:00:37. > :00:38.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:39. > :00:43.High noon in the Welsh Assembly as members are locked in a stand-off
:00:44. > :00:49.But this programme understands Ukip's leader in Wales
:00:50. > :00:54.is in talks about a deal to throw his weight behind Labour
:00:55. > :00:57.and split with the rest of the Ukip group.
:00:58. > :01:00.We'll have the latest on this breaking story.
:01:01. > :01:04.The Government unveils a major overhaul of the way the BBC is run:
:01:05. > :01:08.an external regulator, more transparency on star pay
:01:09. > :01:13.and licence fee guaranteed for another 11 years.
:01:14. > :01:22.New analysis shows a sharp increase in short-term immigration from the
:01:23. > :01:25.EU which isn't being picked up by official immigration statistics.
:01:26. > :01:32.So, are we underestimating the true numbers coming here?
:01:33. > :01:36.And, we speak to Bristol's new mayor on his plans for the city
:01:37. > :01:50.And with us for the whole programme today is the Guardian Columnist,
:01:51. > :02:13.ITV has announced it will host the it. V debate featuring David Cameron
:02:14. > :02:19.and the Ukip leader Nigel Farage ahead of next month's vote. But the
:02:20. > :02:24.two men won't go head-to-head. They'll appear one after the other.
:02:25. > :02:30.However, the vote leave group has accused ITV of a stitch-up. Because
:02:31. > :02:33.Mr Farage belongs to a rival eurosceptic cap pain and not the
:02:34. > :02:38.Vote Leave campaign. Now to our correspondent. What's the
:02:39. > :02:48.significance of all this? In is about a debate scheduled to
:02:49. > :02:51.take place on 7th June. It will be David Cameron answering questions
:02:52. > :02:56.from a studio audience and then Nigel Farage answering questions
:02:57. > :03:00.from a studio audience. They wouldn't be going head-to-head.
:03:01. > :03:07.Still, Vote Leave unhappy with what's going on. That's because,
:03:08. > :03:13.they don't really like Nigel Farage. Vote Leave being the official Out
:03:14. > :03:18.campaign, Nigel Farage had hoped his would be the official campaign. That
:03:19. > :03:23.didn't happen. Vote Leave concerned Nigel Farage is at best a divisive
:03:24. > :03:27.character who would butt off as many undecided voters as he would
:03:28. > :03:31.persuades them to vote to leave. That's what they're worried about.
:03:32. > :03:38.They have issued something of a rather ominous warning to ITV
:03:39. > :03:42.suggesting that ITV had effectively joined the official In campaign it
:03:43. > :03:47.there will be consequences for its future saying the people of Number
:03:48. > :03:51.Ten won't be there for long. ITV deny any stitch-up and say Nigel
:03:52. > :03:57.Farage has been campaigning to leave the EU for the past 20-odd years.
:03:58. > :03:58.Nigel Farage has hardly pulled any punches this morning.
:03:59. > :04:01.The official Vote Leave campaign are run by people who have tried
:04:02. > :04:05.tried to exclude me from everything which, frankly, is ludicrous.
:04:06. > :04:08.We cannot win the referendum if all we see are Conservative voices.
:04:09. > :04:09.I'm delighted we've six Cabinet Ministers.
:04:10. > :04:14.But we need Ukip, Labour and trade union voices.
:04:15. > :04:17.We need a degree of unity if we're going to work together.
:04:18. > :04:22.I'm sad to see what they've said about me.
:04:23. > :04:29.And, frankly, Michael Gove is chairman of Vote Leave,
:04:30. > :04:39.I would say to Michael, get a grip on your staff.
:04:40. > :04:45.The vote leave campaign would like someone like Boris Johnson, Iain
:04:46. > :04:48.Duncan Smith or Michael Gove to debate against the Prime Minister.
:04:49. > :04:52.It works out well for Downing Street. David Cameron wants to avoid
:04:53. > :04:56.too much blue on blue action. He doesn't want to debate those senior
:04:57. > :05:01.Conservative figures. It is hardly good for Tory unity. There are other
:05:02. > :05:05.debates in the offing. Channel 4, Sky and the bean with that huge
:05:06. > :05:09.debate planned all coming up. Noshiateses still underway. I
:05:10. > :05:13.suspect we haven't heard the end of all of this. These are usually the
:05:14. > :05:20.threats politicians make against the BBC. It's a least a change to have
:05:21. > :05:25.ITV in the frame instead. Takes the pressure off us for at least a day.
:05:26. > :05:29.This really suits the Prime Minister really well though, the Prime
:05:30. > :05:32.Minister gets to be the voice of Remain but rather than being up
:05:33. > :05:36.against the Michael Gove or Boris Johnson, he gets to define himself
:05:37. > :05:41.against Nigel Farage. He may be right or wrong but he thinks that
:05:42. > :05:46.good for his side of the argument? It goes back to this idea of just
:05:47. > :05:52.how divisive and how toxic is Nigel Farage as a figure for the Leave
:05:53. > :05:55.campaign. Nigel Farage insisted he's quite good for those indecideds. He
:05:56. > :06:00.plays well in the north and Midlands in the way maybe Boris Johnson
:06:01. > :06:03.doesn't. There's a feeling this morning from the In campaign,
:06:04. > :06:08.Downing Street, that Nigel Farage issing a of a toxic figures and
:06:09. > :06:13.actually, to have him as the main point of argument against him
:06:14. > :06:17.possibly a good thing for the Remain campaign. That that's the point the
:06:18. > :06:19.official Vote Leave campaign are trying to make.
:06:20. > :06:22.Now it's time for our daily quiz and it seems that yet again
:06:23. > :06:24.the all powerful Daily Politics has notched up another
:06:25. > :06:28.This time our fearless journalism has forced the Eurovision Song
:06:29. > :06:35.Contest to back down on one of their more outlandish directives,
:06:36. > :06:38.so our question for today is....what has eurovision
:06:39. > :06:46.B) Allowing people to throw underwear on stage?
:06:47. > :06:51.C) Allowing the show to be presented by yours truely?
:06:52. > :06:59.D) Repealing its ban on the Welsh flag?
:07:00. > :07:08.At the end of the show, Polly will give us the correct answer.
:07:09. > :07:16.Don't do it now. Do you have a suspicion? I think I it's probably
:07:17. > :07:20.not knickers! Don't go there yet! Sorry! I'll mark your card closer to
:07:21. > :07:23.the time. You may be surprised. Now, back in February we covered
:07:24. > :07:26.the curious discrepancy between official migration
:07:27. > :07:30.statistics and the level of National Insurance numbers
:07:31. > :07:33.issued to EU nationals. In recent years, there has been
:07:34. > :07:44.a sharp rise in National Insurance numbers for EU nationals which has
:07:45. > :07:47.led to claims that the true level of immigration from the EU
:07:48. > :07:52.is being underestimated. The government has been under
:07:53. > :07:57.pressure to explain why the two measures have been so different
:07:58. > :08:00.for so long. This morning, the Office
:08:01. > :08:05.for National Statistics One of those who has been pushing
:08:06. > :08:11.for answers is the economist Jonathan Portes, who has been
:08:12. > :08:25.pouring over the data. He's always been pouring over this.
