:00:23. > :00:27.Talk about humble days. The man who runs the world's
:00:27. > :00:31.biggest media empire is declared unfit to do so. Rupert Murdoch is
:00:31. > :00:34.chastised, three of his Lieutenants are accused of misleading
:00:34. > :00:37.parliamentary investigators. Is this verdict going to achieve
:00:37. > :00:43.anything beyond giving politicians the chance to stamp their little
:00:43. > :00:48.feetd and settle a score or two? -- feet and settle a score for two?
:00:48. > :00:58.Many years since England last won a big title, the nation turns to the
:00:58. > :00:58.
:00:58. > :01:05.man who took Finland and - but Dhabi to success.
:01:05. > :01:08.Tory ahoi, we go canvasing with the only Conservative councillor in
:01:08. > :01:18.Glasgow. We are work really hard to get more than one elected at this
:01:18. > :01:21.
:01:21. > :01:26.election, to actually maybe hold the balance of power.
:01:26. > :01:32.As verdicts go it is damming. Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful
:01:32. > :01:35.media propriety in the world isn't fit to run an international company.
:01:35. > :01:38.The Parliamentary Committee that spent ten months investigating the
:01:38. > :01:42.phone hacking scandal was not unanimous, but it is highly
:01:42. > :01:45.embarrassing. Three senior figures in Mr Murdoch's business, faced the
:01:45. > :01:55.possibility of being humiliated in front of the House of Commons, for
:01:55. > :01:55.
:01:55. > :01:58.misleading the committee. MPs have been investigating
:01:58. > :02:01.wrongdoing at News International for nearly a decade. They have
:02:01. > :02:04.pursued hundreds of lines of inquiry and seen scores of
:02:04. > :02:08.witnesses. They have asked thousands of questions. But, they
:02:08. > :02:13.say, many of those answers have been misleading. Worse, there has
:02:13. > :02:19.been an organised cover-up. The Culture, Media and Sport select
:02:19. > :02:22.committee has concluded that three named individuals misled them.
:02:22. > :02:28.First off, Les Hinton, he was executive chairman of News
:02:28. > :02:31.International. He agreed the pay- off of �243,000 to Clive Goodman,
:02:31. > :02:35.despite the fact that Goodman had been convicted and imprisoned for
:02:35. > :02:39.phone hacking. The committee, though, found Mr Hinton hadn't been
:02:39. > :02:43.honest about his role in awarding the payment, which some MPs have
:02:43. > :02:48.alleged was designed to buy Goodman's silence.
:02:48. > :02:52.When Les Hinton appeared before the committee in 2009, he was asked
:02:52. > :02:59.repeatedly about those payments, but the committee said he was
:02:59. > :03:02.startling vague -- startlingly vague and trying to play his role
:03:02. > :03:09.as passive. But the committee said he not only authorised the payments,
:03:09. > :03:13.but took the decision to make them in the first place. At this same
:03:13. > :03:17.hearing in 2009, the committee said they were misled on another matter,
:03:17. > :03:21.about the extent of which Les Hinton knew about evidence of
:03:21. > :03:24.widespread phone hacking at News of the World. This is what he said at
:03:24. > :03:28.the time. There was never firm evidence or suspicion provided that
:03:28. > :03:32.I am aware of that implicated anybody else other than Clive
:03:32. > :03:38.within the staff at News of the World. It just didn't happen, Paul.
:03:38. > :03:41.And had it, we would have acted. course, we now know that News
:03:41. > :03:45.International was, at the time Les Hinton said that, in possession of
:03:45. > :03:55.a wealth of evidence that showed that phone hacking went far beyond
:03:55. > :03:56.
:03:56. > :04:00.one rogue reporter. Therefore, the That cover-up, according to the
:04:00. > :04:04.committee also extended to Tom Crone, legal manager of News Group
:04:04. > :04:07.newspapers, along with Colin Myler, who was editor of the News of the
:04:07. > :04:13.World. They, the committee concluded, gave misleading answers
:04:13. > :04:16.about what they knew. To put it politely, we have been led up the
:04:17. > :04:21.garden path by News International. But more importantly, so were the
:04:22. > :04:28.readers of its newspapers, the general public, and the victims of
:04:28. > :04:32.phone hacking. Two years ago, in our report, we found the
:04:32. > :04:35.organisation guilty of collective amnesia, and said it was
:04:35. > :04:40.inconceivable that one rogue reporter was involved. We were
:04:40. > :04:45.right. The big question, of course, is how far up the organisation did
:04:45. > :04:49.knowledge of this cover-up go? When they peered before the committee,
:04:49. > :04:53.both James and Rupert -- appeared before the commit year, both James
:04:53. > :04:58.and Rupert Murdoch claimed they had no inkling it was going on until
:04:58. > :05:04.very late in the day. The committee members agreed that this was simply
:05:04. > :05:07.astonishing, they say, that in failing to investigate properly and
:05:07. > :05:10.ignore widespread evidence of wrongdoing, News International and
:05:10. > :05:15.its parent company, News Corporation, exhibited willful
:05:15. > :05:19.blindness, for which the company's directors, including James Murdoch,
:05:19. > :05:22.and Rupert Murdoch, should ultimately be prepared to take
:05:22. > :05:27.responsibility. Corporately, the News of the World
:05:27. > :05:30.and News International had misled the committee, repeatedly, about
:05:30. > :05:35.the true extent and nature of the investigations that they claimed to
:05:35. > :05:42.have carried out in relation to phone hacking. And that they had
:05:42. > :05:45.failed to disclose documents, which would have revealed the truth.
:05:45. > :05:51.five Labour and one Lib Dem member of the committee wanted to go
:05:51. > :05:55.further. They inserted a line into the report that said "we conclude,
:05:55. > :05:59.therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the
:05:59. > :06:04.stewardship of a major international company". We found
:06:04. > :06:07.News Corporation had an extensive cover-up of its rampent law-
:06:07. > :06:12.breaking. Its senior executives repeatedly misled parliament, and
:06:12. > :06:16.the two men at the top, Rupert and James Murdoch, in charge of the
:06:16. > :06:22.company, must now answer for that. In the view of the majority of
:06:22. > :06:25.committee members, Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run an international
:06:25. > :06:28.company like BSkyB. Conservatives voted against that
:06:28. > :06:33.line, when that failed they ended up voting against the entire report.
