01/05/2012 Newsnight

Talk about humble days. The man who runs the world's

biggest media empire is declared unfit to do so. Rupert Murdoch is

chastised, three of his Lieutenants are accused of misleading

parliamentary investigators. Is this verdict going to achieve

anything beyond giving politicians the chance to stamp their little

feetd and settle a score or two? -- feet and settle a score for two?

Many years since England last won a big title, the nation turns to the

man who took Finland and - but Dhabi to success.

Tory ahoi, we go canvasing with the only Conservative councillor in

Glasgow. We are work really hard to get more than one elected at this

election, to actually maybe hold the balance of power.

As verdicts go it is damming. Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful

media propriety in the world isn't fit to run an international company.

The Parliamentary Committee that spent ten months investigating the

phone hacking scandal was not unanimous, but it is highly

embarrassing. Three senior figures in Mr Murdoch's business, faced the

possibility of being humiliated in front of the House of Commons, for

misleading the committee. MPs have been investigating

wrongdoing at News International for nearly a decade. They have

pursued hundreds of lines of inquiry and seen scores of

witnesses. They have asked thousands of questions. But, they

say, many of those answers have been misleading. Worse, there has

been an organised cover-up. The Culture, Media and Sport select

committee has concluded that three named individuals misled them.

First off, Les Hinton, he was executive chairman of News

International. He agreed the pay- off of �243,000 to Clive Goodman,

despite the fact that Goodman had been convicted and imprisoned for

phone hacking. The committee, though, found Mr Hinton hadn't been

honest about his role in awarding the payment, which some MPs have

alleged was designed to buy Goodman's silence.

When Les Hinton appeared before the committee in 2009, he was asked

repeatedly about those payments, but the committee said he was

startling vague -- startlingly vague and trying to play his role

as passive. But the committee said he not only authorised the payments,

but took the decision to make them in the first place. At this same

hearing in 2009, the committee said they were misled on another matter,

about the extent of which Les Hinton knew about evidence of

widespread phone hacking at News of the World. This is what he said at

the time. There was never firm evidence or suspicion provided that

I am aware of that implicated anybody else other than Clive

within the staff at News of the World. It just didn't happen, Paul.

And had it, we would have acted. course, we now know that News

International was, at the time Les Hinton said that, in possession of

a wealth of evidence that showed that phone hacking went far beyond

one rogue reporter. Therefore, the That cover-up, according to the

committee also extended to Tom Crone, legal manager of News Group

newspapers, along with Colin Myler, who was editor of the News of the

World. They, the committee concluded, gave misleading answers

about what they knew. To put it politely, we have been led up the

garden path by News International. But more importantly, so were the

readers of its newspapers, the general public, and the victims of

phone hacking. Two years ago, in our report, we found the

organisation guilty of collective amnesia, and said it was

inconceivable that one rogue reporter was involved. We were

right. The big question, of course, is how far up the organisation did

knowledge of this cover-up go? When they peered before the committee,

both James and Rupert -- appeared before the commit year, both James

and Rupert Murdoch claimed they had no inkling it was going on until

very late in the day. The committee members agreed that this was simply

astonishing, they say, that in failing to investigate properly and

ignore widespread evidence of wrongdoing, News International and

its parent company, News Corporation, exhibited willful

blindness, for which the company's directors, including James Murdoch,

and Rupert Murdoch, should ultimately be prepared to take

responsibility. Corporately, the News of the World

and News International had misled the committee, repeatedly, about

the true extent and nature of the investigations that they claimed to

have carried out in relation to phone hacking. And that they had

failed to disclose documents, which would have revealed the truth.

five Labour and one Lib Dem member of the committee wanted to go

further. They inserted a line into the report that said "we conclude,

therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the

stewardship of a major international company". We found

News Corporation had an extensive cover-up of its rampent law-

breaking. Its senior executives repeatedly misled parliament, and

the two men at the top, Rupert and James Murdoch, in charge of the

company, must now answer for that. In the view of the majority of

committee members, Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run an international

company like BSkyB. Conservatives voted against that

line, when that failed they ended up voting against the entire report.