:08:26. > :08:31.Jonathan, it seems, we've just got this, the ONS is saying the main
:08:32. > :08:35.explanation for the diversion is the people getting NI numbers are coming
:08:36. > :08:38.in just for a short time, less than a year, perhaps, to work and they
:08:39. > :08:43.don't show up in the migration figures. Do you buy that as largely
:08:44. > :08:48.the explanation? I buy it's largely the explanation. I agree with the
:08:49. > :08:54.ONS on that. They have gone good work on that. I don't buy it is the
:08:55. > :08:57.only explanation. I have a professional disagreement with them
:08:58. > :09:02.on that. What they published today suggests there is some degree of
:09:03. > :09:07.undercounting of long-term migration from the rest of the EU and some of
:09:08. > :09:12.the figures they've published today, in my view, support that. It is not
:09:13. > :09:17.the main explanation. It's not the case all the divergence is
:09:18. > :09:23.undercounting. Most is short-term migration. There still remains, in
:09:24. > :09:26.my view, some undercounting of long-term counting from EU member
:09:27. > :09:31.states in these new statistics. Do we have any idea of the scale of
:09:32. > :09:37.undercounting. Let's give our viewers of the figures. In the year
:09:38. > :09:42.to June 2015, quite typical of recent years, we counted 260,000
:09:43. > :09:49.migrants coming in from the EU. In other words, people coming here for
:09:50. > :09:53.over a year. But we gave out 697,000, almost 700,000 national
:09:54. > :10:00.insurance numbers. That is a big discrepe Si. Do we -- discrepancy.
:10:01. > :10:04.Do we have an idea what scale of that is accounted for by the ONS
:10:05. > :10:09.explanation and how much that leaves? A much better idea. That
:10:10. > :10:14.date is too recent to be analysed in any detail. Some of the people
:10:15. > :10:18.you're talking about there don't know if they're staying for three
:10:19. > :10:24.months or three years. They've only just arrived and not made their
:10:25. > :10:29.minds up, quite legitimately. If we go back to 2013/14, we get a better
:10:30. > :10:37.idea. There, we see the ONS migration statistics suggest about
:10:38. > :10:41.74,000 -- 740,000 people came in. Whereas the figures recorded are a
:10:42. > :10:45.bit fuzzy, suggest the numbers might be somewhere in the region of
:10:46. > :10:50.900,000 to one million. There's a lot of uncertainty about that. There
:10:51. > :10:53.are ledge the mat disagreements. I would say on the basis of this,
:10:54. > :10:57.there is some degree of undercurrenting. We're talking not
:10:58. > :11:02.more than tens of thousands but not many hundreds of thousands, if that
:11:03. > :11:09.makes sense. I wonder, Jonathan, if part of reason for the
:11:10. > :11:14.undercounting, is the international passenger survey, which is how we do
:11:15. > :11:18.this, is it fit for purpose? It was really invented to work out how many
:11:19. > :11:22.visitors and tourists were coming to this country. Do you have a problem
:11:23. > :11:30.with your sound? Can you hear me all right? No, he can't hear me. He's
:11:31. > :11:33.actually all of ten yards away. We've naturally lost the sound. If
:11:34. > :11:37.he was in Baghdad, we'd probably have him. We'll come back to you.
:11:38. > :11:41.What do you make of this? It is interesting. There's always been a
:11:42. > :11:47.lot of confusion about national insurance numbers. Frank Field, the
:11:48. > :11:51.great expert on this, long before he was much interested in migration
:11:52. > :11:56.always complained about the need to clean up national insurance numbers.
:11:57. > :12:00.They're very, very baggy. It's not quite clear, people can work for a
:12:01. > :12:03.bit, go away. It's not clear what their significance is. This is
:12:04. > :12:08.interesting. How many people do come in. For short-term agricultural
:12:09. > :12:11.work, summer season. Tourist work. It's hard to know how much. My
:12:12. > :12:19.understanding is still, and Jonathan, we have him back, we'll
:12:20. > :12:23.get him to mark our card on this. We know the number of NI numbers the
:12:24. > :12:28.Government release but not the number of NI numbers that are
:12:29. > :12:34.active. That's true. We should know that to be in formed, shouldn't we?
:12:35. > :12:37.I think we should. More information and more information and we can
:12:38. > :12:42.analyse it better. But I do think it's interesting how many people
:12:43. > :12:46.come here, work for a while in some God awful car wash, sleeping ten to
:12:47. > :12:53.a bedroom and go home again with a little bit of money in their pocket.
:12:54. > :12:57.But you know, I'll come back to Jonathan in a second, will be said
:12:58. > :13:04.by the Leave, the official count of migration from. EU under estimates,
:13:05. > :13:08.there will be an argument about how much, underestimates the numbers
:13:09. > :13:13.coming here? I think Jonathan is the man who knows. If he says they are
:13:14. > :13:19.underestimating it, I'm sure he's right. He's kept his finger most on
:13:20. > :13:26.the pulse. Jonathan, you can hear me again now? I can, yeah. What I was
:13:27. > :13:28.saying to you was is this the international passenger sir Vai,
:13:29. > :13:32.which is how we measure people coming in, is it really fit for
:13:33. > :13:37.purpose in this age of mass migration? It was originally
:13:38. > :13:41.invented, as I understand it, to mesh you are the number of --
:13:42. > :13:46.measure the number of visitors coming here. The percentage within
:13:47. > :13:50.that survey that are migrants short or long-term, is very small. Small
:13:51. > :13:55.changes can make a huge difference to the outcome of the survey. Is
:13:56. > :13:59.that fair? Well, it's fair. I wouldn't say it's not fit for
:14:00. > :14:03.purpose. It's the best thing we have. If you look at this in the
:14:04. > :14:09.round, it hasn't performed that badly. We may have been
:14:10. > :14:13.underestimating the number of migrants in recent years. It is the
:14:14. > :14:18.one survey which gives us the best picture of what's happening today.
:14:19. > :14:23.We've stopmented that with some of the data held on Government systems.
:14:24. > :14:28.There may have been some undercounting. But we shouldn't
:14:29. > :14:32.chuck it in the bin. To follow up on what Polly was saying, going to the
:14:33. > :14:36.wider picture. One thing which is very interesting, the reason all
:14:37. > :14:39.this came about, the reason I started poking around in these
:14:40. > :14:44.numbers, was the Prime Minister's claim that 40% of recently arrived
:14:45. > :14:50.European migrants were claiming benefits in some form or other. One
:14:51. > :14:54.thing this does do, it is buried in a footnote towards the end, it
:14:55. > :15:01.explodes that. The Prime Minister's comments were wrong. He should
:15:02. > :15:05.apologise and correct. Looking at this how much, tax EU migrants pay
:15:06. > :15:10.during the period, it shows once again what I and others have said
:15:11. > :15:14.for some considerable time, which is EU migrants, however many of them
:15:15. > :15:19.there are, they don't come here to claim benefits. They come here to
:15:20. > :15:24.work and make a strong positive contribution to the economy. Are we
:15:25. > :15:28.able to tell what percentage of EU migrants take either in work or out
:15:29. > :15:34.of work benefits and combine the two? Well, to be honest, there are
:15:35. > :15:41.still details to be worked through there. We know it is considerably
:15:42. > :15:45.less than the Prime Minister's 40%. He was assuming there were half a
:15:46. > :15:50.million migrants when he made that calculation. The HMRC calculations
:15:51. > :15:52.suggest it is more like a million. He may have been off by a factor of
:15:53. > :16:02.two. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan Portes. I think
:16:03. > :16:03.this is good to be a big story over the next couple of days.