:06:33. > :06:38.We all felt that was wildly outside the scope of a select committee, it
:06:38. > :06:44.was an improper attempt to influence Ofcom, and to tread on
:06:44. > :06:47.areas that is not the province of a select committee, and our report,
:06:47. > :06:51.at least ostensibly, was about whether or not the prior committee
:06:51. > :06:57.had been misled. I put it to Tom Watson that by insisting about the
:06:57. > :07:00.line about Rupert Murdoch's fitness, Labour MPs had diluted the report's
:07:00. > :07:05.impact. Why was it so important to the get in that line about Rupert
:07:05. > :07:09.Murdoch being a fit person to run a major international company. When
:07:09. > :07:13.the expense has been, or the cost of getting that line in has been
:07:13. > :07:17.allowing opponents of this process to portray it as along party lines
:07:17. > :07:21.as political payback, or whatever? I understand your point, David,
:07:21. > :07:28.there is a judgment you have to make with these reports about
:07:28. > :07:36.whether you go for a weaker report, and gain unanimity, or whether you
:07:36. > :07:40.stand up for what you steadfastly believe. Where I came to, and
:07:40. > :07:46.obvious low the majority of non- Conservative members came to, was
:07:46. > :07:50.that we needed to raise the bar. What happens next, well, in the
:07:50. > :07:54.short-term, armed with this committee's report, the whole House
:07:54. > :07:59.of Commons will get to vote on what, if any, sanctions should be applied
:07:59. > :08:02.to those three individuals named as having misled parliament. The
:08:02. > :08:05.penalty for that isn't exactly clear.
:08:05. > :08:09.However, although this committee can claim with some justification
:08:09. > :08:13.to have started this whole process of investigating News International
:08:13. > :08:18.and phone hacking at News of the World. They won't get the last word.
:08:18. > :08:22.In a sense, their work has now rather been overtaken, not just by
:08:22. > :08:25.the Leveson Inquiry that is going on in parallel, but also by the
:08:25. > :08:30.criminal investigation by the police.
:08:30. > :08:34.To discuss what this means for the Murdoch empire, we can speak to the
:08:34. > :08:38.Conservative MP Louise Mensch, and we're joined from Glasgow by the
:08:38. > :08:41.Labour MP, Jim sherd Dan, both members of the select committee
:08:41. > :08:45.that delivered this pretty damming report today. They disagree on
:08:45. > :08:52.whether Rupert Murdoch is unfit to run a global company. Also here is
:08:52. > :08:56.the executive editor of the Times, and the BBC former director-general,
:08:56. > :09:01.Greg Dyke. What is your excuse of subverting what appeared to be a
:09:01. > :09:10.thorough inquiry with a bit of political sloganising? I don't
:09:10. > :09:13.accept that analysis, People will draw their own conclusions,
:09:14. > :09:17.including members of the committee. My own conclusion is this is an
:09:17. > :09:21.organisation responsible for criminal activity, with three
:09:21. > :09:25.senior executives involved in it. Rupert Murdoch was the head of that
:09:25. > :09:28.organisation, and as such you can only draw one of two on collisions,
:09:28. > :09:33.either he was complicit in everything that was going on, or he
:09:33. > :09:36.was completely ignorant, and taking his eye off the ball, if you draw
:09:36. > :09:40.either of those conclusions, you must draw the conclusion that he is
:09:40. > :09:43.not a fit person to run an organisation. That is fair point,
:09:43. > :09:46.isn't it Louise Mensch? I don't really think so, it wasn't up to us
:09:46. > :09:51.to make that judgment. If you look at the introduction of the report,
:09:51. > :09:56.it says it is an inquiry into whether the prior select committee
:09:56. > :09:59.was misled. It is worth that on the World Tonight, Jim has said he
:09:59. > :10:02.didn't base that conclusion on evidence presented to the committee,
:10:02. > :10:07.but only because Rupert Murdoch was the head of the company. He drew a
:10:07. > :10:11.conclusion. There are only two possible explanations, either he
:10:12. > :10:17.was complicit or ignorant, so he's not fit to run an empire? Fit and
:10:17. > :10:23.proper, they took out "proper" but left in "fit", is part of Ofcom's
:10:23. > :10:28.test to who hold as broadcast license. Where the Tories disaed
:10:28. > :10:32.greed, nobody disagreed that was wildly outside the remit of the
:10:32. > :10:35.committee. And it is Ofcom that makes fit and proper tests, not
:10:36. > :10:40.select commity. We have lost our chance to produce a unified
:10:40. > :10:44.credible report where we would have all agreed. If you are willfully
:10:44. > :10:51.blind, you are surely, by definition, not a fit person to run
:10:51. > :10:56.a company? I couldn't disagree more, Rupert Murdoch and his son are both
:10:57. > :11:00.admitting the failings of company over the journalistic practices
:11:01. > :11:04.that were clearly going wrong. All those have been dealt with and
:11:04. > :11:09.dealt with very thoroughly, a new chain of management, editoral and
:11:09. > :11:15.commercial have come in. He has admitted a great level of failure.
:11:15. > :11:20.The argument he's not a fit person, which is as Mr Watson said and Mr
:11:20. > :11:23.Sheridan says, these are opinions, it is nothing to do with fact, it
:11:23. > :11:28.was way outside receipt mit of the committee to do anything about it.
