:00:12. > :00:17.Tonight, imagine a world in which diseases you thought were curable
:00:17. > :00:20.suddenly cannot be cured, treatable infections become untreatable, and
:00:20. > :00:25.cancer therapy and surgery leads to new dangers.
:00:25. > :00:30.That is the medical nightmare of a new breed of superbug, resistant to
:00:30. > :00:35.antibiotics, and threatening to overturn some of the best hopes of
:00:35. > :00:39.modern medicine. 21st century medicine, the hip replacements and
:00:39. > :00:44.cancer chemotherapy, they won't be possible, because patients will be
:00:44. > :00:48.succumbing to infxs that were treatable. We will hear whether our
:00:48. > :00:52.doctors need to cut down drastically on the prescription of
:00:52. > :00:56.antibiotics. Labour holds on to three parliamentary seats, and UKIP
:00:56. > :00:58.does well, and claims to be the nation's third party. Is any of
:00:58. > :01:03.that credible. From the celebrations last night,
:01:03. > :01:07.you would think coming second of the new coming first. But remember,
:01:07. > :01:17.UKIP haven't yet got one MP. We will ask if they are really
:01:17. > :01:17.
:01:17. > :01:23.keeping David Cameron awake at Good evening. Some of the miracles
:01:23. > :01:26.of modern medicine are in danger. We come to take for granted
:01:26. > :01:30.treatments for cancer and hip replacements, the stuff of dreams a
:01:30. > :01:33.few decades ago. Many of these advances depend on antibiotic,
:01:33. > :01:40.which have been used to fight infection since the 1940s. Many of
:01:40. > :01:45.them are losing their effectiveness. At a rate that is both alarming and
:01:45. > :01:50.irreversible. -- irreversible. That is from Britain's Chief Medical
:01:50. > :01:55.Officer. We have talked to the teams at the frontline in the fight
:01:55. > :01:59.against drug-resistant bacteria, or superbugs. And just as scientists
:01:59. > :02:03.thought they were gaining the upper hand, a new threat is emerging, and
:02:03. > :02:12.this next wave could be what the Chief Medical Officer describes as
:02:12. > :02:20.one of the greatest threats to modern health.
:02:20. > :02:27.At the frontline, in the battle between man and miebcob, each new
:02:27. > :02:33.anti--- microbe, each new anti- biotic we create has an army of
:02:33. > :02:38.resistance. Antibiotics underpins all areas of 21st century medicine.
:02:38. > :02:45.If we allow them to proliferate, we undermine all those advances.
:02:45. > :02:51.Bacteria that constantly evolve are evading our best weapons. One year
:02:51. > :02:54.your house is a mile away from the cliff age, with coastal erosion,
:02:54. > :02:59.come back ten years later, and the cliff edge is only 100 yards away.
:02:59. > :03:05.That is the position we are now in with antibiotic resistance.
:03:05. > :03:13.arrival of antibiotics in the 1940s, revolutionised healthcare, until
:03:13. > :03:16.bacteria began to fight back. Now, doctors and scientists are warning
:03:16. > :03:22.that ever-evolving, resistant strains, are putting modern
:03:22. > :03:27.medicine at risk. For antibiotic- resistant organisms you might have
:03:27. > :03:30.heard of, like MRSA, doctors and scientists have been making
:03:30. > :03:36.headation, there is a new group of bacteria gaining ground now. It is
:03:36. > :03:40.a fresh challenge, and there is a lot at stake. Nick Brown has to
:03:40. > :03:45.deal with the reality of resistant bacteria every day on the hospital
:03:45. > :03:51.ward. Often it is as simple as keeping patients apart. Hospitals
:03:51. > :03:53.are continuously bombarded by the introduction of antibiotic
:03:53. > :03:58.resistant bacteria from patients transferred from other hospitals
:03:58. > :04:01.and overseas, therefore, we have to take precautions to segregate the
:04:01. > :04:08.patients from others, and take infection control precautions to
:04:08. > :04:12.prevent the organisms spreading. At her Birmingham lab,
:04:12. > :04:16.microbiologists, Laura Piddock, is trying to understand resistance, to
:04:16. > :04:20.see if there might be better ways to counter it. She says bacteria
:04:20. > :04:26.become resistant in a process that is a form of revolution, where the
:04:26. > :04:32.fittest bacteria survive. The ones that can withstand antibiotics, and
:04:32. > :04:36.the more we use antibiotics, the more we unwittingly encourage those
:04:36. > :04:41.resistant bacteria to thrive. So what is it about these bacteria,
:04:41. > :04:51.that makes them resistant? We can boil it down really into two wave,
:04:51. > :04:51.