:16:04. > :16:06.For more on this we're joined by Ukip's immigration
:16:07. > :16:07.spokesman Steven Woolfe, who's in Strasbourg.
:16:08. > :16:09.And Polly Toynbee is still with me here.
:16:10. > :16:20.Steven Woolfe, what is your take on the ONS explanation? Well, good
:16:21. > :16:24.morning to everybody, I think these are pretty damning figures for the
:16:25. > :16:29.government. I think it blows out of the water two things. First of all,
:16:30. > :16:32.as everybody knows, they cannot control migration coming into the UK
:16:33. > :16:36.from the European Union. It also blows out of the water that they
:16:37. > :16:41.have any control of understanding how to calculate those people
:16:42. > :16:45.working here and claiming benefits as Jonathan has just said. What we
:16:46. > :16:49.have is a failure at the heart of government encapsulating an
:16:50. > :16:51.understanding one of the most important things that matters to
:16:52. > :16:57.people in the UK at the moment, immigration. But it seems that what
:16:58. > :17:06.has come out from the ONS, and the figures will be pored over, but it
:17:07. > :17:11.does suggest that most of the discrepancy is explained by
:17:12. > :17:20.short-term migration, here and gone within a year, so they do not count
:17:21. > :17:22.on the European definition. The UN definition of migration. And the
:17:23. > :17:32.overwhelming number of migrants coming here come here to work, not
:17:33. > :17:37.to live on benefits. I think what it shows is the reliance on a group of
:17:38. > :17:41.hard-working people standing at airports with clipboards trying to
:17:42. > :17:44.assess whether people are here for the wanton or not is not really the
:17:45. > :17:49.most modern way of translating whether people stay here the long
:17:50. > :17:53.term. Even just a simple example, some of the people they say are
:17:54. > :17:59.short-term could come here and work this year for a short term, go home
:18:00. > :18:03.and come back next year for work. We're not alkylating that. When you
:18:04. > :18:07.start to analyse the fact that you are relying on clipboards rather
:18:08. > :18:11.than proper assessment through technology, if we can count people
:18:12. > :18:14.going on the tube is surely we should be able to assess who is
:18:15. > :18:19.coming in and out of the country. We must address that. And I think the
:18:20. > :18:22.argument is always suggested that those people who come from Europe do
:18:23. > :18:28.actually work in the European Union. And this will be even greater when
:18:29. > :18:32.we get the living wage, the ?9 here will act as a pool for people coming
:18:33. > :18:42.from poorer countries, where wages are lower. But as we know from the
:18:43. > :18:45.Bank of England's statistics, and from the UN, we know that
:18:46. > :18:50.large-scale migration, in the way that we have it at the moment,
:18:51. > :18:55.pushes down wages. And I know it is arguable, but there is some level of
:18:56. > :18:58.job displacement. That is an important factor for people in the
:18:59. > :19:04.economy, where we have a large amount of austerity. Let's leave it
:19:05. > :19:07.there, there is such a long delay on the wind that it is hard to have a
:19:08. > :19:11.conversation with you, but I am grateful to you for turning up and
:19:12. > :19:15.asking these questions. It is early days and the figures have just come
:19:16. > :19:18.out. It is very complicated but we will be poring over them and getting
:19:19. > :19:23.more detail and we will come back to this subject, to work out if we have
:19:24. > :19:27.a clearer picture of the national insurance figures and the migration
:19:28. > :19:31.figures from the EU. These are figures that have just come out. And
:19:32. > :19:34.even we cannot get over them that quickly.
:19:35. > :19:36.Now, dramatic scenes in the Welsh Assembly yesterday.
:19:37. > :19:39.An informal coalition of Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives
:19:40. > :19:43.and Ukip successfully blocked a vote to re-appoint Carwyn Jones
:19:44. > :19:46.as the country's First Minister, following the Welsh Assembly
:19:47. > :19:51.elections last week in which Labour lost its overall majority.
:19:52. > :19:54.However, this programme understands that Ukip's leader in Wales -
:19:55. > :19:56.he's called Nathan Gill - has been in talks with Labour
:19:57. > :19:58.about giving his support to Carwyn Jones in return
:19:59. > :20:01.for a proposal to scrap the tolls on the Severn Bridge.
:20:02. > :20:04.Now, if this were true, it would deny the chance
:20:05. > :20:11.of Plaid Cymru's leader becoming Wales's First Minister.
:20:12. > :20:17.We can talk now to Simon Thomas, an Assembly Member for Plaid's Cymru.
:20:18. > :20:26.-- Plaid Cymru. Simon Thomas, have you heard that Ukip is about to do
:20:27. > :20:32.this is maybe even going to split on the matter? No, we have not heard
:20:33. > :20:36.anything formally about that but it does not surprise me. Ukip have
:20:37. > :20:39.clearly been split since Neil Hamilton challenged the leadership
:20:40. > :20:44.of the group. But Nathan Gill remains the leader in Wales. Labour
:20:45. > :20:48.have a clear choice, now, of course, they can do a deal with individuals
:20:49. > :20:51.like Nathan Gill and Kirsty Williams or they can talk to the mainstream
:20:52. > :20:55.parties about being a proper minority government with a set of
:20:56. > :21:01.policies about which there is consensus. How much would Leanne
:21:02. > :21:05.Wood like to be first Minister? It would be a minority administration
:21:06. > :21:13.of some kind, but does that not have some dangers? Yes, and there is
:21:14. > :21:20.always danger when you take risks in politics but we set up Leanne Wood
:21:21. > :21:25.as a alternative to Carwyn Jones yesterday. Both parties are talking
:21:26. > :21:28.about minority administration is, having to deal and negotiate with
:21:29. > :21:32.other parties in the assembly. Clearly Labour have the largest
:21:33. > :21:37.number, but they have to have a majority. In a parliamentary system,
:21:38. > :21:40.we would expect them to try to form a majority of confidence in the
:21:41. > :21:45.parliament, and that has not happened yet. That is why yesterday
:21:46. > :21:50.we did not come to an agreement. What kind of arrangements did Plaid
:21:51. > :21:56.Cymru have with Ukip to get this vote yesterday? None whatsoever. We
:21:57. > :22:00.told them we were putting up Leanne Wood as First Minister, and they
:22:01. > :22:14.took their own decision as to whether they would support him or
:22:15. > :22:16.Leanne Wood. This is the first election since the proper parliament
:22:17. > :22:21.has been established in Wales, and I think we are starting to be more
:22:22. > :22:25.interesting. A Plaid Cymru administration would certainly shake
:22:26. > :22:29.things up. Many may regard this as more interesting. But it could also
:22:30. > :22:37.be rather unstable if you are dependent on conservative and Ukip
:22:38. > :22:43.votes. What you have just described, Leanne Wood is a pro Europe
:22:44. > :22:50.socialist. Depending on the Conservatives and Ukip does not
:22:51. > :22:59.strike me as a firm base. I think that is a fair point. But neither
:23:00. > :23:03.does a Labour coalition, with support from the Lib Dems. We saw
:23:04. > :23:10.yesterday that they cannot you get support. It is beholden of the
:23:11. > :23:15.opposition to see whether we can reach out and get consensus with
:23:16. > :23:18.other parties on some of these issues, including the health service
:23:19. > :23:22.and the steel crisis, things we need to move upon. At the moment we have
:23:23. > :23:27.to be frank. We did not get a consensus on that yesterday and
:23:28. > :23:31.neither do the Labour Party. All things should be discussed but I
:23:32. > :23:34.would be amazed if the Labour Party were prepared to do a deal with an
:23:35. > :23:38.individual Ukip member like Nathan Gill and it just shows you the level