We all felt that was wildly outside the scope of a select committee, it

was an improper attempt to influence Ofcom, and to tread on

areas that is not the province of a select committee, and our report,

at least ostensibly, was about whether or not the prior committee

had been misled. I put it to Tom Watson that by insisting about the

line about Rupert Murdoch's fitness, Labour MPs had diluted the report's

impact. Why was it so important to the get in that line about Rupert

Murdoch being a fit person to run a major international company. When

the expense has been, or the cost of getting that line in has been

allowing opponents of this process to portray it as along party lines

as political payback, or whatever? I understand your point, David,

there is a judgment you have to make with these reports about

whether you go for a weaker report, and gain unanimity, or whether you

stand up for what you steadfastly believe. Where I came to, and

obvious low the majority of non- Conservative members came to, was

that we needed to raise the bar. What happens next, well, in the

short-term, armed with this committee's report, the whole House

of Commons will get to vote on what, if any, sanctions should be applied

to those three individuals named as having misled parliament. The

penalty for that isn't exactly clear.

However, although this committee can claim with some justification

to have started this whole process of investigating News International

and phone hacking at News of the World. They won't get the last word.

In a sense, their work has now rather been overtaken, not just by

the Leveson Inquiry that is going on in parallel, but also by the

criminal investigation by the police.

To discuss what this means for the Murdoch empire, we can speak to the

Conservative MP Louise Mensch, and we're joined from Glasgow by the

Labour MP, Jim sherd Dan, both members of the select committee

that delivered this pretty damming report today. They disagree on

whether Rupert Murdoch is unfit to run a global company. Also here is

the executive editor of the Times, and the BBC former director-general,

Greg Dyke. What is your excuse of subverting what appeared to be a

thorough inquiry with a bit of political sloganising? I don't

accept that analysis, People will draw their own conclusions,

including members of the committee. My own conclusion is this is an

organisation responsible for criminal activity, with three

senior executives involved in it. Rupert Murdoch was the head of that

organisation, and as such you can only draw one of two on collisions,

either he was complicit in everything that was going on, or he

was completely ignorant, and taking his eye off the ball, if you draw

either of those conclusions, you must draw the conclusion that he is

not a fit person to run an organisation. That is fair point,

isn't it Louise Mensch? I don't really think so, it wasn't up to us

to make that judgment. If you look at the introduction of the report,

it says it is an inquiry into whether the prior select committee

was misled. It is worth that on the World Tonight, Jim has said he

didn't base that conclusion on evidence presented to the committee,

but only because Rupert Murdoch was the head of the company. He drew a

conclusion. There are only two possible explanations, either he

was complicit or ignorant, so he's not fit to run an empire? Fit and

proper, they took out "proper" but left in "fit", is part of Ofcom's

test to who hold as broadcast license. Where the Tories disaed

greed, nobody disagreed that was wildly outside the remit of the

committee. And it is Ofcom that makes fit and proper tests, not

select commity. We have lost our chance to produce a unified

credible report where we would have all agreed. If you are willfully

blind, you are surely, by definition, not a fit person to run

a company? I couldn't disagree more, Rupert Murdoch and his son are both

admitting the failings of company over the journalistic practices

that were clearly going wrong. All those have been dealt with and

dealt with very thoroughly, a new chain of management, editoral and

commercial have come in. He has admitted a great level of failure.

The argument he's not a fit person, which is as Mr Watson said and Mr

Sheridan says, these are opinions, it is nothing to do with fact, it

was way outside receipt mit of the committee to do anything about it.

This was purely about an anti- Murdoch animosity, that infuse as

lot of people, political and commercial opponents. The good work

of the committee has been hijacked by a campaign. We will come back to

that in a second or two. Greg Dyke, before we do, what impact will this

sort of form of words have upon Mr Murdoch's position in BSkyB, for

example? I doubt whether this will have any impact at all. Ofcom can

have impact and Ofcom are investigating this, and Ofcom will

apply the proper fit and proper test. I suspect they will come to a

similar conclusion, but be based on a set of evidence that they receive.