:04:51. > :04:56.first of all, they can share small pieces of DNA and transfer in
:04:56. > :05:03.bacteria population. That might allow them to produce an enzyme to
:05:03. > :05:07.chew up the drug. The bacteria has the genetic material to overcome
:05:07. > :05:12.the drug, and produces the mechanism of resistance. There are
:05:12. > :05:17.two main groups of bacteria called ground-positive and ground-negative.
:05:17. > :05:23.It is the second group causing concern to microbiologists. Ground-
:05:23. > :05:26.negative bacteria have a double- cell ball w biological pump
:05:26. > :05:30.inbetween. In ground-negative bacteria here, this is the joud
:05:30. > :05:34.site of the cell and this is the inside. They have these two
:05:34. > :05:38.barriers, which ground-positive bacteria doesn't have. They are
:05:38. > :05:42.very clever, they have a three-part system that works like a vacuum
:05:42. > :05:49.cleaner. Any drug that gets in, immediately just pumps it straight
:05:49. > :05:54.out. This built-in pump means ground-negative bacteria can spit
:05:54. > :06:00.out our best antibiotics, making it harder to design one that will
:06:00. > :06:05.destroy them. There are six resistant bacteria that worry
:06:05. > :06:12.microbiologists most. Two are ground-positive, all of the rest
:06:12. > :06:22.are ground-negative. The one that is demanding attention right now is
:06:22. > :06:27.
:06:27. > :06:33.Klebsiella. Klebsiella is seen in renal infections. It has resisted
:06:33. > :06:39.antibiotics and we have had to return to the reserves, carbopenins,
:06:39. > :06:43.2% of Klebsiella are resistant to carbopenin antibiotics, it has shot
:06:43. > :06:49.up in parts of Europe and the US. You only have to go to southern
:06:49. > :06:56.Europe to see what can happen. As early as 2008, there were problems
:06:56. > :07:03.in Greece. 40% of Klebsiella resistant to cabopenin. Watch Italy
:07:03. > :07:11.n2008 it is between 1-5%, no worse than our present problems. But come
:07:11. > :07:17.forward to 2010, and already Italy is up to 17%. And come now to the
:07:17. > :07:24.most recent data, Italy is now up to 30%. It is vital that we in the
:07:25. > :07:28.UK avoid going down this trajectory. If we lose cabopenins, against
:07:28. > :07:33.bacteria like Klebsiella, we are forced to use what are really
:07:33. > :07:41.rather poor, toxic, not very God antibiotics, we are down to the
:07:41. > :07:44.bottom of the barrel. It is a potentially lethal
:07:44. > :07:51.infection that is resistant to treatment...$$NEWLINE It is the
:07:51. > :07:54.most vulnerable patients who are at risk. MRSA, for example, the drug-
:07:54. > :07:59.resistant ground-positive bacteria, is harmless to the many healthy
:07:59. > :08:02.people who carry it, but not the weak. When it was found in the
:08:02. > :08:06.special care baby unit at Addenbrooks last year, the hospital
:08:06. > :08:11.turned to the latest in genetic technology for help. A few miles
:08:11. > :08:19.from the hospital, in the Cambridgeshire countryside, is the
:08:19. > :08:26.world-famous Sanger institute. started 15 years ago, references
:08:26. > :08:29.bacteria. Scientists here helped decode our DNA blueprint, in the
:08:29. > :08:32.human genome project. Now they are using a similar approach to
:08:32. > :08:37.identify and track the most threatening of bacteria. Two things
:08:37. > :08:40.may be going on in the hospital, the strains may be brought in
:08:40. > :08:46.independently or transmission in the hospital. Current typing
:08:46. > :08:49.techniques find it difficult to differentiate strains at high level.