:11:28. > :11:32.This was purely about an anti- Murdoch animosity, that infuse as
:11:32. > :11:36.lot of people, political and commercial opponents. The good work
:11:36. > :11:41.of the committee has been hijacked by a campaign. We will come back to
:11:41. > :11:47.that in a second or two. Greg Dyke, before we do, what impact will this
:11:47. > :11:53.sort of form of words have upon Mr Murdoch's position in BSkyB, for
:11:53. > :12:00.example? I doubt whether this will have any impact at all. Ofcom can
:12:00. > :12:05.have impact and Ofcom are investigating this, and Ofcom will
:12:05. > :12:10.apply the proper fit and proper test. I suspect they will come to a
:12:10. > :12:18.similar conclusion, but be based on a set of evidence that they receive.
:12:18. > :12:23.So you think it will have a serious impact? I think, in the end, it is
:12:23. > :12:29.difficult to see how the News International, the Murdoch
:12:29. > :12:33.corporation, can continue to own the number of shares it owns in
:12:33. > :12:38.BSkyB. I think in the end, and I think that will be in the interests
:12:38. > :12:43.of BSkyB, to actually offload News International and the Murdochs. I
:12:43. > :12:47.think they are now damaging to BSkyB, and BSkyB is a really good
:12:47. > :12:50.business. Mr Sheridan, on how many of the, the committee I believe
:12:50. > :12:55.voted on all sorts of contentious points in this report, on how many
:12:55. > :12:59.of those points did you disagree with your party colleagues? On the
:12:59. > :13:03.voting I never disagreed with any of them. And there were
:13:03. > :13:07.Conservatives who disagreed among themselves, weren't there? I do
:13:07. > :13:11.believe there were some disagreements amongst them. So I
:13:11. > :13:16.suggest to you that what you were doing is hijacking a parliamentary
:13:16. > :13:19.inquiry for party advantage? may say that, Jeremy, I don't agree
:13:19. > :13:24.with you. It is worth saying that in all the time the select
:13:24. > :13:28.committee discussed the phone hacking report, never in even one
:13:28. > :13:31.discussion, did we ever discuss, even for a minute, whether or not
:13:31. > :13:35.Rupert Murdoch was a fit person to run News Corporation. That was
:13:35. > :13:40.literal never discussed, even one time, in any discussion. But it was
:13:40. > :13:43.hijacked into the final report. Let's just check that Mr Sheridan
:13:44. > :13:47.has the same recollection, that is the case isn't it? I missed you
:13:47. > :13:51.there. Jim, I'm saying in all our discussions on the phone hacking
:13:51. > :13:55.report, never even once did we as a committee discuss whether or not
:13:55. > :13:59.Rupert Murdoch was fit to run News Corporation, that never came up in
:13:59. > :14:03.any of our discussions while we considered the report, until the
:14:03. > :14:06.final meeting? That's when people draw their final conclusions, in
:14:06. > :14:13.the final meeting. You drew a conclusion without having discussed
:14:13. > :14:16.it? It was discussed. The whole issue of. You have just conceded it
:14:16. > :14:22.wasn't discussed until the final conclusions meeting? The whole
:14:22. > :14:26.issue of the Murdochs in this whole inquiry was extensively discussed,
:14:26. > :14:29.privately and publicly. Whether he was a fit person, as Mr Sheridan
:14:29. > :14:34.has agreed, was absolutely never discussed. Obviously it is not
:14:34. > :14:37.within a remit of a select committee, as Mark Lewis, the
:14:38. > :14:44.victims' lawyer has confirmed tonight, it is Ofcom's remit, and
:14:44. > :14:48.nothing to do with us. Labour have shot themselves into a foot, by
:14:48. > :14:50.taking a report that could have been hitting the target. There is
:14:50. > :14:54.not a cigarette paper between you and I, the only difference between
:14:54. > :14:58.you and I, you don't want to apportion any blame on Rupert
:14:58. > :15:02.Murdoch. If this was the BBC you would be champing at the bit to
:15:02. > :15:06.blame Mr Thomson. You would be champing at the bit. You simply
:15:06. > :15:09.cannot accept that Mr Murdoch has nothing to do with this. That is
:15:09. > :15:12.completely false. I seem to remember when Labour were in
:15:12. > :15:19.Government doing precisely what they were talking about there. This
:15:19. > :15:22.is serious stuff, this. I do think it has turned into a bit of
:15:22. > :15:26.knockabout stuff, that is a shame. It is a serious thing. Anybody who
:15:26. > :15:30.watched the evidence. In the end you have to make a judgment of, do
:15:30. > :15:34.you believe what Mr Murdoch and his son said. I have to say I find it
:15:34. > :15:38.very difficult to believe. But unless there is evidence to prove
:15:38. > :15:45.otherwise, one has to accept it. How does it feel where you are, as
:15:45. > :15:48.part of this enormous organisation, there must come a point where the
:15:48. > :15:52.Murdoch connection and involvement, the Murdoch overlordship is an
:15:52. > :15:56.embarrassment? Come off it, what Rupert Murdoch has done for this
:15:56. > :16:01.country over three decades in terms of maintaining the press, keeping
:16:01. > :16:03.the press alive, developing television. Underlining the
:16:03. > :16:07.political system. It hasn't undermined the political system.