So you think it will have a serious impact? I think, in the end, it is

difficult to see how the News International, the Murdoch

corporation, can continue to own the number of shares it owns in

BSkyB. I think in the end, and I think that will be in the interests

of BSkyB, to actually offload News International and the Murdochs. I

think they are now damaging to BSkyB, and BSkyB is a really good

business. Mr Sheridan, on how many of the, the committee I believe

voted on all sorts of contentious points in this report, on how many

of those points did you disagree with your party colleagues? On the

voting I never disagreed with any of them. And there were

Conservatives who disagreed among themselves, weren't there? I do

believe there were some disagreements amongst them. So I

suggest to you that what you were doing is hijacking a parliamentary

inquiry for party advantage? may say that, Jeremy, I don't agree

with you. It is worth saying that in all the time the select

committee discussed the phone hacking report, never in even one

discussion, did we ever discuss, even for a minute, whether or not

Rupert Murdoch was a fit person to run News Corporation. That was

literal never discussed, even one time, in any discussion. But it was

hijacked into the final report. Let's just check that Mr Sheridan

has the same recollection, that is the case isn't it? I missed you

there. Jim, I'm saying in all our discussions on the phone hacking

report, never even once did we as a committee discuss whether or not

Rupert Murdoch was fit to run News Corporation, that never came up in

any of our discussions while we considered the report, until the

final meeting? That's when people draw their final conclusions, in

the final meeting. You drew a conclusion without having discussed

it? It was discussed. The whole issue of. You have just conceded it

wasn't discussed until the final conclusions meeting? The whole

issue of the Murdochs in this whole inquiry was extensively discussed,

privately and publicly. Whether he was a fit person, as Mr Sheridan

has agreed, was absolutely never discussed. Obviously it is not

within a remit of a select committee, as Mark Lewis, the

victims' lawyer has confirmed tonight, it is Ofcom's remit, and

nothing to do with us. Labour have shot themselves into a foot, by

taking a report that could have been hitting the target. There is

not a cigarette paper between you and I, the only difference between

you and I, you don't want to apportion any blame on Rupert

Murdoch. If this was the BBC you would be champing at the bit to

blame Mr Thomson. You would be champing at the bit. You simply

cannot accept that Mr Murdoch has nothing to do with this. That is

completely false. I seem to remember when Labour were in

Government doing precisely what they were talking about there. This

is serious stuff, this. I do think it has turned into a bit of

knockabout stuff, that is a shame. It is a serious thing. Anybody who

watched the evidence. In the end you have to make a judgment of, do

you believe what Mr Murdoch and his son said. I have to say I find it

very difficult to believe. But unless there is evidence to prove

otherwise, one has to accept it. How does it feel where you are, as

part of this enormous organisation, there must come a point where the

Murdoch connection and involvement, the Murdoch overlordship is an

embarrassment? Come off it, what Rupert Murdoch has done for this

country over three decades in terms of maintaining the press, keeping

the press alive, developing television. Underlining the

political system. It hasn't undermined the political system.

Who are you kidding. Please, that just hasn't happened. What are you

saying, people wouldn't have voted Labour? I'm saying our political

system has been de distorted by the way in which the Murdoch operation

-- been distorted by the way in which the Murdoch operation has

influenced politicians, it is going on for 30 years, thankfully it is

ending now, and that makes it a healthier democracy. I challenge

that, Mr Murdoch was endlessly pursued by politicians, it was not

the other way round. Anyone who believes that must be in cuckoo

land. If you believe the line where he says he didn't ask for anything,

who believes that. To say the Murdochs have tainted this country

as one of these great things, couldn't be more wrong. Look at the

nature of British sport, Joey Barton is coming up, look at

football on television. We are talking about democracy and

politics, there is no doubt that over many years that the Murdochs

had an influence over politics in this country which was damaging to

our political system and structure. I certainly think that politicians

should, and politicians and journalists should be distant from

each other. Louise Mensch are you worried that your party now seems,

yet again, to be looking after Murdoch's interests? No, not

particularly. I don't think so. What Jim says is completely not

true. The report before it was amended in this hysterical and

over-the-top way was highly critical of James Murdoch and

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation corporately, there was strong