:08:49. > :08:54.The genome sequencing we are trying to use here, allow very fine
:08:54. > :08:59.discrimination of strains. This approach will work with any
:08:59. > :09:03.bacterium, we have shown it working with MRSA, it will almost certainly
:09:03. > :09:06.allow the hospital to differentiate outbreaks of Klebsiella from
:09:06. > :09:10.independent introductions of Klebsiella, and knowing there has
:09:10. > :09:16.been an outbreak and transmission is key to any intervention to
:09:16. > :09:19.prevent transmission. How important might these new
:09:19. > :09:24.sequencing technologies be where it really matters? There is potential
:09:24. > :09:28.for the new gene sequencing technologies to enable us to better
:09:28. > :09:31.understand the epidemiology of the spread of ground-negative
:09:31. > :09:34.antibiotic resistance. Therefore, we would be able to target our
:09:34. > :09:38.isolation facilities, and the infection control precaution that
:09:38. > :09:43.is we use to prevent further spread within the hospital environment.
:09:43. > :09:47.But, it will be years before we can contain every outbreak quickly. So
:09:47. > :09:53.the warning now is that we must stop resistant strains reaching
:09:53. > :09:59.patients in the first place, to avoid the unthinkable.
:09:59. > :10:02.For -- For those who get an infection by a ground-negative
:10:02. > :10:06.bacterium, it will be increasingly difficult to treat it. We will see
:10:06. > :10:13.the day where we have untreatable infections. In some wards in the UK
:10:13. > :10:18.it has already happened F we don't sort out, these wonderful medical
:10:18. > :10:24.advances we take for granted, the hip replacements and cancer chemo
:10:24. > :10:27.therapy, they won't be possible, because patients will succumb to
:10:27. > :10:31.infections that were previously treatable. Unusually, Professor
:10:31. > :10:35.Piddock and other specialists like her, are campaigning to persuade
:10:35. > :10:39.Governments and industry to do more to preserve current antibiotics and
:10:39. > :10:44.find new ones. Their concern that we overuse these drugs, most
:10:44. > :10:48.recently, by buying them via the Internet.
:10:48. > :10:55.It is not like other types of medicine. If I have a headache, I
:10:55. > :11:00.would take a tablet for my headache. If I take an antibiotic, all of the
:11:00. > :11:06.bacteria in my body are exposed to that antibiotics, I would be
:11:06. > :11:10.selecting drug-resistant strains and sharing them. I may not need an
:11:10. > :11:15.antibiotic. We are saying use them sparingly and preserve their use
:11:15. > :11:18.for as long as possible until we get new drugs.
:11:18. > :11:22.Bacteria breed quickly and in situation that can surprise the
:11:22. > :11:26.experts. No-one can say for sure what the next big resistant threat
:11:26. > :11:34.will be. Only that there will be more. And that we may not always be
:11:34. > :11:38.confident that our antibiotics will work.
:11:38. > :11:42.Professor Alan Johnson is a consultant clinical scientist at
:11:42. > :11:46.the Health Protection Agency in England and an expert in resistant
:11:46. > :11:51.antibiotics. How serious is this? We have a large number of bacteria
:11:52. > :11:55.can cause infections and a range of antibiotics. The extent of the
:11:55. > :11:58.problem depends on which range of those you are looking at. At one
:11:58. > :12:01.end of the spectrum we have some strains of bacteria causing
:12:01. > :12:05.infections that are becoming virtually untreatable already, at
:12:05. > :12:09.the other end of the spectrum we have some strains of bacteria that
:12:09. > :12:12.cause infections that remain readily treatable. We have some
:12:12. > :12:17.time, but there are lots of parts to the puzzle. How important is it
:12:17. > :12:20.for doctors to say to us as patients, you really don't need
:12:20. > :12:25.antibiotic, I won't give them to you, even though hur whinge ago
:12:25. > :12:28.bit? The key issue in the report, is cannotitybiotics are unlike
:12:28. > :12:31.other drugs used in medicine, the more you use them, the less
:12:31. > :12:34.effective they become. The key part of the strategy at the moment,
:12:34. > :12:38.because of the lack of new drugs in development, is to make sure that
:12:38. > :12:41.the drugs we currently have, and are active at the moment, remain so
:12:41. > :12:47.for the future. And doctors play a part in that? In order to do this
:12:47. > :12:52.we need to cut back on unnecessary and inappropriate prescribing.
:12:52. > :12:55.speaking as a patients, must of us think these are wonder drugs, we
:12:55. > :12:59.think they cure a lot of things. My demand to a doctor would be please
:12:59. > :13:04.give it to me? We know that is one of the problems, there is good
:13:04. > :13:06.evidence from studies that doctors, unfortunately, do prescribe
:13:06. > :13:09.inappropriately, because of the pressure put on them by patients,
:13:09. > :13:13.who have a high expectation of getting a drug. One of the key
:13:13. > :13:18.things at the moment is attempts to try to educate patients. That
:13:18. > :13:23.antibiotics are not harmless, as we thought. If you take an antibiotic
:13:23. > :13:27.unnecessarily, you get what we know as collateral damage, you end up
:13:27. > :13:31.possibly colonising superbugs. Educating doctors about that.
:13:31. > :13:36.Indeed. You can get them on the internet, before I came in, I
:13:36. > :13:40.checked, it is easy to get a whole range of antibiotics? That is an
:13:40. > :13:45.appalling development. It goes totally counter to global efforts
:13:45. > :13:49.to optimise and reduce prescribing as much as possible. If they are
:13:49. > :13:52.made freely. Another thing to be aware of, what you buy over the
:13:52. > :13:57.Internet is sometimes counter fit drugs. You are not only use theing
:13:57. > :14:02.the drugs inappropriately d counterfeit drugs, you are not only
:14:02. > :14:07.using the drugs inappropriately. They will tend to promote
:14:07. > :14:12.resistance if the does aj isn't what you think -- does aj isn't
:14:12. > :14:15.what you think it is. -- dosage isn't what you think it is.
:14:15. > :14:19.The message isn't getting through? There are initiatives to redress
:14:19. > :14:22.this. In terms of doctors' education, because of the advances
:14:22. > :14:25.in modern medicine, if you are a trainee doctor, the sheer amount of
:14:25. > :14:28.knowledge that you have to accumulate during your training is
:14:28. > :14:33.vast. There is a problem that at the moment, in terms of the medical
:14:33. > :14:37.curriculum, the amount of time that trainee doctors have lectures on
:14:37. > :14:40.infection, let alone the use of antibiotics, it is a tiny part of
:14:40. > :14:44.the medical curriculum, and colleagues, I know who are
:14:44. > :14:47.interested in education, say that has to change, there needs to be
:14:47. > :14:51.more much focus on how to use antibiotics properly.
:14:51. > :14:53.Thank you very much. Now, there is nothing unusual about
:14:53. > :14:57.Governments taking a beating in by- elections half way through a
:14:57. > :15:04.parliament, nor is there anything unusual about an opposition holding
:15:04. > :15:08.three safe seats, as Labour did yesterday. But, the UK Independence
:15:08. > :15:13.Party say recent elections amounts to sea change in British politics.
:15:13. > :15:17.UKIP, they claim, and not the Liberal Democrats, are the third
:15:17. > :15:23.party. They claim to be going on in future elections to possibly
:15:23. > :15:29.reshape things. We report on whether any of this is
:15:29. > :15:35.justifiable or political dreaming. The morning after the night before
:15:35. > :15:39.in Rotherham, sees normal life continue apace, and it is business
:15:39. > :15:45.as usual in affairs of state too. The local Labour Party retained the
:15:45. > :15:52.constituency last night in a by- election, comfortably, but beneath
:15:52. > :15:56.the surface, basking in winter sun, quite some disturbance was caused.
:15:56. > :15:59.Last night it wasn't the winning that counted, but the coming second
:16:00. > :16:03.that seemed to matter. In the European elections, in cities like
:16:03. > :16:07.Hull, we came first, in the local elections last year in Sheffield,
:16:07. > :16:10.we got more votes than the Conservatives. We have just
:16:10. > :16:15.performed creditably well in the Police Commissioner elections. The
:16:15. > :16:18.general election, two-and-a-half years ago, UKIP scored 3% of the
:16:18. > :16:21.vote, the last opinion poll put us on 11% nationally you are looking
:16:21. > :16:27.at a very different party, and a confident party.
:16:27. > :16:31.Add to that, last night's positions, in Rotherham UKIP secured 21.79% of
:16:31. > :16:36.the vote. Its highest showing in a Westminster by-election, elsewhere,
:16:36. > :16:41.in the two other by-elections of Middlesborough and Croydon t came
:16:41. > :16:44.in second and third respectively. This triplicate of positions for a
:16:44. > :16:48.party, once teased by the Prime Minister, appeared sweeter than
:16:48. > :16:52.winning. For the celebrations last night by UKIP, you would think that
:16:52. > :16:55.coming second in a by-election is the new coming first. Remember,
:16:56. > :17:00.UKIP doesn't yet have its own MP at Westminster. That goes to the heart
:17:00. > :17:05.of the strategic questions being asked, if not by the party itself,
:17:05. > :17:09.then being asked about the party. Why are they not digging deep in
:17:09. > :17:13.one constituency, trying to get the MP, instead of the mini-explosions
:17:13. > :17:20.they are letting go off around the country. I think they are not
:17:20. > :17:24.inclined to go for the MP, why should they bother, a -- as it
:17:24. > :17:28.stands they are scrambling the signal of UK politics. At the
:17:28. > :17:32.beginning of this year they started to overtake the Liberal Democrats
:17:32. > :17:37.as the third part. The Liberal Democrats have done well as a
:17:37. > :17:40.protest vote sometimes. Now they are in Government they are not the
:17:40. > :17:44.natural receiving of protest votes, and that is what we have seen in
:17:45. > :17:51.Rotherham. Does it mean they are wiped out because they came eighth?
:17:51. > :17:57.No, but it does show they are squeezed. What drove up UKIP's vote,
:17:57. > :18:04.two issues repelled loyalists from Labour. Who did you vote for?
:18:04. > :18:07.Why? Because what is on the Labour council, old-time Labour voter,
:18:07. > :18:15.disillusioned with them. Denis MacShane with the scam he pulled on
:18:15. > :18:18.everybody, and also with, what I heard about the foster carers.
:18:19. > :18:23.That one-time Labour loyalist confirmed UKIP is not just a
:18:23. > :18:26.problem for the Conservative Party. A larger proportion of UKIP
:18:26. > :18:30.supporters in 2010 would go Tory, but there are Labour-inclined
:18:30. > :18:34.voters too. If you drill into UKIP's numbers, there is something
:18:34. > :18:37.else going on. When we look back at the data of people who say they
:18:37. > :18:40.support UKIP, what is interesting about them, is yes, they are
:18:40. > :18:44.interested in Europe, they are as interested in immigration and race.
:18:44. > :18:49.Where as one person in five in Britain says that immigration is
:18:49. > :18:55.the key issue, problem, facing the country, amongst UKIP voters, in
:18:56. > :18:59.our recent analysis, the figure is 49%. We have stumbled across the
:18:59. > :19:02.well named new Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, she will
:19:02. > :19:05.probably keep the seat at the next election, this place a Labour
:19:05. > :19:08.stronghold. But, as we have seen this morning, she and her party
:19:08. > :19:12.will have a lot to do on immigration.