:16:07. > :16:12.Who are you kidding. Please, that just hasn't happened. What are you
:16:12. > :16:17.saying, people wouldn't have voted Labour? I'm saying our political
:16:17. > :16:23.system has been de distorted by the way in which the Murdoch operation
:16:23. > :16:27.-- been distorted by the way in which the Murdoch operation has
:16:27. > :16:32.influenced politicians, it is going on for 30 years, thankfully it is
:16:32. > :16:36.ending now, and that makes it a healthier democracy. I challenge
:16:36. > :16:42.that, Mr Murdoch was endlessly pursued by politicians, it was not
:16:42. > :16:45.the other way round. Anyone who believes that must be in cuckoo
:16:45. > :16:50.land. If you believe the line where he says he didn't ask for anything,
:16:50. > :16:56.who believes that. To say the Murdochs have tainted this country
:16:56. > :17:00.as one of these great things, couldn't be more wrong. Look at the
:17:00. > :17:03.nature of British sport, Joey Barton is coming up, look at
:17:03. > :17:09.football on television. We are talking about democracy and
:17:09. > :17:13.politics, there is no doubt that over many years that the Murdochs
:17:13. > :17:18.had an influence over politics in this country which was damaging to
:17:18. > :17:22.our political system and structure. I certainly think that politicians
:17:22. > :17:25.should, and politicians and journalists should be distant from
:17:25. > :17:29.each other. Louise Mensch are you worried that your party now seems,
:17:29. > :17:32.yet again, to be looking after Murdoch's interests? No, not
:17:32. > :17:37.particularly. I don't think so. What Jim says is completely not
:17:37. > :17:41.true. The report before it was amended in this hysterical and
:17:41. > :17:43.over-the-top way was highly critical of James Murdoch and
:17:43. > :17:46.Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation corporately, there was strong
:17:46. > :17:51.criticisms in the report as drafted, which we all would have signed up
:17:51. > :17:54.to. Nobody is trying to say that there weren't failure of both James
:17:54. > :17:58.and Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation, which they admit
:17:58. > :18:01.themselves, it is the degree and the over-the-topness, and the
:18:01. > :18:06.hijacking of the report that has caused the credibility to be lost.
:18:06. > :18:11.What do you think is the future of James and Rupert Murdoch in this
:18:11. > :18:15.country? I think it is over. If you have had the degree of political
:18:15. > :18:19.power and influence that they had, and then suddenly it is gone, I
:18:19. > :18:22.don't think you can get it back. I don't think the Murdochs will ever
:18:22. > :18:26.be the power they were then. The moment David Cameron stood up in
:18:26. > :18:34.the House of Commons and said, come on, we have all been at it, and it
:18:34. > :18:37.is time to end, it is ended. Can I go back to the fundamentals, Rupert
:18:37. > :18:41.Murdoch was a very successful businessman, part of that success
:18:41. > :18:45.was based on him tapping into private telephone calls, people's
:18:45. > :18:49.private lives, that is why he has been such a successful business. It
:18:49. > :18:51.is not because he's a magic person. If people want to tap into other
:18:51. > :18:54.people's lives, that is unforgiveable, that is the reason
:18:54. > :18:59.why we had this inquiry, that is why we will have the Leveson
:18:59. > :19:02.Inquiry as well. What do you think, if Greg Dyke is right, and it is
:19:02. > :19:05.all over for the Murdochs in this country, what will be the
:19:05. > :19:08.consequences? I don't think it is all over. You have got a
:19:08. > :19:13.flourishing newspaper business, you have got a flourishing television
:19:13. > :19:22.business, and I don't see why Rupert Murdoch should walk away. He
:19:22. > :19:26.loves his papers, he does. He might well be told, Ofcom might say that
:19:27. > :19:30.News International are not a fit and proper person to control BSkyB,
:19:30. > :19:36.and 39%, in the law in this country, is control, at the very least they
:19:36. > :19:41.could have to sell to 29%, they could be told to sell the lot, that
:19:41. > :19:44.wouldn't surprise me, it might anybody their interests. BSkyB is a
:19:44. > :19:47.fantastic channel and the activities it does, it is
:19:47. > :19:51.enormously good for this country. It has never really used what it
:19:51. > :19:55.developed, the power and money to turn itself into an international
:19:55. > :19:57.media company based here. It never could, because it always had to be
:19:57. > :20:02.part of the Murdoch operation. Murdoch always controlled it T you
:20:02. > :20:05.know that, I know that. What do you think is the future of
:20:05. > :20:12.the Murdochs in this country? is partly for Ofcom to determine,
:20:12. > :20:16.not for my commity. But I do note that even: You have inquired into
:20:16. > :20:19.this pretty thoroughly and arrived at a view? We have, and held News
:20:19. > :20:22.Corporation's feet to the fire. It is worth saying that the management
:20:22. > :20:25.and Standards Committee of News Corporation, better late than never,
:20:25. > :20:29.are finally coming clean and bringing forward information all
:20:29. > :20:34.the time. They do appear to have taken some of these lessons on
:20:34. > :20:37.board. It is worth saying that Rupert Murdoch is a great newspaper
:20:37. > :20:43.man, who has run newspapers in this country before mobile phones were
:20:43. > :20:46.even invented. Even in the report as it stood, not even Tom Watson or
:20:46. > :20:54.any Labour member found that either Rupert or James Murdoch had misled
:20:54. > :20:58.our committee, that is important to say. They were not found guilty of
:20:58. > :21:02.misleading parliament. I'm all for media equality, we need a strong
:21:02. > :21:08.freedom of the press, and a strong independent press that doesn't hack
:21:08. > :21:10.people's phones or use operation Motorman-tile, hacking et cetera,
:21:10. > :21:14.that was not confined to News International.
:21:14. > :21:19.The new manager of the England football team was formally unveiled
:21:19. > :21:22.today, if that is the right words, Roy Hodgson has a glorious few days
:21:22. > :21:25.before discovering most of the population in these islands think
:21:25. > :21:30.they could do the job better than him. They are not afraid to say so.
:21:30. > :21:35.It is not a bad opportunity on the edge of your 65th birthday. In a
:21:35. > :21:41.moment we will talk about the appointment with QPR captain and
:21:41. > :21:46.some time England international, Joey Barton. First Steve Smith.
:21:46. > :21:51.It is the result that not even the most perspicacious, or dare we say
:21:51. > :21:54.it, veteran football commentator, managed to predict.
:21:54. > :22:00.Here are tonight's classified football results, read for
:22:00. > :22:05.Newsnight, by me, James Alexander Gordon.
:22:05. > :22:10.Football Association 1, Football Pundits 0. That's right, ashen-
:22:10. > :22:14.faced football hacks have been eating their words, after nobody's
:22:14. > :22:20.favourite, Roy Hodgson, was elevated from unfashionable West
:22:20. > :22:25.Brom to the England manager's job. It is a very proud day for me. I'm
:22:25. > :22:29.a very happen kwhree man to be offered the -- happy man to be
:22:29. > :22:34.offered the chance to manage my country. I'm looking forward to the
:22:34. > :22:37.task ahead, it is not an easy one. I'm hoping everybody, fans,
:22:37. > :22:45.supporters, everybody in the country, will get behind the team,
:22:45. > :22:50.it is the team that kounds. Andrew Rodger 1, Harry Redknapp 0.