criticisms in the report as drafted, which we all would have signed up

to. Nobody is trying to say that there weren't failure of both James

and Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation, which they admit

themselves, it is the degree and the over-the-topness, and the

hijacking of the report that has caused the credibility to be lost.

What do you think is the future of James and Rupert Murdoch in this

country? I think it is over. If you have had the degree of political

power and influence that they had, and then suddenly it is gone, I

don't think you can get it back. I don't think the Murdochs will ever

be the power they were then. The moment David Cameron stood up in

the House of Commons and said, come on, we have all been at it, and it

is time to end, it is ended. Can I go back to the fundamentals, Rupert

Murdoch was a very successful businessman, part of that success

was based on him tapping into private telephone calls, people's

private lives, that is why he has been such a successful business. It

is not because he's a magic person. If people want to tap into other

people's lives, that is unforgiveable, that is the reason

why we had this inquiry, that is why we will have the Leveson

Inquiry as well. What do you think, if Greg Dyke is right, and it is

all over for the Murdochs in this country, what will be the

consequences? I don't think it is all over. You have got a

flourishing newspaper business, you have got a flourishing television

business, and I don't see why Rupert Murdoch should walk away. He

loves his papers, he does. He might well be told, Ofcom might say that

News International are not a fit and proper person to control BSkyB,

and 39%, in the law in this country, is control, at the very least they

could have to sell to 29%, they could be told to sell the lot, that

wouldn't surprise me, it might anybody their interests. BSkyB is a

fantastic channel and the activities it does, it is

enormously good for this country. It has never really used what it

developed, the power and money to turn itself into an international

media company based here. It never could, because it always had to be

part of the Murdoch operation. Murdoch always controlled it T you

know that, I know that. What do you think is the future of

the Murdochs in this country? is partly for Ofcom to determine,

not for my commity. But I do note that even: You have inquired into

this pretty thoroughly and arrived at a view? We have, and held News

Corporation's feet to the fire. It is worth saying that the management

and Standards Committee of News Corporation, better late than never,

are finally coming clean and bringing forward information all

the time. They do appear to have taken some of these lessons on

board. It is worth saying that Rupert Murdoch is a great newspaper

man, who has run newspapers in this country before mobile phones were

even invented. Even in the report as it stood, not even Tom Watson or

any Labour member found that either Rupert or James Murdoch had misled

our committee, that is important to say. They were not found guilty of

misleading parliament. I'm all for media equality, we need a strong

freedom of the press, and a strong independent press that doesn't hack

people's phones or use operation Motorman-tile, hacking et cetera,

that was not confined to News International.

The new manager of the England football team was formally unveiled

today, if that is the right words, Roy Hodgson has a glorious few days

before discovering most of the population in these islands think

they could do the job better than him. They are not afraid to say so.

It is not a bad opportunity on the edge of your 65th birthday. In a

moment we will talk about the appointment with QPR captain and

some time England international, Joey Barton. First Steve Smith.

It is the result that not even the most perspicacious, or dare we say

it, veteran football commentator, managed to predict.

Here are tonight's classified football results, read for

Newsnight, by me, James Alexander Gordon.

Football Association 1, Football Pundits 0. That's right, ashen-

faced football hacks have been eating their words, after nobody's

favourite, Roy Hodgson, was elevated from unfashionable West

Brom to the England manager's job. It is a very proud day for me. I'm

a very happen kwhree man to be offered the -- happy man to be

offered the chance to manage my country. I'm looking forward to the

task ahead, it is not an easy one. I'm hoping everybody, fans,

supporters, everybody in the country, will get behind the team,

it is the team that kounds. Andrew Rodger 1, Harry Redknapp 0.

Colourful Spurs boss Harry Redknapp was going to be England boss,

according to everyone, particularly after he was cleared of tax charges.

I feel sorry for Harry, he's a wheeler dealer, a boy, believing in

rapid football. I'm not saying that Roy Hodgson doesn't, if we wanted a

European Championships, Harry was the man.

Roy Hodgson was managed club and national sides around the world.

But his spell at Liverpool wasn't seen as a triumph. Many fans felt

he didn't think big enough for a club that was once accustomed to

greatness. He left after just six months. Roy Hodgson may not have

had a particularly happy time at Liverpool, I believe the fans

didn't give him a chance, because from day one they weren't on his

side, which is very important. I don't think that should ever

detract from his capablities as a manager, or if you look at what he

has achieved at the clubs, he has proved he's a good manager. I think

he will do a very good job for England. The last coach couldn't

speak the language when he took the job. His successor faced a test on

his diplomatic skills, after a question about his playing in South

Africa under the apartheid system. I didn't think about the politics,

it played no part in my decision. It is slightly unfair in today's

world, where we are discussing racism, to go back 40 years and

criticise a decision I made for purely football reasons.

By all accounts, Hodgson's's more rounded individual today. Perhaps

even a Newsnight type, no we don't mean he's always banging on about

politics and economics, he enjoys the arts, and literature. He is a

cultured man. He loves Puccini, where as Harry would think that was

an Italian football player he would sign. He can speak five languages

Roy, he can swear in all of them. When it comes to a press conference,

I'm afraid he can be rather grey, rather saturine and rather

withdrawn. So how will the new boss get on in his first big test,

managing the egos in England's squad at the European

Championshipss this summer. Will he turn out to be like another

English leader, who came unstuck over Europe. Major was grey, wasn't

he, really, I can't imagine Roy Hodgson wearing Y-fronts and eating

peas off a knife, he would be rather talking about something like

spaghetti a la vong ola in the bay of Naples. He has to get it across,

it is all right being intelligent, but it is as it does, and Roy

doesn't impress you as the brain of Britain. Why did I give it up? The

WAGs wouldn't leave me alone. reflect on the appointment of Roy

Hodgson and the state of football in England generally, is Joey

Barton, he can both over 1.4 million followers on twitter and

captains QPR, he has a couple of convictions for violence and plays

for England. What does this appointment tell us about the state

of English football? I mean, for me, I think the Englishman in the

street wanted an English manager. We straight away limited our appeal.

I think it is a very shrewd appointment by the FA. They head-

hunted him almost, to the point where they have said they have not

interviewed any other candidates, I think Roy Hodgson has the track

record. He has coached international football before,

which is a complete and total different entity to club football.

You have a lot less involvement with the players on a daily basis.