:19:12. > :19:17.According to the office of national statistics, last year, Rotherham
:19:17. > :19:20.was home to 237,000 British inhabitants, and 15,000 non-British.
:19:20. > :19:25.These figures are clearly blunt, and may not reflect the actual
:19:25. > :19:28.community. But on the ground, there did appear to be some of the anti-
:19:28. > :19:34.immigrant feeling driving UKIP's surge, diagnosed by the pollsters.
:19:34. > :19:38.We had been at Eastwood, two life- long Labour loyalists, took us to a
:19:38. > :19:42.car park, where they say the children of eastern European
:19:42. > :19:49.immigrants gather nightly and Iraqously, our pair had organised
:19:49. > :19:53.to resist them -- racausly, our pair had organised to resist them.
:19:53. > :19:57.Do you equate how upset you are in your community and the by-election?
:19:57. > :20:01.A lot of people have decided to vote for someone else definitely.
:20:01. > :20:05.You were a Labour voter? Yes. it a difficult decision? Yes, I
:20:05. > :20:15.have voted for somebody else this time, definitely. I didn't vote
:20:15. > :20:17.
:20:17. > :20:21.UKIP, I stuck to being a Labour voter. But I think the voters of
:20:21. > :20:26.Rotherham have sent a message in the result that came through. Help
:20:26. > :20:32.us out, do something for us. You know, let's help each other to
:20:32. > :20:36.improve the area. They discuss how they vote with their friends Saber,
:20:37. > :20:41.the secretary of the local mosque. Why didn't you go for UKIP? If it
:20:41. > :20:44.was the same MP I wouldn't have voted, I would have gone for UKIP.
:20:45. > :20:48.Would you have voted UKIP? possibly would have, because their
:20:48. > :20:52.policy applies to myself as well, therefore, I have to be careful
:20:52. > :20:55.when I'm voting. Anecdotes on the ground aside, it
:20:55. > :20:59.was Labour that did well yesterday. The two parties in Government are
:20:59. > :21:03.spinning last night's result as mid-term blues, more blue than
:21:03. > :21:06.usual in the chill weather of November. But all minds in
:21:06. > :21:12.Government are turned to next Wednesday's big economic statement
:21:12. > :21:17.of intent. In the knowledge that, at root, the prospect of a triple-
:21:18. > :21:23.dip recession, caused last night's triple-boost for UKIP. With me is
:21:23. > :21:31.the editor of the Spectator, and Steve Richards from the Independent.
:21:31. > :21:35.We hear from Jeremy Batten an MP for London from UKIP. Well done for
:21:35. > :21:38.not winning anything, 70 piers of the people didn't vote, you are not
:21:38. > :21:43.the third force in British politics? We have been doing this
:21:43. > :21:46.for 20 years now. It has been a slow progress, because we are up
:21:46. > :21:52.against the first pass the post electoral system, that is very
:21:52. > :21:54.difficult to breakthrough in. We have 100 years of entrenched
:21:54. > :22:00.tribunal voting we are trying to make -- tribal voting we are trying
:22:00. > :22:04.to break down. You did well in 2009, European elections, came second,
:22:04. > :22:10.2010, no Westminster seats. Which Westminster seat are you within a
:22:10. > :22:14.sniff of winning? We would give away our strategy if I tell you
:22:14. > :22:18.that. We will fight as many seat as we K we are look to go do the whole
:22:18. > :22:22.of the 645 we will be targeting seats as well. Deciding which ones
:22:22. > :22:27.to put the most effort into. many will you win? I can't make
:22:27. > :22:30.those kind of predictions, I don't know. I have never underrated how
:22:30. > :22:35.difficult it is. The reason we are doing so well, is because we have a
:22:35. > :22:39.flavour of that from your intervoos, is because we actually rep --
:22:39. > :22:42.interviews, is because we represent the centre of British opinion. The
:22:42. > :22:47.old parties don't actually appeal to what the ordinary voters want.
:22:47. > :22:50.They were talking pretty much about local issues, the kids causing a
:22:50. > :22:56.row, talking about what is going on in Rotherham council, and a
:22:56. > :22:59.disgraced local MP. Not the kinds of things that are your policies?