:22:50. > :22:55.Colourful Spurs boss Harry Redknapp was going to be England boss,
:22:55. > :23:03.according to everyone, particularly after he was cleared of tax charges.
:23:03. > :23:09.I feel sorry for Harry, he's a wheeler dealer, a boy, believing in
:23:09. > :23:12.rapid football. I'm not saying that Roy Hodgson doesn't, if we wanted a
:23:12. > :23:17.European Championships, Harry was the man.
:23:17. > :23:21.Roy Hodgson was managed club and national sides around the world.
:23:21. > :23:25.But his spell at Liverpool wasn't seen as a triumph. Many fans felt
:23:25. > :23:30.he didn't think big enough for a club that was once accustomed to
:23:30. > :23:32.greatness. He left after just six months. Roy Hodgson may not have
:23:32. > :23:37.had a particularly happy time at Liverpool, I believe the fans
:23:37. > :23:40.didn't give him a chance, because from day one they weren't on his
:23:40. > :23:45.side, which is very important. I don't think that should ever
:23:45. > :23:49.detract from his capablities as a manager, or if you look at what he
:23:49. > :23:53.has achieved at the clubs, he has proved he's a good manager. I think
:23:53. > :23:59.he will do a very good job for England. The last coach couldn't
:23:59. > :24:05.speak the language when he took the job. His successor faced a test on
:24:05. > :24:09.his diplomatic skills, after a question about his playing in South
:24:09. > :24:17.Africa under the apartheid system. I didn't think about the politics,
:24:17. > :24:21.it played no part in my decision. It is slightly unfair in today's
:24:21. > :24:26.world, where we are discussing racism, to go back 40 years and
:24:26. > :24:31.criticise a decision I made for purely football reasons.
:24:31. > :24:34.By all accounts, Hodgson's's more rounded individual today. Perhaps
:24:34. > :24:40.even a Newsnight type, no we don't mean he's always banging on about
:24:41. > :24:47.politics and economics, he enjoys the arts, and literature. He is a
:24:47. > :24:51.cultured man. He loves Puccini, where as Harry would think that was
:24:51. > :24:57.an Italian football player he would sign. He can speak five languages
:24:57. > :25:06.Roy, he can swear in all of them. When it comes to a press conference,
:25:06. > :25:10.I'm afraid he can be rather grey, rather saturine and rather
:25:10. > :25:13.withdrawn. So how will the new boss get on in his first big test,
:25:13. > :25:16.managing the egos in England's squad at the European
:25:16. > :25:22.Championshipss this summer. Will he turn out to be like another
:25:22. > :25:27.English leader, who came unstuck over Europe. Major was grey, wasn't
:25:27. > :25:33.he, really, I can't imagine Roy Hodgson wearing Y-fronts and eating
:25:33. > :25:43.peas off a knife, he would be rather talking about something like
:25:43. > :25:46.spaghetti a la vong ola in the bay of Naples. He has to get it across,
:25:46. > :25:54.it is all right being intelligent, but it is as it does, and Roy
:25:54. > :26:00.doesn't impress you as the brain of Britain. Why did I give it up? The
:26:00. > :26:05.WAGs wouldn't leave me alone. reflect on the appointment of Roy
:26:05. > :26:11.Hodgson and the state of football in England generally, is Joey
:26:11. > :26:15.Barton, he can both over 1.4 million followers on twitter and
:26:15. > :26:17.captains QPR, he has a couple of convictions for violence and plays
:26:17. > :26:26.for England. What does this appointment tell us about the state
:26:26. > :26:30.of English football? I mean, for me, I think the Englishman in the
:26:30. > :26:34.street wanted an English manager. We straight away limited our appeal.
:26:35. > :26:38.I think it is a very shrewd appointment by the FA. They head-
:26:38. > :26:41.hunted him almost, to the point where they have said they have not
:26:41. > :26:45.interviewed any other candidates, I think Roy Hodgson has the track
:26:45. > :26:49.record. He has coached international football before,
:26:49. > :26:55.which is a complete and total different entity to club football.
:26:55. > :26:58.You have a lot less involvement with the players on a daily basis.
:26:58. > :27:04.And also, you are managing other managers' players, it is not a
:27:04. > :27:10.straight forward role. I think Roy has a wealth of experience, not
:27:10. > :27:15.only in England, but abroad, and at major tournaments. It will bode
:27:15. > :27:19.well. He seems to be a quiet, thoughtful guy? I wouldn't know
:27:19. > :27:25.without, I haven't worked with him personally, although I have come
:27:25. > :27:31.across him in the game. He is a straight forward guy. I think he's
:27:31. > :27:35.a very qulturd Englishman. He has coached inter-- cultured Englishman,
:27:35. > :27:40.he coached Inter Milan, and Switzerland into number three in
:27:40. > :27:44.the FIFA world rankings, and Finland and Abu Dhabi. He has
:27:44. > :27:48.managed big clubs, Liverpool is a massive club, Inter Milan is a
:27:48. > :27:52.massive club. He has a wealth of experience. It is a very shrewd
:27:52. > :27:57.appointment by England. It is a heck of a management of
:27:57. > :28:00.expectations he has to deal with, though, isn't it? Do you think we
:28:00. > :28:05.take football too seriously in this country? That is difficult for me
:28:05. > :28:10.to say as a footballer. The fact that I have over a million
:28:10. > :28:13.followers, most of them I have never met on Twitter, shows that
:28:13. > :28:17.football is taken seriously in this country. Too seriously do you think
:28:17. > :28:21.sometimes? It is our national gamement we are very proud of
:28:21. > :28:24.England, and I think -- game. And we're very proud of England, that
:28:24. > :28:27.is why we get so much media coverage. Why aren't we doing
:28:27. > :28:30.better? That is a difficult question, unless I was appointed
:28:30. > :28:37.England manager, it is difficult to answer, why aren't we doing better,
:28:37. > :28:41.in terms of what? I think, for me, we have the best export in global
:28:41. > :28:45.football in the Premier League. From that standpoint we do
:28:45. > :28:50.fantastic. Do you think, there used to be an argument, that good club
:28:50. > :28:55.football was some how the energy of a good national team? Yeah, and I
:28:55. > :29:01.think as the Premier League has grown over the last 20 years, I
:29:01. > :29:08.think England, to your average Englishman has slipped maybe a
:29:08. > :29:13.little bit. The club becomes really important, and interclub rivalries
:29:13. > :29:18.have grown beyond the national ideaty. In the country there is a
:29:18. > :29:22.massive north and south divide. The fact that England play at Wembley
:29:22. > :29:28.predominantly and the amount of money spent on Wembley, I think
:29:28. > :29:38.people in the north of the country feel like England has become a
:29:38. > :29:40.