And also, you are managing other managers' players, it is not a

straight forward role. I think Roy has a wealth of experience, not

only in England, but abroad, and at major tournaments. It will bode

well. He seems to be a quiet, thoughtful guy? I wouldn't know

without, I haven't worked with him personally, although I have come

across him in the game. He is a straight forward guy. I think he's

a very qulturd Englishman. He has coached inter-- cultured Englishman,

he coached Inter Milan, and Switzerland into number three in

the FIFA world rankings, and Finland and Abu Dhabi. He has

managed big clubs, Liverpool is a massive club, Inter Milan is a

massive club. He has a wealth of experience. It is a very shrewd

appointment by England. It is a heck of a management of

expectations he has to deal with, though, isn't it? Do you think we

take football too seriously in this country? That is difficult for me

to say as a footballer. The fact that I have over a million

followers, most of them I have never met on Twitter, shows that

football is taken seriously in this country. Too seriously do you think

sometimes? It is our national gamement we are very proud of

England, and I think -- game. And we're very proud of England, that

is why we get so much media coverage. Why aren't we doing

better? That is a difficult question, unless I was appointed

England manager, it is difficult to answer, why aren't we doing better,

in terms of what? I think, for me, we have the best export in global

football in the Premier League. From that standpoint we do

fantastic. Do you think, there used to be an argument, that good club

football was some how the energy of a good national team? Yeah, and I

think as the Premier League has grown over the last 20 years, I

think England, to your average Englishman has slipped maybe a

little bit. The club becomes really important, and interclub rivalries

have grown beyond the national ideaty. In the country there is a

massive north and south divide. The fact that England play at Wembley

predominantly and the amount of money spent on Wembley, I think

people in the north of the country feel like England has become a

northern-based entity really. English football has become

southern-based? Team England. should have? I think it should be

addressed. I have been on record saying England should be a touring

side. They are a representation of the whole of the country, they

should tour the country. We have some great stadiums all round the

country. I think, you know, I think we should take advantage of that.

Obviously it will be very difficult because of the amount of the money

the FA put into the new stadium, which is magnificent at Wembley,

that is the reason the big matches play there. Is it something about

the way the authority is exercised in the game? There is so much money

involved, when money gets involved at the level it does, I think you

know what it is like, the bureaucrats sort of have to feel

they have to do something, in order to justify salaries that they are

paid. They are generally sticking their noses in, sometimes where it

is better to let the main experts and people who know the game. The

paperwork and that kind of thing can get in the way. I think the

higher up the chain you go, I think obviously that comes into more and

more. It is difficult, because sometimes you have just got to let

people do what you employed them to do. Hopefully, for Roy Hodgson, he

gets the chance to do that. Do you think there is a case for a

generational shift in the team, that maybe needs to go down ten

years or something? You are talking like an expert there, I couldn't

say there. It is your age group that is coming over the hill, which

is a bit ripe for me? My process towards England as a patriotic

proud Englishman, wanting England to do very well at major

tournaments, because it keeps me interested, certainly, in the

summer watching it, the longer they stay in it. I would say maybe it is

the time to give Roy the license to shake it up a bit, in terms of to

bring some young exciting players, which we have a lot of in this

country, and take them to a major championship. There is the European

Championships will be, and build for the next world and European

Championshipss. Germany did it just before the World Cup out in Germany,

I think it was in 2006, the tournament previous to that, which

was the European Championshipss, I think in Portugal, they blooded a

lot of young players in the process of taking them to the next World

Cup, and giving them that major tournament experience, and also

giving them probably the height of expectation and the media interest,

all that comes with the game. You don't fancy it yourself? No, I

have got pressing issues at QPR, we are in a relegation fight, that is

my sole focus at the minute, you know, that is where my mind is set.

Joey Barton, thanks a lot. The day after tomorrow lots of us

get the chance to express ourselves on paper in local elections in

England, Scotland and Wales. They are often treated as the poor

relations in general elections, even though what local Government

does often has a more direct impact on people's lives. They also

resonate way beyond city, town or county boundaries, nowhere and more

so than in Scotland, where all 32 local authorities are up for grabs,

and there is said to be the real prospect of Labour losing places

they were once so confident of. They hardly needed a canvas.

We're in Glasgow. If in places like Glasgow they

normally weigh the vote, not count it, this Thursday they will have

shipped in the most ultra sensitive calipers and tape measures to

ajudicate the way this council goes. Across the country the Westminster

Government thinks the opposition will to the up respectable games --

tot up respectable games, but they hope to bring down Labour's wins.

Glasgow council has been run by Labour for 32 years, this city

played a special role in the formation of the Labour Party, in

1914 workers rose up in this square in complaint of working conditions.

The Government in Westminster sent tanks, they felt it was a

revolution, it it wasn't, but something like Red Collideside was

brought in and Glasgow became central to Labour's life.