:23:39. > :23:43.of desperation of the Labour Party at the moment. We will come back to
:23:44. > :23:48.you for one minute to mark your card on how do you think this will play
:23:49. > :23:54.out. It sounds quite obligated. What is your take on this, Olly? It is a
:23:55. > :24:02.difficult situation. It looks utterly absurd for Plaid Cymru to be
:24:03. > :24:10.going in there with the consent of Ukip. If there is a split in Ukip,
:24:11. > :24:16.we're not surprised because they are right back. I was on to say that the
:24:17. > :24:21.Hamilton was an unexploded bomb but he is a completely exploded bomb. I
:24:22. > :24:26.think you can expect a lot of interest from the Welsh Assembly. It
:24:27. > :24:31.does make it interesting. Let me go back to Simon Thomas. Tell us, how
:24:32. > :24:38.do you think this will work out come up and what will be and when will it
:24:39. > :24:41.come, the Welsh administration? We have three weeks to agree this,
:24:42. > :24:45.otherwise there will be a new election. I don't think anyone is
:24:46. > :24:49.looking for a new election. We are all very well paid, and I think the
:24:50. > :24:53.people of Wales expect us to reach an agreement. But that agreement has
:24:54. > :24:57.two reflect that no single party won a majority and it has to reflect
:24:58. > :25:01.that no single party can rule and have a First Minister and a
:25:02. > :25:07.government without the consent of at least one other substantial party.
:25:08. > :25:13.And I think that goes beyond individuals and it is beholden on
:25:14. > :25:18.Plaid Cymru to talk with other parties, if necessary the other
:25:19. > :25:21.parties about wider issues including revitalising democracy. Whatever the
:25:22. > :25:26.government is suggesting we need to hold them to better scrutiny than we
:25:27. > :25:27.have done in the past. Thank you for joining us. A fascinating situation
:25:28. > :25:30.in Cardiff. World leaders are meeting
:25:31. > :25:32.in Central London today for an anti-corruption summit
:25:33. > :25:34.organised by the British Government. David Cameron says he called
:25:35. > :25:37.the summit because corruption is "the cancer at the heart
:25:38. > :25:42.of so many of the world's problems". The Prime Minister has also
:25:43. > :25:45.announced a raft of policies For example, foreign owners of UK
:25:46. > :25:54.properties will be forced to join a so-called "public register
:25:55. > :26:06.of beneficial ownership". That is so that people will be able
:26:07. > :26:10.to see who is behind the company, who owns that particular property.
:26:11. > :26:12.Let's hear what the Prime Minister had to say at the summit this
:26:13. > :26:18.morning. If we want to see countries escape
:26:19. > :26:23.poverty and become wealthy, we need to tackle corruption. If we want
:26:24. > :26:27.countries that have great natural resources, to make sure that they
:26:28. > :26:30.use those to the benefit of their people, we need to tackle
:26:31. > :26:33.corruption. If we want to defeat terrorism and extremism, we have to
:26:34. > :26:36.recognise that corruption and lack of access to justice can often be
:26:37. > :26:42.the way that people are driven towards extremism. So that was the
:26:43. > :26:44.Prime Minister kicking off the anti-corruption conference.
:26:45. > :26:48.Martin Tisne is a transparency expert
:26:49. > :26:51.who's been advising the government on their anti-corruption policies.
:26:52. > :26:56.He joins us from the summit at Lancaster House in London.
:26:57. > :27:05.Just down the road from here. Let's come to you right away. What could
:27:06. > :27:11.be the single most important thing to come out of this summit? I think
:27:12. > :27:17.the single most important thing to come out of the summit is to have a
:27:18. > :27:20.change so that we know who the real owners of anonymous companies are.
:27:21. > :27:26.What we need is to create a global war so it is simply no longer
:27:27. > :27:32.possible to hide behind a company. -- global law. At this point in time
:27:33. > :27:36.anonymous companies are getaway car for criminals and terrorists. If you
:27:37. > :27:40.steal ?100, you can put it under your mattress but if you steal ?10
:27:41. > :27:45.million, what did you do? You set up an anonymous company and buy a big
:27:46. > :27:49.house in Notting Hill. The UK commitment is fantastic, which is
:27:50. > :27:52.that foreign countries seeking to enter into contracts with the UK
:27:53. > :27:57.government will need to disclose their owners are. The real point of
:27:58. > :28:01.the summit is to have systematic global action on this, so that we
:28:02. > :28:07.change the law. Otherwise the risk is a game of whack a mole. We do it
:28:08. > :28:09.and others don't and the companies will register in other
:28:10. > :28:13.jurisdictions. This is a really exciting moment, the first time in
:28:14. > :28:17.the 21st century that global leaders at a high level have come together
:28:18. > :28:24.specifically to fight corruption. Last year the New York Times
:28:25. > :28:34.reported that 85 billion pounds of property had been bought in London
:28:35. > :28:39.alone with cash. Would what is being proposed bring more transparency to
:28:40. > :28:43.transactions like that? Absolutely. I think there are two things going
:28:44. > :28:48.on here. Transparency is good but not in and of itself. What we need
:28:49. > :28:51.is prevention. So we are hoping that it will make it much less likely
:28:52. > :28:56.that it will act as a deterrent for those who are using these ill gotten
:28:57. > :28:59.gains, this cash to buy properties in London and elsewhere. But the
:29:00. > :29:03.second point is equally important. We are hoping that we will have
:29:04. > :29:07.information not only on the real owners of companies but also on
:29:08. > :29:11.contracts. 60% of bribes in the whole world come from public
:29:12. > :29:19.contracting. Those companies, much of the money comes from public
:29:20. > :29:21.contracts and so that is why we welcome the announcement by the UK
:29:22. > :29:23.and also by the Nigerian government to shine a light on public
:29:24. > :29:26.contracts. That means that the information will go to the right
:29:27. > :29:31.people at the right time in the right format, and leads to
:29:32. > :29:35.corruption prosecutions. There are two angles, prevention, deterrence,
:29:36. > :29:38.people will be less likely to buy properties in London with money from
:29:39. > :29:42.ill gotten gains, and also law enforcement, journalists and other
:29:43. > :29:48.bodies will be able to piece together the information. Who owns
:29:49. > :29:51.the company? How is the money spent to avoid prosecution? That is what
:29:52. > :29:59.is absolutely clear and the exciting thing coming out of this. So to take
:30:00. > :30:05.your example of the expensive property in Notting Hill. At the
:30:06. > :30:12.moment, all we know is that this ?25 million house has been bought by the
:30:13. > :30:16.no name company. So after these changes, we find out that it is
:30:17. > :30:25.owned by John Smith or some other name. How do we then establish that
:30:26. > :30:30.John Smith's money is corrupt? This is exactly it. That is the point. Mr
:30:31. > :30:33.Smith owns a company that owns a big house in Notting Hill but what we
:30:34. > :30:38.then need to know is where did that money come from? That company, what
:30:39. > :30:42.other companies is it related to? This is why we are excited to have
:30:43. > :30:46.France and the Netherlands and other countries commit to public
:30:47. > :30:49.registries so we need to know what company they are connected with. But
:30:50. > :30:50.he has probably not brought the money in from France or Holland, has
:30:51. > :31:02.he? No, So how do we find out? We've
:31:03. > :31:07.information on whole real owners of those companies are in a global
:31:08. > :31:14.register of beneficial owners of companies so we can trace the chain.