:29:40. > :29:44.northern-based entity really. English football has become
:29:45. > :29:48.southern-based? Team England. should have? I think it should be
:29:48. > :29:51.addressed. I have been on record saying England should be a touring
:29:51. > :29:54.side. They are a representation of the whole of the country, they
:29:54. > :29:58.should tour the country. We have some great stadiums all round the
:29:58. > :30:01.country. I think, you know, I think we should take advantage of that.
:30:01. > :30:06.Obviously it will be very difficult because of the amount of the money
:30:06. > :30:12.the FA put into the new stadium, which is magnificent at Wembley,
:30:12. > :30:15.that is the reason the big matches play there. Is it something about
:30:15. > :30:18.the way the authority is exercised in the game? There is so much money
:30:18. > :30:22.involved, when money gets involved at the level it does, I think you
:30:22. > :30:27.know what it is like, the bureaucrats sort of have to feel
:30:27. > :30:32.they have to do something, in order to justify salaries that they are
:30:32. > :30:38.paid. They are generally sticking their noses in, sometimes where it
:30:38. > :30:41.is better to let the main experts and people who know the game. The
:30:41. > :30:46.paperwork and that kind of thing can get in the way. I think the
:30:46. > :30:49.higher up the chain you go, I think obviously that comes into more and
:30:49. > :30:53.more. It is difficult, because sometimes you have just got to let
:30:53. > :30:57.people do what you employed them to do. Hopefully, for Roy Hodgson, he
:30:57. > :31:03.gets the chance to do that. Do you think there is a case for a
:31:03. > :31:10.generational shift in the team, that maybe needs to go down ten
:31:10. > :31:13.years or something? You are talking like an expert there, I couldn't
:31:13. > :31:19.say there. It is your age group that is coming over the hill, which
:31:19. > :31:24.is a bit ripe for me? My process towards England as a patriotic
:31:24. > :31:26.proud Englishman, wanting England to do very well at major
:31:26. > :31:31.tournaments, because it keeps me interested, certainly, in the
:31:31. > :31:38.summer watching it, the longer they stay in it. I would say maybe it is
:31:38. > :31:41.the time to give Roy the license to shake it up a bit, in terms of to
:31:41. > :31:48.bring some young exciting players, which we have a lot of in this
:31:48. > :31:52.country, and take them to a major championship. There is the European
:31:52. > :31:55.Championships will be, and build for the next world and European
:31:55. > :32:00.Championshipss. Germany did it just before the World Cup out in Germany,
:32:00. > :32:04.I think it was in 2006, the tournament previous to that, which
:32:04. > :32:10.was the European Championshipss, I think in Portugal, they blooded a
:32:10. > :32:15.lot of young players in the process of taking them to the next World
:32:15. > :32:18.Cup, and giving them that major tournament experience, and also
:32:18. > :32:23.giving them probably the height of expectation and the media interest,
:32:23. > :32:29.all that comes with the game. You don't fancy it yourself? No, I
:32:29. > :32:34.have got pressing issues at QPR, we are in a relegation fight, that is
:32:34. > :32:38.my sole focus at the minute, you know, that is where my mind is set.
:32:38. > :32:41.Joey Barton, thanks a lot. The day after tomorrow lots of us
:32:41. > :32:46.get the chance to express ourselves on paper in local elections in
:32:46. > :32:48.England, Scotland and Wales. They are often treated as the poor
:32:48. > :32:53.relations in general elections, even though what local Government
:32:53. > :32:57.does often has a more direct impact on people's lives. They also
:32:57. > :33:02.resonate way beyond city, town or county boundaries, nowhere and more
:33:02. > :33:05.so than in Scotland, where all 32 local authorities are up for grabs,
:33:05. > :33:09.and there is said to be the real prospect of Labour losing places
:33:09. > :33:19.they were once so confident of. They hardly needed a canvas.
:33:19. > :33:19.
:33:19. > :33:24.We're in Glasgow. If in places like Glasgow they
:33:24. > :33:30.normally weigh the vote, not count it, this Thursday they will have
:33:30. > :33:32.shipped in the most ultra sensitive calipers and tape measures to
:33:33. > :33:37.ajudicate the way this council goes. Across the country the Westminster
:33:37. > :33:43.Government thinks the opposition will to the up respectable games --
:33:43. > :33:46.tot up respectable games, but they hope to bring down Labour's wins.
:33:47. > :33:50.Glasgow council has been run by Labour for 32 years, this city
:33:50. > :33:54.played a special role in the formation of the Labour Party, in
:33:54. > :33:58.1914 workers rose up in this square in complaint of working conditions.
:33:58. > :34:05.The Government in Westminster sent tanks, they felt it was a
:34:05. > :34:11.revolution, it it wasn't, but something like Red Collideside was
:34:11. > :34:16.brought in and Glasgow became central to Labour's life.