Gordon Matheson was one of the men thought to fight for that. 55p of

every pound you paid in rent went to servicing debt, because that was

removed that has meant that investment has been possible. So

there is new cladding, new door central heating, new kitchens.

not saying Labour is doing a bad job, from my point of view, and a

lot of people's point of view, you are not guaranteed a vote, you have

to fight for it, you have to persuade me, you are doing a good

job, perhaps you will get my vote. That is the difference, 20 years

ago you have the vote, now you are up against a good party. In the

suburbs, the lesser spotted Conservatives are festooned with

falling blossom as they knock on doors. What about the Tories'

chances, why are they bothering? think around about here they have a

good chance. Your friends are persuaded by them? Yes. Would you?

No. The nature of this election means smaller parties could be as

critical as the one-time Labour core vote ever was. This chap could

be a king maker in a coalition. But at the moment you are out of the

picture, it is a two-way battle, is SNP-Labour? That is the way it is

portrayed, when you think about it, this election will be close and the

Conservatives could play a role in the next administration, we are

working really hard to get more than one elected at this election

to hold the balance of power. Displaying an early ability to kol

build, David bumps into a political panjandrumwauarking his dog, the

Labour Party chairman back when things were rosy in 199 1.

issue is whether these Des deselected Labour candidates will -

these deselected Labour candidates will affect the Labour vote, that

they will take votes from Labour, most of them won't get elected

themselves, but they might then just take enough votes from Labour

to let the SNP through. Tommy Morrison is leader of that

group, Glasgow First, pushed away, they believe, when Labour asked old

timers, 20 of them, not to stand again. I think that the city is

looking forward to one of the biggest elections it will ever have,

in the past 40 years. The Labour Party deselected 18 of its

councillors, for no reason that we can find out. When we are trying to

go through the system we were basically told we were dead wood.

That we weren't part of the A-team, and we weren't part of the new

Labour set-up. My colleagues and I have never been part of the new

Labour set-up. We consider ourselves not old Labour, but not

new Labour, but the real Labour Party. The Labour Party think that

on Thursday they will lose overall control of the council, but they

will remain the largest party. They think that, in a system that is

being fought on proportional voting s a minutey miracle. But their

colleagues, the ones -- mini- miracle, but their colleagues, the

ones he they chucked out think they will be lucky, and think that the

Conservatives will hold the power. The SNP is in bullish mood. We have

been working hard, our objective is obviously to win these elections,

we have had a great team across the city. We are building on the

achievements of the SNP Government over the last few years. We have

the record, the team and the vision for Glasgow. I think you can see

the work that we have done has been really impressive, all across the

city. Local councillors over the last five years have been building

up a really good reputation of being hard workers. Tell me David,

why is it that your leader, Alex Salmond, has not been heavily

visible in this place? This is obviously a local election, it is

about local issues. Alex Salmond is the leader of the party, he has

been in Glasgow, but this is a local issue, local campaigns and

local people. The smaller parties feel they will

be overshadowed? We will be skwuesed by the two massive parties

clouting over their -- squeezed by the two massive parties clouting

each other over the head, and all the other parties are fighting hard

to be re-elected, the people in our target seats are good local people

delivering locally. In these election results, look at the

numbers across the country and look at London, remember George Square

and the next episode in Scottish Labour history, a story that began

nearly 100 years ago. Margaret Curran is the Shadow

Scotland Secretary, she's a Glasgow MP and joins us there, in the

dunddy studio is the SN -- dunddy studio is the SN P MP, Stewart

Hosie. You are issued a manifesto with 100 promises, which includes

making Glasgow a child-friendly city, why have you not done that

before now? There is no denying we are facing a challenge in Glasgow,

particularly after last year's elections where the SNP outpolled

us. We have strong policies and strong leadership. I'm hopeful we

will do better in these elections and could be the largest party.