:31:15. > :31:17.Many times these companies go through 12, 13, changes of
:31:18. > :31:21.companies. We find the beneficial owner. That's the one at the end of
:31:22. > :31:26.the chain, not in the middle of the chain. We know where the money came
:31:27. > :31:29.from because we've information on public contracts in Nigeria, the UK
:31:30. > :31:34.and elsewhere. Stick with us. One final question. What do you make of
:31:35. > :31:41.this, Polly? It's an excellent move. High time. It is sad America and
:31:42. > :31:44.Britain wagged their fingers the whole time at the Third World for
:31:45. > :31:51.corruption and we don't shut every door we could. The Cayman Islands
:31:52. > :31:57.refuse the parities pace. In America, Delaware is one of the
:31:58. > :32:01.great tax evasions. And Nevada. We should do that first. Through those
:32:02. > :32:06.places comes a great deal of this corruption. We could turn off the
:32:07. > :32:09.taps immediately to the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands.
:32:10. > :32:15.The Government says it is not democratic. We could tell our banks
:32:16. > :32:20.you will not deal with money from those countries, we do not trust it.
:32:21. > :32:25.The whole financial industry would be dead. General de Gaulle, when he
:32:26. > :32:29.was angry at Monaco for their tax cheating, he surrounded the place
:32:30. > :32:35.with troops and turned off their water supply. We could do the same
:32:36. > :32:41.by turning off their banking supply. Going back to being their colonial
:32:42. > :32:45.masters? They have to be transparent. Britain are taking
:32:46. > :32:48.certain positions. There are like-minded countries at that summit
:32:49. > :32:52.behind you. Maybe not all like-minded. Most of the countries
:32:53. > :32:59.in the word are not represented there. How far away are we from a
:33:00. > :33:04.register of beneficial ownership being global? I understand the logic
:33:05. > :33:08.of that. It would seem to me that will be very difficult to do and
:33:09. > :33:14.we're probably quite a long way away from it? I think there's two things
:33:15. > :33:18.here. This is a really big step in the right direction towards having a
:33:19. > :33:23.global registry of beneficial owners. And the summit very much is
:33:24. > :33:26.about both the developed and developing countries tackling this
:33:27. > :33:30.global issue together. In order, you're right, there are 40 countries
:33:31. > :33:33.coming to the summit today, one of the next staging posts of global
:33:34. > :33:38.summit of open Government partnership in December in Paris,
:33:39. > :33:43.the open Government partnership brings together 70 countries. If we
:33:44. > :33:47.had all those members commit we would have 70 countries in the
:33:48. > :33:51.world. We would be a long way or a closer way to building a global norm
:33:52. > :33:57.to fight the scourge of corruption. Thank you for joining us from the
:33:58. > :33:58.anti-corruption summit at Lancaster House in London
:33:59. > :34:00.Now, the Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has been outlining
:34:01. > :34:03.the government's plans for the future of the BBC this morning.
:34:04. > :34:05.The BBC's Royal Charter - the agreement which sets
:34:06. > :34:08.the broadcaster's rules and purpose - expires in December.
:34:09. > :34:12.And today's White Paper outlines how the corporation will be run
:34:13. > :34:19.Let's take a look at the main proposals:
:34:20. > :34:22.The Trust governing the BBC will be abolished and a new board set up
:34:23. > :34:31.Culture Secretary John Whittingdale said this will create a "new, strong
:34:32. > :34:36.unitary board" in charge of the BBC with some government appointments,
:34:37. > :34:41.but at least half the board members decided by the BBC.
:34:42. > :34:47.Ofcom will become the BBC's external regulator and arbitrate on
:34:48. > :34:51.impartiality and accuracy complaints.
:34:52. > :34:54.And the BBC will release details of the salaries of stars
:34:55. > :35:07.The licence fee - which is currently set at ?145.50 a year -
:35:08. > :35:27.It will rise in line with inflation for the next five years.
:35:28. > :35:38.In future, -- 202 I 2 viewers will need to pay the licence fee
:35:39. > :35:40.to use BBC iPlayer - closing a loophole which allowed
:35:41. > :35:45.The charter renewal period will be extended from 10 to 11 years,
:35:46. > :35:47.to make sure any future decisions about the BBC
:35:48. > :35:54.will not clash with election campaigns.
:35:55. > :35:58.And the new charter will "enshrine diversity" measures
:35:59. > :36:03.to ensure the BBC reflects its audiences on and off screen.
:36:04. > :36:05.Let's take a look at what the Culture Secretary has said
:36:06. > :36:20.The new charter will create a unitary board for the BBC that has a
:36:21. > :36:24.much clearer separation of governance and regulation. The board
:36:25. > :36:27.will be responsible for ensuring that the BBC's strategy, activity
:36:28. > :36:33.and output are in the public interest and accord to the mission
:36:34. > :36:37.and purposes set out in the charter. Editorial decisions will remain the
:36:38. > :36:42.responsibility of the Director General and his editorial
:36:43. > :36:46.independence will be explicitly enshrined in the charter while the
:36:47. > :36:51.unitary board will consider any issues or complaints which arise
:36:52. > :36:55.post transmission. That was John Whittingdale issuing a statement
:36:56. > :36:59.very different from much of the speculation that has gone on
:37:00. > :37:04.beforehand about what was in store for the BBC. Let's speak to Damian
:37:05. > :37:09.Green, chairman of the parliamentary all-partiy group of the BBC. Didn't
:37:10. > :37:11.know we had one. And foal low Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen. A
:37:12. > :37:22.critic What's not to like about this? Not a
:37:23. > :37:27.lot. The only shock is they don't pay you more than 4 #50?,000. It is
:37:28. > :37:32.an outrage. Probably the first thing you and I have ever agreed about.