:34:16. > :34:20.Gordon Matheson was one of the men thought to fight for that. 55p of
:34:20. > :34:23.every pound you paid in rent went to servicing debt, because that was
:34:23. > :34:29.removed that has meant that investment has been possible. So
:34:29. > :34:32.there is new cladding, new door central heating, new kitchens.
:34:32. > :34:38.not saying Labour is doing a bad job, from my point of view, and a
:34:38. > :34:42.lot of people's point of view, you are not guaranteed a vote, you have
:34:42. > :34:46.to fight for it, you have to persuade me, you are doing a good
:34:46. > :34:51.job, perhaps you will get my vote. That is the difference, 20 years
:34:51. > :34:56.ago you have the vote, now you are up against a good party. In the
:34:56. > :35:00.suburbs, the lesser spotted Conservatives are festooned with
:35:00. > :35:06.falling blossom as they knock on doors. What about the Tories'
:35:06. > :35:09.chances, why are they bothering? think around about here they have a
:35:09. > :35:13.good chance. Your friends are persuaded by them? Yes. Would you?
:35:13. > :35:17.No. The nature of this election means smaller parties could be as
:35:17. > :35:21.critical as the one-time Labour core vote ever was. This chap could
:35:21. > :35:26.be a king maker in a coalition. But at the moment you are out of the
:35:26. > :35:29.picture, it is a two-way battle, is SNP-Labour? That is the way it is
:35:29. > :35:33.portrayed, when you think about it, this election will be close and the
:35:33. > :35:36.Conservatives could play a role in the next administration, we are
:35:36. > :35:42.working really hard to get more than one elected at this election
:35:42. > :35:49.to hold the balance of power. Displaying an early ability to kol
:35:49. > :35:56.build, David bumps into a political panjandrumwauarking his dog, the
:35:56. > :36:01.Labour Party chairman back when things were rosy in 199 1.
:36:01. > :36:04.issue is whether these Des deselected Labour candidates will -
:36:04. > :36:07.these deselected Labour candidates will affect the Labour vote, that
:36:08. > :36:11.they will take votes from Labour, most of them won't get elected
:36:11. > :36:17.themselves, but they might then just take enough votes from Labour
:36:17. > :36:22.to let the SNP through. Tommy Morrison is leader of that
:36:22. > :36:27.group, Glasgow First, pushed away, they believe, when Labour asked old
:36:27. > :36:32.timers, 20 of them, not to stand again. I think that the city is
:36:32. > :36:38.looking forward to one of the biggest elections it will ever have,
:36:38. > :36:43.in the past 40 years. The Labour Party deselected 18 of its
:36:44. > :36:48.councillors, for no reason that we can find out. When we are trying to
:36:49. > :36:54.go through the system we were basically told we were dead wood.
:36:54. > :36:59.That we weren't part of the A-team, and we weren't part of the new
:36:59. > :37:04.Labour set-up. My colleagues and I have never been part of the new
:37:05. > :37:09.Labour set-up. We consider ourselves not old Labour, but not
:37:09. > :37:11.new Labour, but the real Labour Party. The Labour Party think that
:37:11. > :37:15.on Thursday they will lose overall control of the council, but they
:37:15. > :37:18.will remain the largest party. They think that, in a system that is
:37:18. > :37:23.being fought on proportional voting s a minutey miracle. But their
:37:23. > :37:30.colleagues, the ones -- mini- miracle, but their colleagues, the
:37:30. > :37:35.ones he they chucked out think they will be lucky, and think that the
:37:35. > :37:39.Conservatives will hold the power. The SNP is in bullish mood. We have
:37:39. > :37:42.been working hard, our objective is obviously to win these elections,
:37:42. > :37:45.we have had a great team across the city. We are building on the
:37:45. > :37:48.achievements of the SNP Government over the last few years. We have
:37:48. > :37:53.the record, the team and the vision for Glasgow. I think you can see
:37:53. > :37:56.the work that we have done has been really impressive, all across the
:37:56. > :37:59.city. Local councillors over the last five years have been building
:37:59. > :38:03.up a really good reputation of being hard workers. Tell me David,
:38:03. > :38:07.why is it that your leader, Alex Salmond, has not been heavily
:38:07. > :38:13.visible in this place? This is obviously a local election, it is
:38:13. > :38:16.about local issues. Alex Salmond is the leader of the party, he has
:38:17. > :38:23.been in Glasgow, but this is a local issue, local campaigns and
:38:23. > :38:27.local people. The smaller parties feel they will
:38:28. > :38:31.be overshadowed? We will be skwuesed by the two massive parties
:38:31. > :38:35.clouting over their -- squeezed by the two massive parties clouting
:38:35. > :38:40.each other over the head, and all the other parties are fighting hard
:38:40. > :38:42.to be re-elected, the people in our target seats are good local people
:38:42. > :38:46.delivering locally. In these election results, look at the
:38:46. > :38:50.numbers across the country and look at London, remember George Square
:38:50. > :38:55.and the next episode in Scottish Labour history, a story that began
:38:55. > :39:00.nearly 100 years ago. Margaret Curran is the Shadow
:39:00. > :39:10.Scotland Secretary, she's a Glasgow MP and joins us there, in the
:39:10. > :39:12.
:39:12. > :39:18.dunddy studio is the SN -- dunddy studio is the SN P MP, Stewart
:39:18. > :39:22.Hosie. You are issued a manifesto with 100 promises, which includes
:39:22. > :39:26.making Glasgow a child-friendly city, why have you not done that
:39:26. > :39:32.before now? There is no denying we are facing a challenge in Glasgow,
:39:32. > :39:37.particularly after last year's elections where the SNP outpolled
:39:37. > :39:41.us. We have strong policies and strong leadership. I'm hopeful we
:39:41. > :39:46.will do better in these elections and could be the largest party.