:22:59. > :23:04.Some maeings the Government -- so many of the things the Government
:23:04. > :23:07.wants to do they can't, because our laws are made in the European Union.
:23:07. > :23:12.Controlling immigration, we can't control it, because the EU sets the
:23:12. > :23:14.laws. Is there any chance of you forming an electoral pact with the
:23:15. > :23:20.Conservative Party, or even undermining them, given that,
:23:20. > :23:25.actually, even if everybody voted UKIP last time, it wouldn't have
:23:25. > :23:28.helped them a great deal? It is the myth that we only take Conservative
:23:28. > :23:33.votes. We have always taken Labour votes, if you look at the figures
:23:33. > :23:37.back 20 years, to 1994, the first elections we took part in, we do as
:23:37. > :23:40.well in Labour as Conservative seats. Would you do pact with the
:23:40. > :23:50.Tories, given the current leadership, you know what David
:23:50. > :23:54.Cameron said about you four years ago, "fruitcakes and loonies"?
:23:54. > :23:59.got endorsed by Peter Mandelson last year -- week. I wouldn't say
:23:59. > :24:03.endorsement. What about a pact? don't know what the pact is. If the
:24:03. > :24:06.Tories want that they can announce it. It would kill you off? They
:24:06. > :24:09.could announce the policy that they have decided to withdraw from the
:24:09. > :24:14.European Union. I don't see what the pact is supposed to deliver for
:24:14. > :24:17.us or them. We fight because we know, clear and simply, what we
:24:17. > :24:23.believe in and what we want. If they want to try to undermine us,
:24:23. > :24:29.all they have to do is say they will withdraw from the EU or offer
:24:29. > :24:32.a referendum. How big a problems is UKIP for David Cameron, or is the
:24:32. > :24:37.problem an historical problem for the Conservative Party about
:24:37. > :24:40.Europe? The problem is a third of the public only want to stay in
:24:40. > :24:43.Europe now. There is no issue in British politics where there is a
:24:43. > :24:49.bigger gulf between the public opinion and the mainstream
:24:49. > :24:54.Westminster opinion. What UKIP will do, by consistently getting 10% of
:24:54. > :24:57.the vote, it will remind the parties they are out of line.
:24:57. > :25:00.much more than that? It is still more than the Liberal Democrats.
:25:00. > :25:03.Isn't that the big story, the Lib Dems are nowhere, what is happening
:25:03. > :25:11.to them is exactly what happens to parties in coalitions from Ireland
:25:11. > :25:15.through to Germany. The smaller parties lose out. No question. One
:25:15. > :25:21.of the things by-elections do is fuel a sense of doubt and security
:25:21. > :25:27.within a party. The specific events, the specific seats, soon fade. But
:25:27. > :25:31.that kind of fear of potential electoral oblivion, will shape, to
:25:31. > :25:35.some extent, the way they calculate and think. They seem robust in this
:25:35. > :25:39.election. Even after coming eighth. But coming eighth will be traumatic,
:25:39. > :25:41.especially to MPs who are worried about keeping their seats at the
:25:41. > :25:46.next election. It will play a part in the thinking over the next few
:25:46. > :25:50.months and years. Talking about the thinking, the big story this week
:25:50. > :25:58.presumably will be the Autumn Statement and what the Chancellor
:25:58. > :26:01.will do, for all of us. It looks a pretty grim 2013. Yes, and 2014, 15,
:26:01. > :26:06.16. They will come out with a forecast. The fact is there is not
:26:06. > :26:09.much growth in the economy now. Nor is three predicted to be. What
:26:09. > :26:13.George Osborne hoped to be a recovery in time for the next
:26:13. > :26:17.election, will be belt-tightening and austerity for the foreseeable
:26:17. > :26:22.future. He will have to come to terms with the fact that telling
:26:22. > :26:26.the public that, after having served them cuts in the last
:26:26. > :26:30.election but there will be in the next election too. That won't go
:26:30. > :26:33.down well. It is not a great vote- winner. The one thing he can do is
:26:33. > :26:36.say Labour's best hope is to talk down the economy, that nothing
:26:36. > :26:42.turns up? I don't think that is a very effective argument when people
:26:42. > :26:46.are feeling down about the economy. They will feel more down after
:26:46. > :26:49.Wednesday? What he will do, he has already said it, he wrote an
:26:49. > :26:53.article about following lessons from the Obama campaign, he will
:26:53. > :26:57.try to blame what has happened, again, on the Labour Government.