:37:33. > :37:39.Thank you for that! It is broadly sensible. The key thing for me was
:37:40. > :37:44.maintaining the BBC's editorial independence. There were a lot of
:37:45. > :37:48.scare stories,er certainly things that sounded Luke crews, including
:37:49. > :37:52.not allowing the BBC to make popular programmes at peak times. But also
:37:53. > :37:57.this thought that the Government would appoint a majority of the new
:37:58. > :38:00.board members. That's gone away. Clearly a majority of the board
:38:01. > :38:05.members will be appointed by the BBC. The Director General will be
:38:06. > :38:10.explicitly alone responsible for editorial content. That seems to
:38:11. > :38:17.preserve the independence of BBC which is the cornerstone of its
:38:18. > :38:22.appeal. Andrew, has John Whittingdale bottled it? I don't
:38:23. > :38:26.think so. It is a good White Paper. One of my problems with the BBC is
:38:27. > :38:30.the lack of trust in the BBC Trust. You can't have your regulator as
:38:31. > :38:35.your biggest cheerleader. Off cock being brought in to deal with
:38:36. > :38:41.regulation and complaints, that's all very healthy. So, you have no
:38:42. > :38:45.reservations about what's being proposed? Because it bears no
:38:46. > :38:49.resemblance to many of the ideas that were floated in the run up to
:38:50. > :38:56.this White Paper when all sorts of things were meant to be in play for
:38:57. > :38:59.the BBC? Well, as you know, I favoured decriminalisation that led
:39:00. > :39:03.to the David Perry review. It was concluded that the BBC could not
:39:04. > :39:10.cope with decriminalisation and the effect it would have on its revenue
:39:11. > :39:15.stream. We have to be pragmatic. The changes we have here are opening the
:39:16. > :39:20.door to closing the judicial loophole, iPlayer. The BBC accident'
:39:21. > :39:23.get all it wanted. Most people can charge for the goods and services
:39:24. > :39:30.they provide. Sometimes the BBC think they can charge for what their
:39:31. > :39:35.rivals provide. The BBC wanted people to buy a license if they
:39:36. > :39:40.accessed through iPlayer etc. That was reisted by the Government.
:39:41. > :39:45.Damian, there will be concerns inside the BBC about Ofcom
:39:46. > :39:50.regulation and even the National Audit Office, what exactly the
:39:51. > :39:55.detail operational detail it may be able to reveal of things the BBC may
:39:56. > :39:59.think is private. If you step back from all of that, is it not
:40:00. > :40:03.remarkable that the licence fee, which 15 years ago many people
:40:04. > :40:08.thought would not really have much longer to go, hoes now been
:40:09. > :40:12.enshrined and largely linked to inflation for another 11 years. It's
:40:13. > :40:15.there now until the middle of the next decade at the very least. That
:40:16. > :40:22.is quite a remarkable result, is it not? Historically, completely
:40:23. > :40:26.remarkable. I remember in the 1990s, I advised the BBC for a time in the
:40:27. > :40:32.run up to a charter review. It was a given then because of the internet
:40:33. > :40:36.and all that was about to happen that certainly by 2006, nobody
:40:37. > :40:41.thought the BBC licence fee would be sustainable. Here we are, it will
:40:42. > :40:47.still be there in 2027. What's happened is classic British Prague
:40:48. > :40:52.fattism. If you're inventing a theoretical system you would try to
:40:53. > :40:58.fund public service broadcasting some other way not through the
:40:59. > :41:02.license knee. Because it broadly works, by and large the BBC is a
:41:03. > :41:05.hugely important national institution, widely loved in this
:41:06. > :41:11.country. Wyely respected around the world. Actually, doing anything to
:41:12. > :41:17.damage it would be an act of cultural vandalism. We end up with
:41:18. > :41:22.anomalies like the licence fee. It was once called worse than the poll
:41:23. > :41:29.tax? Something worse than the poll tax will enshrine in law and index
:41:30. > :41:33.link to inflation for five or six years, the inflation bit and the
:41:34. > :41:38.licence fee for another 11 years. Worse than the poll tax for another
:41:39. > :41:43.11 years. It is the last gas for the licence fee. It doesn't matter what
:41:44. > :41:48.the Government funding mechanisms. It is about the ninth last gasp over
:41:49. > :41:52.the years. Technology would move forward and will drive the demands
:41:53. > :41:58.of the consumer. That's what I was told at the end of the la charter
:41:59. > :42:03.renewal. After this charter renewal people will be streaming their
:42:04. > :42:07.content online and the BBC can charge for their iPlayer services.
:42:08. > :42:12.They need to charge for that service around the world and bring the back
:42:13. > :42:15.cat lot of BBC World online and use it as a revenue stream. That will be
:42:16. > :42:20.the revenue stream by the end of this charter review. Should all
:42:21. > :42:25.these luvvies that turned the BAFTA awards into a north Korean Communist
:42:26. > :42:29.Party rally get back in their box? Basically, yes. All those who were
:42:30. > :42:34.saying this would be terrible and this Government was going to destroy
:42:35. > :42:39.the BBC, actually, wrong. Go and read the White Paper. Hear what the
:42:40. > :42:44.BBC say. This gives the BBC the chance to carry on doing what it
:42:45. > :42:50.does, what people love, for another ten years with a stable, if slightly
:42:51. > :42:55.anone louse funding regime, which broadly speaking works. It is not
:42:56. > :42:59.like the poll tax. I doubt the Secretary of State or Government
:43:00. > :43:06.will get an apology from the luvvies any time soon. That's also possibly
:43:07. > :43:12.true. We've Richard Wilson on This Week tonight. We'll see. Andrew is
:43:13. > :43:17.happy overall with what's happened. Are you sure you're happy? It is the
:43:18. > :43:20.best deal the Secretary of State could have cut begin the situation.
:43:21. > :43:25.I like the idea of a health check after five years. It has to work.
:43:26. > :43:30.The BBC has huge power. It needs accountability. It is getting the
:43:31. > :43:35.thick end of four billion of taxpayers' money. They deserve more
:43:36. > :43:40.transparency and accountability from the BBC. If it's not, this won't be
:43:41. > :43:45.the solution. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Polly, I would
:43:46. > :43:48.suggest what's happened here, I've lived through it several times,
:43:49. > :43:52.Governments come into power. They're determined to do something about the
:43:53. > :43:58.BBC. I remember John Major telling me he was going to do it in 1992. Mr
:43:59. > :44:03.Whittingdale seems to want to do it this time. Even Harold Wilson wanted
:44:04. > :44:07.to do something to the BBC. What happens is, more important events
:44:08. > :44:11.take over and even if it was the right thing to do, it is just not
:44:12. > :44:15.worth the candle? Don't underestimate what has happened to
:44:16. > :44:21.the BBC. Doesn't surprise me flakey rebels on the Tory side are backing
:44:22. > :44:26.off. Which one? Andrew Br architis dge negotiation. No, Damian Green.