:39:46. > :39:50.asking about your 100 proim misses here, the manifesto -- promises,
:39:50. > :39:55.the manifesto, the promise number nine is Labour targeting
:39:55. > :40:00.irresponsible dog owners who foul our parks and streets, 40 years to
:40:00. > :40:02.get that far? Picking up on the child issue, if you say that, one
:40:03. > :40:06.of the difficulties that Glasgow has had, is the SNP Government and
:40:06. > :40:10.their lack of leadership in childcare has meant that Scotland
:40:10. > :40:13.is now behind England in terms of childcare provision. Nonetheless,
:40:13. > :40:17.Glasgow City Council, under Labour's leadership, has made
:40:17. > :40:22.important strides in the city, we have still much more work to. Do we
:40:22. > :40:26.want to improve childcare provision. You have dog mess to clear up?
:40:26. > :40:30.fouling matters to people. I wonder why you spent 40 years not dealing
:40:30. > :40:35.with it? Some action has been taken, but not enough. We would say with
:40:35. > :40:39.the the Tories in power at Westminster, the SNP neglecting
:40:39. > :40:42.Glasgow and Edinburgh, we have a fight on our hands, we will do our
:40:42. > :40:46.best to represent the best interests of the people of Glasgow.
:40:46. > :40:51.Stewart Hosie, your leader in Glasgow says taking Glasgow would
:40:51. > :40:54.be the first stepping stone to independence, is he serious?
:40:54. > :41:02.then went on to say the focus is on Glasgow, I have heard that quote
:41:02. > :41:06.before, it is normally a misquote. It is no surprise that I campaign
:41:06. > :41:09.like Alison Hunter wants Scotland to be independent. It is not a
:41:09. > :41:13.surprise that a nationalist wants Scotland to be independent. Is it a
:41:13. > :41:18.stepping stone to independent? is a stepping stone to controlling
:41:18. > :41:22.Glasgow and making the people's lives better. Is it a stepping
:41:22. > :41:25.stone for independence? If you are asking me if it is a referendum on
:41:25. > :41:30.independent, no it is about who is best to run the city of Glasgow.
:41:30. > :41:34.The question of turnout, it is widely predicted that for various
:41:34. > :41:37.reasons we don't needing to into now, there is a danger of a very
:41:37. > :41:43.low turnout, what would you consider to be a turnout that was
:41:43. > :41:47.so low that the outcome was really illegitimate? I wouldn't put a
:41:47. > :41:52.finger on it. There have been by- elections, I think Hillary Benn in
:41:52. > :41:57.Leeds some years ago, it was incredibly low. From memory it was
:41:57. > :42:00.less than 20%. The people have the right not to vote, so we need to be
:42:00. > :42:04.very careful about legitimacy in terms of turnout numbers. What do
:42:04. > :42:08.you think? Of course I wouldn't put a figure on it at all. We need to
:42:09. > :42:13.make sure we are fighting for every vote, and motivate people that big
:42:13. > :42:16.issues are at stake in this election. Unlike what the SNP say,
:42:16. > :42:19.it is fundamentally about the great city of Glasgow and the services
:42:19. > :42:26.that are at stake. If we motivate people and feel they understand
:42:26. > :42:28.that, and think about this we can increase it. When you are out
:42:28. > :42:32.campaigning, what is the most exciting and enthusiastic thing you
:42:32. > :42:35.have heard people say about Ed Miliband's leadership of your
:42:35. > :42:39.party? I think what people are beginning to recognise is Ed is
:42:39. > :42:43.very much leading the agenda, he was the first to take on the issue
:42:43. > :42:47.about the Murdochs in stark contrast to Alex Salmond, that is
:42:47. > :42:51.coming up on the doorsteps a lot. It is about what the Tory
:42:51. > :42:55.Government is doing, more interested in millionaires and Ed
:42:55. > :42:59.Miliband is speak beg fairness, that is resonating on the doorsteps.
:42:59. > :43:03.All the people you have spoken on the many doorsteps you have been on,
:43:03. > :43:06.what is the most exciting thing someone has said about Ed Miliband?
:43:06. > :43:10.That he's warm and engaging and talking about the issue that matter
:43:10. > :43:14.to them. Some people find that exciting, even if perhaps you don't.
:43:14. > :43:24.Stewart Hosie, how much enthusiasm do people express on the doorsteps
:43:24. > :43:24.
:43:24. > :43:28.about the cuts being introduced by the SNP Government? Who people on
:43:28. > :43:32.the doorsteps o out there understand is we are in the middle
:43:32. > :43:35.of the biggest depression in many years. They are delighted the
:43:35. > :43:41.Scottish Government has frozen the council tax, kept 1,000 extra
:43:41. > :43:45.police on the beat, and introduced a small business bonus that sees
:43:45. > :43:49.40% of businesses paying reduced or no rates at all to try to grow the
:43:49. > :43:54.economy out of the recession and out from underneath the austerity
:43:54. > :43:59.measures of the UK Government. big a loss would Glasgow be, do you
:43:59. > :44:05.think? It depends how you define loss. If we are not the overall-
:44:05. > :44:09.party, that may be interpreted somebody who don't understand
:44:09. > :44:15.proportional representation as a loss. I tell you the ruins are good,
:44:15. > :44:18.we are getting positive feedback on the doorsteps, I'm hopefully can
:44:18. > :44:21.run and good campaign in Glasgow. What is your reading of the way
:44:21. > :44:27.things are going, Stewart Hosie? have set one target, which was to
:44:27. > :44:33.overtake Labour in terms of the number of votes cast. You said your
:44:33. > :44:36.target was to win Glasgow outright. No Margaret. Yes it was. I know
:44:36. > :44:40.what the SNP target was. I have heard it as well, are you changing
:44:40. > :44:44.your story? We want to be the largest party in terms of votes,
:44:44. > :44:49.going along with the largest party in terms of councillors, as we are
:44:49. > :44:52.at the present time. In relation to Glasgow, we are contesting 43
:44:52. > :44:57.candidates with 22 councils at the moment. We need all of them elected
:44:57. > :45:00.to wifpblt we are trying extremely -- win that. We are trying
:45:00. > :45:03.extremely hard to do that, and people are working flat out and