for out across the political borders, but on
:56:33. > :56:39.your side, is Nigel Farage an asset or not? He is an asset for people
:56:40. > :56:41.who like him. I think he is a very marmite politician, someone who
:56:42. > :56:45.people have very strong feelings about, and there will be lots of
:56:46. > :56:49.people who trust him on this issue, and there may be people who are less
:56:50. > :56:57.persuaded by him. What about George Galloway? Again, and maverick
:56:58. > :57:01.politician, very idiosyncratic, very individual, and people may respond
:57:02. > :57:07.to them. Tony Blair for the state campaign? He is pretty much
:57:08. > :57:15.yesterday's man. You could argue that. What about Tony Blair? Those
:57:16. > :57:18.of us who have stuck with Tony Blair through thick and thin will still be
:57:19. > :57:22.influenced by that but there are many people who take a very
:57:23. > :57:28.different view. He has become something of a Marmite character, I
:57:29. > :57:33.think. What about Jeremy Clarkson? Would he repel or attract? I think
:57:34. > :57:40.you would repel as many as it would attract. He is a love him or hate
:57:41. > :57:43.him person. And that is why the celebrity chosen has to be so
:57:44. > :57:46.carefully done, because you can have those characters that are very
:57:47. > :57:50.divisive or if somebody else comes in you would think, I would never
:57:51. > :57:54.have thought the Spice Girls would have supported Margaret Thatcher, or
:57:55. > :57:58.whatever Ralph, so it catches you by surprise and if you are in favour of
:57:59. > :58:02.those people do think, yes, I will pay attention to what you say, where
:58:03. > :58:11.somebody is some thing Haka somebody says something and you don't see the
:58:12. > :58:17.connection, people can really do that -- whereas if somebody says
:58:18. > :58:18.something and you don't see the connection. People don't respond on
:58:19. > :58:21.a rational level. There's just time before we go
:58:22. > :58:24.to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was who is eligible
:58:25. > :58:27.to vote in the by-election taking place today to elect
:58:28. > :58:29.a new Liberal Democrat Or D) all three Lib Dem
:58:30. > :58:45.hereditary peers? This is going to be hugely
:58:46. > :58:53.embarrassing... I think it is all peers. It's not! It is certainly
:58:54. > :58:58.not. I think it is Lib Dem Herod Tory peers. Yes, just the three Lib
:58:59. > :59:01.Dem hereditary peers, there are more people going for it than there are
:59:02. > :59:06.voting for them! But that is all we have got time for, goodbye!
:59:07. > :59:09.You look like you've just seen the Grim Reaper.
:59:10. > :59:12.Well, it was a lot to take in, wasn't it?