:44:27. > :44:32.Andrew has it right. Got most of what he wants. There was a decoy out
:44:33. > :44:37.there. We'll decide how to scheduled bake-off and Strictly. What really
:44:38. > :44:43.matters is governance. Never before has the BBC's day-to-day running,
:44:44. > :44:48.its editorial decision-making, been run by political appointees. It is
:44:49. > :44:52.not. It will be enshrined in the BBC who will be given special protection
:44:53. > :44:57.to be independent. The board, will not be able to get involved in
:44:58. > :45:01.editorial matters until after anything has been broadcast, which
:45:02. > :45:07.was the situation under the governance. Nevertheless, it's far
:45:08. > :45:11.closer. There is only one board. That's what it used to be like. They
:45:12. > :45:16.are making decisions about deployments of all kinds. Before, it
:45:17. > :45:21.was are arm's length. A peculiar brand of... The Government appointed
:45:22. > :45:28.all the trustees. Trust was none on... They appointed the governors
:45:29. > :45:31.before the days of the treesees. The majority of people on this board
:45:32. > :45:37.will be appointed by the BBC. The Government will have no say over
:45:38. > :45:41.these appointees? Do you think the BBC will appoint six anti-Government
:45:42. > :45:45.people? Of course they won't. Boards are not like that. They may appoint
:45:46. > :45:49.six independent people. Who's independent? Everyone has their own
:45:50. > :45:54.views. They'll appoint a balance, the BBC is very balanced. The
:45:55. > :45:58.Government gets to a to appoint six people to this board. The chairman,
:45:59. > :46:02.vice-chairman, four from the nations and regions. They'll have to go
:46:03. > :46:06.through the northern procedures. Gone are the days where the Home
:46:07. > :46:12.Secretary calls up his best mate from school. Then the BBC, with the
:46:13. > :46:17.DG leading the way, gets to a point more than six.
:46:18. > :46:22.But they will not necessarily be anti-government people. You seem to
:46:23. > :46:27.be denying that the government is now a huge step closer to the
:46:28. > :46:31.day-to-day running of the BBC than it ever has been in the past. We
:46:32. > :46:36.never had to put up with this. But it is the job of the management
:46:37. > :46:39.committee, not the board, the job of the executive management committee
:46:40. > :46:44.to run the BBC's day-to-day business. The board will not run it
:46:45. > :46:49.like that. But you are closer than ever. Chris Patten has the right
:46:50. > :46:54.idea. He said that these important bodies, Channel 4, Ofcom, the BBC,
:46:55. > :46:57.where editorial decisions are being made, the appointments should be
:46:58. > :47:00.made by an independent commission like you have an independent
:47:01. > :47:05.commission for appointing judges, away from government. The head of
:47:06. > :47:08.Ofcom, and all of these other broadcasting bodies, should be
:47:09. > :47:12.decided entirely independently by a separate commission. Then we would
:47:13. > :47:18.know... Do you think this is a bad deal for the BBC? I think it is a
:47:19. > :47:21.worse deal than it looks. Ofcom is now run by a reputable civil servant
:47:22. > :47:26.but at any point the government could put in somebody else, as they
:47:27. > :47:30.did with the charities commission. Can I just point out that the BBC
:47:31. > :47:35.will have a majority of people on the board. There will be no
:47:36. > :47:40.scheduling at all. There will be no change in the budget deal that has
:47:41. > :47:45.already been done. The licence fee is there for another 11 years. It is
:47:46. > :47:50.index-linked and there is a remit to increased adversity. There is more
:47:51. > :47:55.pressure for the BBC to be distinct, which is what public service
:47:56. > :48:00.broadcasting is. And there is a special independent protection for
:48:01. > :48:03.the Director General. No top sizing and nonpayment of the licence fee is
:48:04. > :48:08.still an offence. True. These are things that have not changed. They
:48:09. > :48:12.have not undermine the BBC. I think the BBC is undermined by the nature
:48:13. > :48:16.of it all, by direct political appointees. I also think it is
:48:17. > :48:20.somewhat undermined by putting it under Ofcom, which is a competition
:48:21. > :48:24.regulator. The BBC is not in a commercial market. Others have to
:48:25. > :48:30.sail along beside it as best they can. But it is in a market. Not
:48:31. > :48:35.really. The idea that lawyers from outside broadcasting would come in
:48:36. > :48:39.and challenge Ofcom to say that the BBC is anti-competitive on this or
:48:40. > :48:43.that or the other. That is a real new arena. The idea that they are
:48:44. > :48:51.told they must be distinctive takes us back. Then, should they really be
:48:52. > :48:54.doing strictly? It is looking at the BBC as if they should be doing only
:48:55. > :49:01.the things that nobody else wants to do. That is not what distinctive
:49:02. > :49:04.means. I'm not sure what the point of public service broadcasting is if
:49:05. > :49:06.you are supposed to be distinctive. It is distinctive and it is the best
:49:07. > :49:08.at what it does on the whole. All eyes may have been on London's
:49:09. > :49:12.election at the weekend. But about 100 miles
:49:13. > :49:14.west of the capital, another race for Mayor
:49:15. > :49:20.was playing out. And it was another success
:49:21. > :49:22.for Labour, as Marvin Rees was elected to the top
:49:23. > :49:24.job in Bristol. After two rounds of voting, he won
:49:25. > :49:27.by a majority of around 30,000 votes, and ousted the incumbent
:49:28. > :49:38.independent Mayor George Ferguson. So who is Marvin Rees and what does
:49:39. > :49:44.his new role allowed him to do? Well, he is 43 and he was raised and
:49:45. > :49:47.born in Bristol. He is married with three children, and in a former life
:49:48. > :49:51.he was a journalist, so we can to be a bad person at all. He worked in
:49:52. > :49:55.public health before switching to politics. No mayor of the city, his
:49:56. > :49:58.responsibility is for local transport policy, housing and local
:49:59. > :50:03.spending. So quite a lot of important things that matter to the
:50:04. > :50:08.people of Bristol. His annual salary will be about ?65,000. And he joins
:50:09. > :50:14.me now. Welcome. Were you expecting to win? I think the omens were good.