asking about your 100 proim misses here, the manifesto -- promises,

the manifesto, the promise number nine is Labour targeting

irresponsible dog owners who foul our parks and streets, 40 years to

get that far? Picking up on the child issue, if you say that, one

of the difficulties that Glasgow has had, is the SNP Government and

their lack of leadership in childcare has meant that Scotland

is now behind England in terms of childcare provision. Nonetheless,

Glasgow City Council, under Labour's leadership, has made

important strides in the city, we have still much more work to. Do we

want to improve childcare provision. You have dog mess to clear up?

fouling matters to people. I wonder why you spent 40 years not dealing

with it? Some action has been taken, but not enough. We would say with

the the Tories in power at Westminster, the SNP neglecting

Glasgow and Edinburgh, we have a fight on our hands, we will do our

best to represent the best interests of the people of Glasgow.

Stewart Hosie, your leader in Glasgow says taking Glasgow would

be the first stepping stone to independence, is he serious?

then went on to say the focus is on Glasgow, I have heard that quote

before, it is normally a misquote. It is no surprise that I campaign

like Alison Hunter wants Scotland to be independent. It is not a

surprise that a nationalist wants Scotland to be independent. Is it a

stepping stone to independent? is a stepping stone to controlling

Glasgow and making the people's lives better. Is it a stepping

stone for independence? If you are asking me if it is a referendum on

independent, no it is about who is best to run the city of Glasgow.

The question of turnout, it is widely predicted that for various

reasons we don't needing to into now, there is a danger of a very

low turnout, what would you consider to be a turnout that was

so low that the outcome was really illegitimate? I wouldn't put a

finger on it. There have been by- elections, I think Hillary Benn in

Leeds some years ago, it was incredibly low. From memory it was

less than 20%. The people have the right not to vote, so we need to be

very careful about legitimacy in terms of turnout numbers. What do

you think? Of course I wouldn't put a figure on it at all. We need to

make sure we are fighting for every vote, and motivate people that big

issues are at stake in this election. Unlike what the SNP say,

it is fundamentally about the great city of Glasgow and the services

that are at stake. If we motivate people and feel they understand

that, and think about this we can increase it. When you are out

campaigning, what is the most exciting and enthusiastic thing you

have heard people say about Ed Miliband's leadership of your

party? I think what people are beginning to recognise is Ed is

very much leading the agenda, he was the first to take on the issue

about the Murdochs in stark contrast to Alex Salmond, that is

coming up on the doorsteps a lot. It is about what the Tory

Government is doing, more interested in millionaires and Ed

Miliband is speak beg fairness, that is resonating on the doorsteps.

All the people you have spoken on the many doorsteps you have been on,

what is the most exciting thing someone has said about Ed Miliband?

That he's warm and engaging and talking about the issue that matter

to them. Some people find that exciting, even if perhaps you don't.

Stewart Hosie, how much enthusiasm do people express on the doorsteps

about the cuts being introduced by the SNP Government? Who people on

the doorsteps o out there understand is we are in the middle

of the biggest depression in many years. They are delighted the

Scottish Government has frozen the council tax, kept 1,000 extra

police on the beat, and introduced a small business bonus that sees

40% of businesses paying reduced or no rates at all to try to grow the

economy out of the recession and out from underneath the austerity

measures of the UK Government. big a loss would Glasgow be, do you

think? It depends how you define loss. If we are not the overall-

party, that may be interpreted somebody who don't understand

proportional representation as a loss. I tell you the ruins are good,

we are getting positive feedback on the doorsteps, I'm hopefully can

run and good campaign in Glasgow. What is your reading of the way

things are going, Stewart Hosie? have set one target, which was to

overtake Labour in terms of the number of votes cast. You said your

target was to win Glasgow outright. No Margaret. Yes it was. I know

what the SNP target was. I have heard it as well, are you changing

your story? We want to be the largest party in terms of votes,

going along with the largest party in terms of councillors, as we are

at the present time. In relation to Glasgow, we are contesting 43

candidates with 22 councils at the moment. We need all of them elected

to wifpblt we are trying extremely -- win that. We are trying

extremely hard to do that, and people are working flat out and