:26:57. > :27:01.And the recent past. Rather than his attempts to address the
:27:01. > :27:06.situation. So far, that has had some impact on Labour's ability to
:27:06. > :27:11.get its message across, it hasn't helped him at all electorally, or,
:27:11. > :27:16.as we were talking about earlier, the Lib Dems who pursue the same
:27:16. > :27:19.message, that it isn't their fault. What women see this week is
:27:19. > :27:21.incredibly important, in terms of the dynamics of the Government and
:27:21. > :27:25.the future of the parliament T won't change the debate, it is
:27:25. > :27:29.already framed. It will be bleak, they were argue it is worth it, and
:27:29. > :27:34.make it far bleaker than it need be, we are already at that point.
:27:34. > :27:37.terms of options, tax rises, more austerity, and more cuts, the
:27:37. > :27:41.deepest cuts haven't happened? There is another option he could
:27:41. > :27:45.take, which he won't, I suspect, is to come up with a radical pro--
:27:45. > :27:48.growth package. What he has done is not enough, cuts are not enough,
:27:48. > :27:52.austerity not enough to get the economy moving. We have seen other
:27:52. > :27:56.countries abroad do deficit finance tax cuts. Swede just did a major
:27:56. > :27:58.one in the last budget. That is new thinking and it is working. I don't
:27:58. > :28:02.think politically the Conservatives are there yet. I think they believe
:28:02. > :28:07.they are stuck in a groove of relatively bleak economic activity.
:28:07. > :28:11.The only question is, who gets the blame for this, and they are hoping
:28:11. > :28:14.that Labour still hasn't got the credibility to blame the
:28:14. > :28:18.Conservatives probably. That is the battle, that is what most people
:28:18. > :28:22.talk about, and just saying get out of Europe would solve everything
:28:22. > :28:24.isn't playing? More and more people are realising that you can't
:28:24. > :28:29.actually address the problems inside the European Union. Look at
:28:29. > :28:34.the countries outside the European Union, Norway, Switzerland, Canada,
:28:34. > :28:37.Austrailia they all have higher living standards. So has Germany.
:28:37. > :28:42.That is held back by the European Union. If we left the European
:28:42. > :28:46.Union we would get our own destiny back, we could be a more prosperous
:28:46. > :28:50.country, a freer country, we could control the big issues people care
:28:50. > :28:53.about. Our message is going home to people f you want to address those
:28:53. > :29:01.issues, there is no point in voting for the old parties. If I may say,
:29:01. > :29:07.the Lib Dems are now becoming irrelevant in that they are no
:29:07. > :29:12.longer the party of protest. much like the politics of the 70s,
:29:12. > :29:16.economic gloom in or out. Close decisions. If we made the right
:29:16. > :29:19.decision in 1975 we wouldn't have these problems.
:29:19. > :29:26.On I'm joined by Bennett Miller, Hadley Freeman and Christina
:29:26. > :29:32.Patterson, for the latest baseball film, this one starring Amy Adams
:29:32. > :29:38.and Clint Eastwood. Valentino sweeps in with show-stopping frocks.
:29:38. > :29:43.Spike Lee has made a film pulling Michael Jackson back up on to a
:29:43. > :29:46.president das tell as a musical genius. And a grandfather who
:29:46. > :29:56.modelled his granddaughter's clothes, that is love.
:29:56. > :30:21.
:30:21. > :30:27.There is flash photography coming up, leaving you with Freddie