:50:15. > :50:19.And what we heard on the doorsteps and the streets. And I think that we
:50:20. > :50:23.anticipated that with a higher turnout, we would stand a stronger
:50:24. > :50:27.chance of winning. How strong pitch, because we had this period of time
:50:28. > :50:35.where you were an independent mayor, independent of major parties, is
:50:36. > :50:40.that being seen as a success or, given that the people have returned
:50:41. > :50:46.to a party nominee, was that an aberration? I think a number of
:50:47. > :50:49.people came to question what independence meant. There is no such
:50:50. > :50:54.thing as independent thought, really. I don't want to pick over
:50:55. > :50:59.the bones of my predecessor because he has been very gracious moving on,
:51:00. > :51:03.but I think there was an element of disappointment between the level of
:51:04. > :51:08.delivery and the promise that was made, that politics would be
:51:09. > :51:11.transformed. I think real political transformation is not just about
:51:12. > :51:15.abandoning political parties, it is about new people from a wider range
:51:16. > :51:19.of backgrounds taking a position of influence. In a sense, we're
:51:20. > :51:24.beginning to see this happen with Sadiq Khan's Victorian London, and
:51:25. > :51:31.your own victory in Bristol. There are new faces to British politics in
:51:32. > :51:36.the 21st century. I think so. And that does not pass me by. Sadiq Khan
:51:37. > :51:42.is the son of a bus driver. As he has told us several times! Was your
:51:43. > :51:52.dad a bus rather? I will not say what my dad did. He was a guy in
:51:53. > :51:55.town. My mum lived in a refuge for a while. Looking at the report an
:51:56. > :51:59.elitist Britain, I should not be here. But that is one of the reasons
:52:00. > :52:07.why I am here, because I do not want a city that is built on chance. And
:52:08. > :52:11.it may be that local government or elected mayors is a way of doing
:52:12. > :52:16.that. I said this to Andy Burnham once, when he was running as mayor
:52:17. > :52:21.of Manchester. We have a picture viewer Jeremy Corbyn, who came down
:52:22. > :52:26.to see you before the victory. Was he an asset or a liability for you
:52:27. > :52:30.on the doorstep? I would say he was incredibly supportive. And in terms
:52:31. > :52:36.of my motivation, he was absolutely supportive. Bristol is a diverse
:52:37. > :52:40.city and in some areas, Jeremy had incredible traction and in other
:52:41. > :52:43.areas, he did not have so much traction. Overall, his contribution
:52:44. > :52:47.to the campaign was incredibly positive and I am grateful for the
:52:48. > :52:51.support from him. Why do you think he came to see you rather than Sadiq
:52:52. > :52:54.Khan? I will not take the question away. I welcome anyone to come to
:52:55. > :53:03.Bristol. Where would you rather be on a sunny day, in Bristol or smoky
:53:04. > :53:06.London? We see a lot of this through the prism of the London mayoral
:53:07. > :53:13.campaign. And we always have had big figures, Ken Livingstone, Boris
:53:14. > :53:19.Johnson, how much was this about you as an individual? And how much was
:53:20. > :53:23.it you as the Labour candidate? It was a lot about me. It was my
:53:24. > :53:27.frustration in the last campaign, with this whole thing of
:53:28. > :53:31.independence. I never crossed the line and ceased to be Marvin who has
:53:32. > :53:36.my background and my network of friends, I was a guy who joined the
:53:37. > :53:39.Labour Party in my mid 30s, and took up the challenge of getting elected,
:53:40. > :53:45.to make things happen through electoral politics. And that element
:53:46. > :53:48.of my appeal outside the party boundaries brought me incredible
:53:49. > :53:52.support and sometimes costly challenges. Was I really Labour or
:53:53. > :53:55.was I a guy who jumped on the train late in the game? I think the Labour
:53:56. > :53:59.Party is about people coming together around shared values. The
:54:00. > :54:03.values of my upbringing are the values that I found among people in
:54:04. > :54:06.the party and I can rally with them and try to get things done for
:54:07. > :54:08.people left behind. We will see how it goes. It is an exciting time.
:54:09. > :54:09.Thank you very much. Time now for the answer to
:54:10. > :54:12.our question. I forgot to brief Polly on its! What
:54:13. > :54:24.rule has been overturned? B) Allowing people to throw
:54:25. > :54:28.underwear on stage? C) Allowing the show to be presented
:54:29. > :54:31.by yours truely? D) Repealing its ban
:54:32. > :54:40.on the Welsh flag? Do you have an idea, Polly? I don't
:54:41. > :54:46.think it is knickers. It is perhaps the Welsh flag. It is. Apparently it
:54:47. > :54:51.was revealed on the Daily Politics that there was a revealed that there
:54:52. > :54:58.had to be nation state flags are supposed to national flags, like the
:54:59. > :55:03.Scottish sole tyre. I'm sorry it is not you replacing Terry Wogan. It
:55:04. > :55:05.would be fun but now one can replace Terry Wogan. He alone was the reason
:55:06. > :55:06.for watching it. So, as you have seen from our quiz,
:55:07. > :55:08.politics and passions run particularly high
:55:09. > :55:10.round Eurovision time. This year, even more so, as the EU
:55:11. > :55:13.Referendum hangs over the contest. If we do get 'nil points' again,
:55:14. > :55:18.is this a message that we're not wanted in the Union, or shall we
:55:19. > :55:21.just put it down to With us now is Chris West,
:55:22. > :55:26.who's written a definitive book on the politics of Eurovision,
:55:27. > :55:29.and BBC presenter Paddy O'Connell who's in Stockholm covering
:55:30. > :55:43.the competition for BBC radio. Chris West, are you going to be nice
:55:44. > :55:49.to the UK this year? I think so. I think we have a good song, and good
:55:50. > :55:53.singers. So yes, I think they are going to do OK. You think we might
:55:54. > :56:01.have a chance of maybe not winning but still high up there are? Top
:56:02. > :56:05.ten, very well. Paddy, you are our man in Stockholm. What is the mood
:56:06. > :56:09.among the competition? Is the referendum being talked about?
:56:10. > :56:18.Notice was ugly but there are echoes. Every year there is a leave
:56:19. > :56:31.remain argument about the contest. This year, Russia is controversial.
:56:32. > :56:34.They are not sending in a bare-chested Vladimir Putin, the
:56:35. > :56:38.ascending in a younger man. And the bookies say that they were when. So
:56:39. > :56:42.the Russians are the -- so the Russians are the favourite?
:56:43. > :56:45.Interesting. Stockholm is one of the internet capitals of Europe but
:56:46. > :56:50.clearly, with our connection, not today. You have written about the
:56:51. > :56:54.soft power of Eurovision. That it is a strong political force and will
:56:55. > :56:58.betide any country that ignores it. What do you mean by that? If it was
:56:59. > :57:05.a country like Sweden, over the last ten years, they have put themselves
:57:06. > :57:08.forward as a progressive, creative and well organised, competent
:57:09. > :57:12.country. They have done very well, they have had very good singers.
:57:13. > :57:18.Their entry in 2012 has sold records around the world. I'm sure my age
:57:19. > :57:22.with records! Downloads, whatever. There is a lot of good stuff about
:57:23. > :57:28.Sweden that comes through the Eurovision Song contest. Are the
:57:29. > :57:34.Swedes happy to host this? It is a huge expense. It is a very expensive
:57:35. > :57:39.events to mount. It is. They are even joking about it from the stage.
:57:40. > :57:46.There is a lot of irony on the stage about how expensive it has been. And
:57:47. > :57:54.they take six weeks to nick their national entry here, so in a way
:57:55. > :57:57.they will be quite happy to bump along the next few years. And do you
:57:58. > :58:02.go along with the bookies favourite? If it is not the Russians, who are
:58:03. > :58:08.the other two or three that we should keep an eye on? I love
:58:09. > :58:14.Austria because they are singing in French, it is a French song. And
:58:15. > :58:19.Chris is nodding. We will keep an eye on Austria as well. And if you
:58:20. > :58:27.like country music, the Netherlands, the artist is basically singing
:58:28. > :58:35.British, and the whole contest is bonkers than ever. There are more
:58:36. > :58:38.thighs on the stage than now knows. -- Nandos.
:58:39. > :58:44.The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.
:58:45. > :58:47.I'll be on This Week with Alan Johnson, Michael Portillo,
:58:48. > :58:54.and DJ Annie Nightingale joining me from 11.45pm tonight.
:58:55. > :58:57.And I'll be back here at noon tomorrow with all the big political
:58:58. > :59:06.Drinking small amounts of alcohol isn't without risk.
:59:07. > :59:14.Eat more of this, drink more of that -
:59:15. > :59:19.can we really eat and drink our way to better health?
:59:20. > :59:23.Because my mother had dementia, there's always that anxiety -