01/05/2012 Newsnight


Parliament's Media Committee say Rupert Murdoch is unfit to run News Corp. So what of BSkyB? And who is the new England football manager? With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/05/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles