:00:00. > :00:13.Farrage on points, quit a lot of them too seems to be the verdict on
:00:14. > :00:17.the UKIP debate. It was more personal and bitter. By staying in
:00:18. > :00:20.the European Union we are not going to be couped up on a Native
:00:21. > :00:26.Americans are vase, what will you say next you are Crazy Horse or
:00:27. > :00:28.Sitting Bull, you have to have a level-headed debate about this. We
:00:29. > :00:38.are in Afghanistan, where the country is about to Doose choose a
:00:39. > :00:43.new President. With this kind of rally it is emphasised having guns
:00:44. > :00:48.is no longer enough. This country becomes one of the bigger, wealthy
:00:49. > :00:52.international nations meeting the target for giving international aid.
:00:53. > :00:55.Why should British tax-payers be obliged to give money to the less
:00:56. > :01:02.fortunate and does it even do much good. The man who conceived the Gaya
:01:03. > :01:14.theory of the world, talks about our prospects. Other species have died
:01:15. > :01:30.out, why should we be given special tenure. Two grown men spending hours
:01:31. > :01:34.trying to come up with pithy putdowns for the other. Did Nick
:01:35. > :01:38.Clegg and Nigel Farage wonder at any point what a very odd trade they are
:01:39. > :01:42.in. The judgment of others came earlier this evening when the two
:01:43. > :01:49.men shrugged it out, hardly making eye contact much of the time. And
:01:50. > :01:54.with trade-offs of accusations that neither was telling the truth. Emily
:01:55. > :01:58.Maitlis won the lottery for front seat for the thriller.
:01:59. > :02:03.Anyone in search of high-minded debate. Not so much the wolf of Wall
:02:04. > :02:09.Street, but the dunce from Downing Street. Not from the two Muppets who
:02:10. > :02:15.advised the last Chancellor. They would have done well to avoid PMQs
:02:16. > :02:18.today. But by this evening it got better, Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg
:02:19. > :02:22.arrived at the BBC for round two of the Europe debate. We were promised
:02:23. > :02:27.more emotion from Nick Clegg. Is it going to get personal? I hope not,
:02:28. > :02:32.the issues are very important. More hard figures from Nigel Farage,
:02:33. > :02:38.Clegg's world of the evening was? Dangerous con. Repeated throughout
:02:39. > :02:42.the hour. Farrage's response was? Career politicians, it is the career
:02:43. > :02:45.political class. He's keen to distance UKIP from the idea that any
:02:46. > :02:53.of them are politicians. Monitoring public opinion, or should we say the
:02:54. > :02:56.hallowed and unrealistic bubble that is the Twittersphere. Demos tracked
:02:57. > :03:01.who appeared to be winning and losing. It seems people are both
:03:02. > :03:04.using Twitter to pour derision and talk about the individuals and
:03:05. > :03:08.personalities involved rather than the politics. Things opened with a
:03:09. > :03:13.question from Hannah, who asked each man what principles guided their
:03:14. > :03:19.policies? If you do what Nigel Farage recommends and you isolate
:03:20. > :03:25.Britain, a sort of "Billy no mates Britain", it would be worse it would
:03:26. > :03:30.be "Billy no jobs Britain". I'm not a career politician, I was years in
:03:31. > :03:35.by-election I got involved in this with the treaty we signed up to we
:03:36. > :03:41.were giving away our birth rate. On to Ukraine, a week after Nigel
:03:42. > :03:48.Farage defended the actions of one Mr Putin? I didn't say I admired
:03:49. > :03:53.him, I said he outmanoeuvred you all on the Ukraine. I'm not going for
:03:54. > :03:58.that. Nigel Farage is the leader of Putin. It all got a bit surreal, a
:03:59. > :04:05.leaflet Mr Farrage said he had never seen. It is a picture of an unhappy
:04:06. > :04:10.Native American, it says "he used to ignore immigration now he lives on a
:04:11. > :04:13.reservation", the suggestion is the British people will be couped up on
:04:14. > :04:17.a reservation. Nigel Farage, by staying in the European Union we are
:04:18. > :04:20.not going to be couped up on a Native American reservation what are
:04:21. > :04:24.you going to say next that you are Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull. I don't
:04:25. > :04:28.recognise the leaflet and wouldn't endorse the sentiment. The sparks
:04:29. > :04:31.started to fly when they started talking about European control of
:04:32. > :04:34.British law, each using figures the other believed bogus. I was
:04:35. > :04:38.astonished last week in the first of the debates when Nick Clegg claimed
:04:39. > :04:42.that only 7% of our laws are made in Brussels. He said it was there in
:04:43. > :04:47.the House of Commons library note and therefore was unequiff could. I
:04:48. > :04:51.have got the -- unequiff could. I have got the note with me, and the
:04:52. > :04:55.British Government estimates around 50% of UK legislation comes from
:04:56. > :05:04.Brussels. The fact of the reality is that 7% of our primary law derives
:05:05. > :05:09.from the European Union. I'm sorry, I said yes to the debates, I thought
:05:10. > :05:14.you would make the pro-EU case, by saying 7% of the laws are made in
:05:15. > :05:17.Brussels, you are willfully lying to the British public about the extent
:05:18. > :05:21.we have given away control of our country and democracy. I'm shocked
:05:22. > :05:28.and surprised you would try to do that. Let's see the audience
:05:29. > :05:34.reaction here? The last question sounded simple. What will the EU be
:05:35. > :05:39.like in ten years? It was here arguably that Nick Clegg mid-his
:05:40. > :05:42.worst mistake. I suspect it will be similar to what it is now. Tomorrow
:05:43. > :05:48.morning that might seem like something of an own goal. Nigel
:05:49. > :05:54.Farage meanwhile went all C her, Guvara. I would urge people come and
:05:55. > :06:01.join the people's army and topple the establishment who led us to this
:06:02. > :06:07.mess. Two polls issued towards the end declared Farrage the clear
:06:08. > :06:12.winner on 69 and 68%, a clear ten points better than this week. And
:06:13. > :06:15.then the worm started to fade away as Twitter, viewers, a saner world
:06:16. > :06:22.in general, went in search of another European clash, Chelsea
:06:23. > :06:30.versus PSG on the other side. Here now to pick their winner and loser
:06:31. > :06:42.are the political strategist John McTernan and Conservative peer, Lord
:06:43. > :06:46.Finkelstein. Do you share the received wisdom that Farrage won? We
:06:47. > :06:50.are talking here about a Liberal Democrat versus UKIP debate about
:06:51. > :06:57.the European Union. I don't suppose that many people were paying a huge
:06:58. > :07:00.A attention to it. We were. But the political world wasn't. I think
:07:01. > :07:03.Nigel Farage is very convincing at this sort of debate. And Nick
:07:04. > :07:09.Clegg's problem is he has not adjusted to the public's perception
:07:10. > :07:12.of him. It is just after the tuition fees and after their period in
:07:13. > :07:18.Government, he cannot make Anne peel which he tried do in this debate
:07:19. > :07:22.repeat lead on the basis of sincerity. Not making a judgment
:07:23. > :07:29.about whether I thought he was right or wrong on the points. It is not an
:07:30. > :07:32.appeal he can make and succeed on. There is dedevolution among
:07:33. > :07:36.political parties when they get unpopular, if they find one of their
:07:37. > :07:42.policies is more popular than them, they find if they embrace it vocally
:07:43. > :07:46.and publicly they might match the popularity of the policy. That is
:07:47. > :07:49.the Clegg point. They are only 11%, but a third or half of the country
:07:50. > :07:52.like the European Union as much as them. It is insane. What the Deputy
:07:53. > :07:58.Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did
:07:59. > :08:01.was go and fight with man who doesn't have a single MP in the
:08:02. > :08:06.House of Commons. It made man who has belittled himself already and
:08:07. > :08:12.made all the mistakes that Danny set out, it made him look smaller than
:08:13. > :08:18.he is and his party is. That is really bad. It was worth a try, the
:08:19. > :08:24.Liberal Democrats have been at 10% since almost the win -- beginning of
:08:25. > :08:28.the Government, they are still at 10%, nothing appears to work, the
:08:29. > :08:31.differenciation strategy doesn't seem to work and I don't think it
:08:32. > :08:34.will, he may have may as well try this, the strategy of trying to get
:08:35. > :08:39.more of the pro-European votes and stand up for the things he thought
:08:40. > :08:44.of. The problem he has is he cannot base that appeal upon he's more
:08:45. > :08:47.sincere than Nigel Farage. That was never going to work. Nigel Farage
:08:48. > :08:53.has the advantage he as an outsired, he talks a sort of -- outsider. He
:08:54. > :08:58.talks a bluff common sense as far as people see it. For Nick Clegg to
:08:59. > :09:02.think he's going to pierce that by saying you are a liar and I'm not. I
:09:03. > :09:06.didn't think it would work and it didn't. The only cut through that
:09:07. > :09:10.Nick Clegg has had in the two debates was the moment he stood and
:09:11. > :09:14.listed the crimes people had committed, fled to the continent and
:09:15. > :09:17.brought back by the European arrest warrant. That was the only bit that
:09:18. > :09:23.cut through. Last week wasn't it? Last week, it was the only the time
:09:24. > :09:27.he made a real case for Europe with real people and issues. He
:09:28. > :09:31.completely misunderstood the lessons this week last week. He dug a deeper
:09:32. > :09:36.hole this week. You can't win a debate from that position, leaving
:09:37. > :09:39.aside the sincerity question. You can't win a European debate when you
:09:40. > :09:45.are not prepared to guarantee a referendum. Even Nigel Farage
:09:46. > :09:50.illustrates how difficult David Cameron will find. That when he
:09:51. > :09:53.comes back with nobody epulis believes anything you say that is
:09:54. > :09:56.very effective for people. It did illustrate a problem the
:09:57. > :10:06.Conservatives will have making that argument. At the same time Nick
:10:07. > :10:10.Clegg basically tried to win from a purist European position, I don't
:10:11. > :10:16.think you can win it from that. Do you think Cameron and Miliband were
:10:17. > :10:22.wise not to get involved? Totally you leave the two dwarves fighting
:10:23. > :10:26.with each other. Classically this was two bald fighting over a comb.
:10:27. > :10:30.There was little to when from Clegg's side and Farrage's side,
:10:31. > :10:36.he's merely confirming with the public why they like or don't like
:10:37. > :10:40.him. Gets more exposure, you don't want to I mean, you don't want to,
:10:41. > :10:46.if you are David Cameron or Ed Miliband, to elevate Nigel Farage
:10:47. > :10:51.any more than he is driven by the fact there is a European election
:10:52. > :10:54.and the fact he is articulating a situation that has a constituency.
:10:55. > :10:57.That was obviously the right thing not to appear in the debates. I
:10:58. > :11:01.think Nigel Farage will have gained something from it, we should all not
:11:02. > :11:04.overestimate how much attention people were paying to this. This is
:11:05. > :11:07.not the leadership debate or the general election. People when they
:11:08. > :11:13.are asked about it are not making the same kind of judgment. But it
:11:14. > :11:16.gets mire tension than it deserves because it is fill ago vacuum. One
:11:17. > :11:20.of the things -- filling a vacuum. One of the things is parliament has
:11:21. > :11:23.run its course, we have had our four years, we are ready for jacks,
:11:24. > :11:28.except we are locked into a five-year parliament. Whose fault is
:11:29. > :11:34.that? The coalition. I think the non-European aspects of this debate,
:11:35. > :11:39.few people regard Europe as the top item of the political agenda. When
:11:40. > :11:43.you watch Nigel Farage talking about immigration and dealing with the
:11:44. > :11:50.political classes. It is fascinating he folded big business into the
:11:51. > :11:53.political classes. He's aiming at the Labour vote there talking about
:11:54. > :11:57.a particular class, that is where UKIP has the base vote. It was
:11:58. > :12:02.pretty interesting and effect YICHLT I think the other parties won't have
:12:03. > :12:09.participated, but they will have watched and noted that is an
:12:10. > :12:12.effective appeal. It is a limited appeal there are some people willing
:12:13. > :12:15.to vote that in a general election, when it won't win any seats and you
:12:16. > :12:26.are choosing a Prime Minister it is limited. Before that we have the
:12:27. > :12:29.European elections. What affect will it have there? The battle for votes
:12:30. > :12:34.and seats is between UKIP and the Labour Party. What that means is
:12:35. > :12:39.that the result will be difficult for David Cameron. There is nothing
:12:40. > :12:42.after the election, the European elections that doesn't cause him
:12:43. > :12:45.pain. He has a backbench that are restive already, and ill
:12:46. > :12:49.disciplined, and they use this issue, not the only issue they are
:12:50. > :12:52.concerned about. I predict a summer of fighting inside the Tory Party
:12:53. > :12:59.and the Labour Party you know there is four weeks in a row have now gone
:13:00. > :13:02.and nobody has raised, in PMQs, Labour's position on Europe. David
:13:03. > :13:05.Cameron doesn't want backbenchers to raise the issue of Europe in the
:13:06. > :13:09.House of Commons E wants Europe done and -- he wants Europe done and
:13:10. > :13:14.dusted as soon as possible. It will be a continuing sore for the
:13:15. > :13:18.stories. They want to play the expectation games, UKIP have played
:13:19. > :13:21.expectations on coming first. Certainly people are expecting a
:13:22. > :13:27.meltdown of the Conservative Party. There is an element of control David
:13:28. > :13:31.Cameron can exercise in that, can he show the Conservative Party to be
:13:32. > :13:35.more disciplined after that result than people expect. So you know you
:13:36. > :13:39.can do some things to offset it. But of course the reason why UKIP will
:13:40. > :13:42.get much more in a European election than a general election is because
:13:43. > :13:46.people vote differently because they don't think it really matters that
:13:47. > :13:51.much. I remember the Greens surging in the 80s. A quick yes or no to
:13:52. > :13:55.this, do you think Nigel Farage should be allowed to take part in
:13:56. > :14:00.the leaders' debates before the general election, each of you? No. I
:14:01. > :14:07.think the leaders' debate should be structured so as to give an
:14:08. > :14:15.appearance on one but not with Miliband or Cameron, but allowed in
:14:16. > :14:20.one. Man dressed in military uniform walk
:14:21. > :14:24.today the Interior Ministry in Kabul, flicked a switch, and blew
:14:25. > :14:28.himself to pieces and murdered six police officers. The attack was
:14:29. > :14:31.almost certainly the work of the Taliban, whose violence has
:14:32. > :14:36.intensified ahead of an election when Afghans get to choose a new
:14:37. > :14:41.President. Hamid Karzai, the man who has led Afghanistan since the fall
:14:42. > :14:48.of the Taliban in 2001 is stepping down. His successor will be one of
:14:49. > :14:51.nine hopefuls, ranging from western-educated economists to
:14:52. > :14:56.notorious warlords. Bid end of the year all foreign -- by the end of
:14:57. > :15:03.the year, all foreign combat troops will have left. Afghanistan's most
:15:04. > :15:09.important election is approaching, Afghans know that. For a decade or
:15:10. > :15:13.more this country h marched to the tune of Hamid Karzai and a huge
:15:14. > :15:21.contingent of foreign troops. That predictable beat is about to end.
:15:22. > :15:26.Presidential hopefuls range from old fighters to a former Finance
:15:27. > :15:34.Minister, to win they have to win here in conservative Kandahar. This
:15:35. > :15:43.man draw as big crowd, despite tight security in the birth place of theal
:15:44. > :15:48.bap. He has been a key man and a world economist. Here it is his
:15:49. > :15:57.tribal credentials that matters. In this heartland of Pashtun tribes. He
:15:58. > :16:01.says they are all with him, descendants of the ancient Pashtun
:16:02. > :16:17.kings. He grips the hand of Hamid Karzai's cousin. Kandahar is the
:16:18. > :16:20.Hamid Karzai an ancestoral home. They are divided in this election.
:16:21. > :16:25.He says he can bring peace to this area that has seen some of the worst
:16:26. > :16:29.fight. But the Taliban are carrying out suicide bombings almost every
:16:30. > :16:33.day now. Why would they talk to him if he wins. The context is
:16:34. > :16:38.different, the international forces are not here. In the kind of numbers
:16:39. > :16:46.that make them doubtful that they will ever leave. We have succeeded
:16:47. > :16:49.at the military transition, we have brought about a massive
:16:50. > :16:53.participation of the public in this election. Look, NOSHTHS south, east,
:16:54. > :16:58.west, they are massively participating in the election.
:16:59. > :17:09.Democratic processes are gaining ground and working. The mandate you
:17:10. > :17:14.will have is very different. There is no doubt Afghanistan is
:17:15. > :17:18.moving forward, although slowly. Afghans take huge pride in that.
:17:19. > :17:22.These police stand guard in rush hour, to salute official vehicles as
:17:23. > :17:30.they go by. But whatever sits in those cars next, should look beyond
:17:31. > :17:34.the salute to the shadow, where one of the biggest challenges for the
:17:35. > :17:39.next President lies. The jobless, these are the day labourers who
:17:40. > :17:43.stand waiting for cars to stop and offering them work. There is less
:17:44. > :17:48.work now, less aid and foreign investment as foreign troops pull
:17:49. > :17:52.out. There This man had aments there is no work. Where is the Government?
:17:53. > :17:59.They are only thinking about the elections, they don't know the
:18:00. > :18:09.nation is jobless. Afghans don't want to lose what they have gained,
:18:10. > :18:21.and women have the most to loose. "Rise, risers women, hold your head
:18:22. > :18:24.up buy, break the chains of oppression" Afghan women are still
:18:25. > :18:35.held back by tradition and they worry about Taliban threats. But
:18:36. > :18:40.there are some success stories. This woman has been a minister of women's
:18:41. > :18:46.fares, the only female governor in Afghan history. Now she's running
:18:47. > :18:55.for Vice President. Do you believe in equality she asks? Yes they roar.
:18:56. > :19:02.Do they want prosperity? There is a lot to fight for. If you come to
:19:03. > :19:06.power, what for you would be the first priority if you want to move
:19:07. > :19:12.women forward and keep the gains? The law, because if we didn't have
:19:13. > :19:16.the progress in the constitution I was not standing as a Vice President
:19:17. > :19:20.for some of the candidates. This is our constitution that gave me a
:19:21. > :19:25.chance to stand as a Vice President for one of the tickets. That is why
:19:26. > :19:32.law and constitution is much more important than the other things.
:19:33. > :19:36.Drive anywhere in Afghanistan and there are the reminders of the
:19:37. > :19:41.progress. Including girls going to school. Today we're driving north of
:19:42. > :19:45.Kabul, to a rally for a candidate who believes the best people to run
:19:46. > :19:52.Afghanistan are the men w fought its wars. This man is Islamist scholar,
:19:53. > :19:56.one of the most notorious warlords, but in the past decade he has been
:19:57. > :20:05.useful to the west. In this election he's even talking about women's
:20:06. > :20:10.rights. How is the campaign going? I will meet you. He only moves with
:20:11. > :20:15.his private army. He fought against the Taliban in this area, and he
:20:16. > :20:22.still is at the top of their hitlist. Look Look at the people and
:20:23. > :20:33.look at the guns, this is man of a lot of importance, and a lot of
:20:34. > :20:38.enemies. Just look at the crowds that have gathered here to his
:20:39. > :20:43.rally. This is a man who symbolises the bloodiest periods of Afghan
:20:44. > :20:47.history, but the number of guns you hold still matters in Afghanistan w
:20:48. > :20:49.this kind of rally also emphasising that having guns is no longer
:20:50. > :21:03.enough. His rally brings out the men they
:21:04. > :21:07.call mujahideen, they fought against Soviet troops in the 1990s. This
:21:08. > :21:19.isn't gathering of voters, they devotees. The mujahideen are not
:21:20. > :21:22.playing a big enough role in the Government he saying, it is not
:21:23. > :21:40.enough to be just in the army and police. He says men like him are
:21:41. > :21:45.misunderstood. We are not all men wearing Taliban with beards, they
:21:46. > :21:57.are thinking that they don't know anything. We guided our nation, and
:21:58. > :22:04.the very bad situation in the days of the war. When they were able to
:22:05. > :22:14.divide the nation in that situation then to guide it in the smooth
:22:15. > :22:19.situation it is 10,000 time easier than it was. In Kabul Afghans often
:22:20. > :22:24.head to this manage any of sent shrine to offer prayers for their
:22:25. > :22:29.wish, their worries. It is busy these days. But in a few days they
:22:30. > :22:34.will put their faith in ballot box again. Hoping a new leader will
:22:35. > :22:40.emerge, who can help give them a safer and better life.
:22:41. > :22:45.He has been called one of the world's top public intellectual, he
:22:46. > :22:50.invented the Gaia idea, the theory that the world is a self-regulating
:22:51. > :22:54.organism, and now at the end test age of 94 he's being celebrated in
:22:55. > :23:00.the Science Museum in London, as one of the Titans of post-war science, a
:23:01. > :23:03.man working outside the mainstream scientific institution, came up with
:23:04. > :23:07.some of the most original ideas of our time. His latest book is a rough
:23:08. > :23:10.guide to the future, which deals with the small matter of whether
:23:11. > :23:15.mankind has a future? I went to talk to him. There is a tendency to think
:23:16. > :23:20.that we are the end of the road, the final product of evolution, the most
:23:21. > :23:33.important animal that has ever evolved. We're not I don't think.
:23:34. > :23:39.We're just a step in a long progression. So the human race could
:23:40. > :23:44.die out? Oh yes, other species have died out, why are we given special
:23:45. > :23:48.tenure. Mainly because we are cleverer than the other ones? We
:23:49. > :23:55.think we are. Are we not? Why not? Think we are so proud of ourselves
:23:56. > :23:59.that we don't realise how ignorant we really are. What do you mean?
:24:00. > :24:02.Well, I mean take this climate matter that everybody is thinking
:24:03. > :24:09.about. They all talk, they pass law, they do things, as if they knew what
:24:10. > :24:12.was happening. I don't think anyone of them really know what is
:24:13. > :24:17.happening, they just guess at it. And a whole group of people meet
:24:18. > :24:24.together and encourage each other's guesses. That latest report from the
:24:25. > :24:29.international Panel on Climate Change did suggest there was
:24:30. > :24:34.something inevitable about climate change. That it had already begun
:24:35. > :24:39.and we had to adjust to it. All those things are true are they not,
:24:40. > :24:44.as far as we know? That is true, that report, the last one, is very
:24:45. > :24:49.similar to the statements that I made in the book about eight years
:24:50. > :24:56.ago called The Revenge of GAIA. It is almost as if they are copied.
:24:57. > :25:05.Sure, but you then after publishing these apocalyptic prediction, is,
:25:06. > :25:09.you retracted them? That is my right, I'm an independent scientist,
:25:10. > :25:14.I'm not funded by a commercial body or anything like. That if I make a
:25:15. > :25:18.mistake I can go public on it. You have to, it is only by making
:25:19. > :25:22.mistakes you can move ahead. It follows from that, that this Panel
:25:23. > :25:28.on Climate Change, which harks as you point out -- has, as you point
:25:29. > :25:33.out, vested interests and is more likely to make a mistake? That would
:25:34. > :25:41.be a lot of hubris on my part to say that. But it is possible. Now, you
:25:42. > :25:46.are evidently concerned about the effect of carbon upon the world, and
:25:47. > :25:51.yet you part company with many environmentalists on the question of
:25:52. > :25:58.nuclear power. Do you think, what's gone wrong with the perception of
:25:59. > :26:04.nuclear power. I he wish I knew. I can offer a suggestion, nuclear
:26:05. > :26:09.energy is a normal natural thing for the universe. Our not using it is
:26:10. > :26:19.quite mad. The only reason we don't use it is that we felt quite guilty
:26:20. > :26:24.about using that gift of nuclear energy for war time. Rather than
:26:25. > :26:29.using it as a safe, clean and nearly perfect source of energy. It is
:26:30. > :26:36.safer even than windmills. You can be killed by the blade of a windmill
:26:37. > :26:41.if it spins off and hits your house or chops your head off. As far as
:26:42. > :26:47.the other great bete noire of environmentalists go, fracking,
:26:48. > :26:51.where are you on that? It is an awful word, you have to realise it
:26:52. > :26:56.is just the kind of word to stir up a lot of fuss. Leaving that aside,
:26:57. > :27:02.I'm fairly neutral about fracking. I think we in Britain may be falsely
:27:03. > :27:08.use it, because -- maybe falsely use it because we don't have any easily
:27:09. > :27:13.available sources of electricity, other than burning methane. You
:27:14. > :27:16.don't worry about the potential collateral consequences said to flow
:27:17. > :27:21.from fracking, water course pollution and the rest of it? I do,
:27:22. > :27:26.I don't all together like it. But we may have no option but to just
:27:27. > :27:32.fracking as our source. Because nothing I can imagine is much worse
:27:33. > :27:42.environmentally than a sudden cessation of electricity supplies.
:27:43. > :27:48.Just imagine London without any? As a society he would small apart -- we
:27:49. > :27:56.would fall apart in a short amount of time. How much pressure was put
:27:57. > :28:00.on the Co-Op bank to take over 632 branches of Lloyds Bank. Preparing
:28:01. > :28:04.for the deals we have heard cost hundreds of million, made no
:28:05. > :28:08.commercial sense and ultimately crippled the bank. Was there
:28:09. > :28:11.political pressure on the regulator, the then Financial Services
:28:12. > :28:16.Authority. Tonight we have found out that the Treasury and the regulator
:28:17. > :28:21.clashed over a crucial problem that would have scuppered the deal a year
:28:22. > :28:25.before it went bad and collapsed. The regulator didn't exactly win the
:28:26. > :28:30.fight. What is this all about? Essentially it is all about who or
:28:31. > :28:34.what killed the Co-Op Bank, the view has grown that this was down to an
:28:35. > :28:38.independent drug-taking Methodist minister and inept directors who
:28:39. > :28:41.really didn't know what they were doing banking-wise. But there is
:28:42. > :28:45.another side of the story, a side I have been hearing from former
:28:46. > :28:52.directors that know about banking and were within the Co-Op Bank, they
:28:53. > :29:01.said it was two years of stretching to buy the Lloyd's branches that
:29:02. > :29:06.sealed the Co-Op's fate. Mr Flowers was talked to the regulator about t
:29:07. > :29:11.his point of contact was Andrew Bailey, in charge of advising banks
:29:12. > :29:18.then, and still in charge of it as the deputy go Governor of the Bank
:29:19. > :29:24.of England. They announced their intention to bid, and the directors
:29:25. > :29:29.from the Co-Op were leaving the company and going to the regulator
:29:30. > :29:33.saying they didn't think it made commercial sense and asking Andrew
:29:34. > :29:40.Bailey why didn't he block it. In March 2012 the Government came up
:29:41. > :29:46.with a roadblock to the deal? What was that? They told the Treasury and
:29:47. > :29:51.Co-Op group that it was swallowing so many banks that it was more like
:29:52. > :29:58.a bank with a supermarketed bolted on and it to be regulated, it had to
:29:59. > :30:02.be on the line for any losses the bank had and it would have to clear
:30:03. > :30:05.out the boards. Executives instead of being democratically elected in
:30:06. > :30:10.the Co-Op way were instead approved by the regulator. By the Co-Op that
:30:11. > :30:16.was a deal breaker, they were public about that, saying this would be a
:30:17. > :30:20.deal breaker for them and they weren't sure they could do the deal.
:30:21. > :30:24.The Treasury said they didn't like what the regulator was recommending?
:30:25. > :30:27.That's right, the Treasury disagreed, I found out they were
:30:28. > :30:32.completely opposed in their views, the Treasury on the one hand saying
:30:33. > :30:39.they could get around the rule and it didn't have to be that the Co-Op
:30:40. > :30:42.was regulated like a bank. And the Financial Services Authority
:30:43. > :30:47.disagreeing that. The events that played out showed the disagreement,
:30:48. > :30:53.it wasn't the SFA that won. Andrew bail year, the regulator -- Bailey,
:30:54. > :30:58.the regulate to approved in 2012 a wavier that allowed the Co-Op off
:30:59. > :31:02.the rules. Suddenly the whole business of being regulated by a
:31:03. > :31:06.bank was no longer a problem and the deal was back on. This is a
:31:07. > :31:09.complicated tale what are the Treasury and regulator saying now?
:31:10. > :31:17.They have both maintained that there was no improper influence. I have
:31:18. > :31:21.also learned that Mark Hobon was discussing this, with Andrew Bailey,
:31:22. > :31:25.the regulator, he was also discussing it with Co-Op directors,
:31:26. > :31:29.but both the Treasury and the FSA say there was no undue political
:31:30. > :31:32.influence. But we know now that the regulator was aware that insiders
:31:33. > :31:38.the Co-Op thought the deal didn't make sense and on the other hand the
:31:39. > :31:41.Government really wanted it. Some on the Treasury Select Committee agreed
:31:42. > :31:44.that the fact that the regulator seemed to have lost the argument
:31:45. > :31:49.demonstrates it was not a decision left down to them. It is the
:31:50. > :31:53.Treasury and Treasury ministers and George Osborne who pressured the FSA
:31:54. > :31:57.as the regulator to clear the way in the same way they did with the
:31:58. > :32:02.European Union to clear the way to allow the Co-Op to bid for these
:32:03. > :32:11.branches. That's why the court went ahead and that is why the FSA
:32:12. > :32:15.cleared the way for them. The other Treasury ministers will have a
:32:16. > :32:19.chance to dig deeper because the Chancellor is answering questions
:32:20. > :32:25.among other things about this to the Select Committee.
:32:26. > :32:28.?11. 4 billion, all of it taken from the people in this country by force
:32:29. > :32:30.of law, and all given to people and organisations in Government
:32:31. > :32:35.somewhere else. The British Government is actually rather proud
:32:36. > :32:39.of that total, for it makes this one the first of the bigger, richer
:32:40. > :32:46.nations to meet the UN's target of 0. 07% of national income on
:32:47. > :32:55.development aid T represents the honouring of a commitment years ago.
:32:56. > :33:03.Most of it went to Africa. This might be the future of money. It is
:33:04. > :33:07.called. Mepahasa, it is an electronic money service, that
:33:08. > :33:11.allows Kenyans to wire money immediately to people only using
:33:12. > :33:15.mobile phones. For the east African country it has been
:33:16. > :33:24.transformational. Today more than two-thirds of adult Kenyans are
:33:25. > :33:29.using it. What foresaw that? The British Government. Britain put
:33:30. > :33:34.?900,000 to get the scheme off the ground. Most people think of aid
:33:35. > :33:39.being food coming off the backs of lorries and planes, in truth very
:33:40. > :33:44.little aid is humanitarian relief, most is investment and things like
:33:45. > :33:54.education and health and stuff like this. Today Britain hit a target. It
:33:55. > :33:58.has met its aspiration to spend 0. 7% of national target on aid. That
:33:59. > :34:01.is how much they would spend on the developing countries. How are
:34:02. > :34:05.neighbours doing? Looking back to 2012, the last year for which we
:34:06. > :34:09.have final number, can you see we were somewhere between Scandinavia
:34:10. > :34:14.and other rich countries on the proportion of our income that we
:34:15. > :34:21.spent on aid. Since our economy is so much bigger than the Nordic
:34:22. > :34:29.nations, that makes us an Aid superpower. In 2013 our to theal
:34:30. > :34:34.rose to ??11. 4 billion. Only the US spends more than Britain on
:34:35. > :34:42.traditional development aid. Given the sums involved there is a lot of
:34:43. > :34:48.scepticism about aid spending, afterall sucks is very rare much --
:34:49. > :34:55.success is very rare. It is whether it is working well in the private
:34:56. > :35:05.sector. I spent 20 years as an emerging money manager, the
:35:06. > :35:10.Government lent ?1 brill I don't know to overseas countries, and it
:35:11. > :35:17.dwarfed the predicted figure. When you looked a successful countries
:35:18. > :35:22.like the North Korea who had GDP capital per head is now one of the
:35:23. > :35:26.richest women in the world. Through investment and trade and not through
:35:27. > :35:32.Government hand-outs. Furthermore aid leads to awkward decision, it is
:35:33. > :35:38.really not clear who should get it. Take India, Britain's biggest
:35:39. > :35:46.recipient in 2012. It got 292 million. That is understandable an
:35:47. > :35:52.estimated 300 million people live in poverty in the country. But it does
:35:53. > :35:56.have riches of its own, and its Government has chosen to spend money
:35:57. > :36:02.on space programme and nuclear arms. That is why the UK last decided to
:36:03. > :36:07.taper off its support. Take Rwanda, the war-scarred site of a genocide.
:36:08. > :36:13.It used to be a big recipient of British aid too. But the current
:36:14. > :36:17.secretary, Justine Greening has cancelled it for the Government.
:36:18. > :36:20.Saying the Government could be supporting rebels in the
:36:21. > :36:23.neighbouring Congo. These things are difficult because they really
:36:24. > :36:31.matter. That is because aid can help. Look back over the next ten
:36:32. > :36:41.years, we have seen three million fewer child deaths, and out of
:36:42. > :36:44.school numbers fall. Gains over death by hospital diseases. This is
:36:45. > :36:48.all where the taxpayer has contributed and Britain has forged
:36:49. > :36:52.what counts as a leadership position in the international community, that
:36:53. > :36:57.is something to be proud of. It cost as lot t causes controversy there
:36:58. > :37:02.are also problems with the money going where it should do. British
:37:03. > :37:10.voters are sceptical about aid too. Is it worth it? That's a value
:37:11. > :37:22.judgment. When it works it buys a lot. Here now is the Conservative MP
:37:23. > :37:24.Peter Bone and Bellini Mara, an expert on international relations.
:37:25. > :37:29.Are you pleased about the target being met? Yes, I think it is stay
:37:30. > :37:34.to celebrate. And it will be by many, not only in this country but
:37:35. > :37:39.overseas T has taken 40 years to reach this point. But Britain has
:37:40. > :37:47.joined the ranks of the Nordic countries who have already met the
:37:48. > :37:50.targets. What do you think? I don't know another department where you
:37:51. > :37:55.decide what is needed to be spent and then decide on it. It should be
:37:56. > :38:04.based on need not a mythical target. Why 20. 7, why not 0. 8 or three or
:38:05. > :38:08.two. You have to go back to history and ask people why they presented
:38:09. > :38:12.that target. The fact of the matter is it is currently a very important
:38:13. > :38:16.aspect of Britain's soft power projection in the world, against us,
:38:17. > :38:23.influence, it is not just the right thing to do but it also gains us
:38:24. > :38:30.respect and friends in the world. The important point is the world has
:38:31. > :38:34.changed. We have understand such as India, Brazil and China which used
:38:35. > :38:39.to be recipients but now donors themselves. The world has changed in
:38:40. > :38:44.that we have more poor people living in middle income places than 20
:38:45. > :38:49.years ago. It is timely to have a debate about how much, more whom and
:38:50. > :38:57.for what? That is absolutely timely to have that debate, let's keep the
:38:58. > :39:03.bigger picture in mind. We started saying this is tax-payers' money,
:39:04. > :39:08.??11. 5 billion, it is not, we are borrowing it, it is our children's
:39:09. > :39:12.money we are giving away. It has gone up 30% in this year. Tell me
:39:13. > :39:17.any Government department that has an increase, most had to cut. We
:39:18. > :39:21.became into power with the coalition Government, ?7 billion was spend on
:39:22. > :39:25.overseas aid, that was enough. We have put back on some of the
:39:26. > :39:32.countries, some of the waste, Justine greening is doing well on
:39:33. > :39:36.it. We are paying ?5 billion. The extra ?4 billion could be a billion
:39:37. > :39:41.on tax cut, reducing spending and the deficit by ?2 billion. That
:39:42. > :39:48.might help the long-term economic plan a little better than giving
:39:49. > :39:53.money to dictators and spending money on how people fart in
:39:54. > :39:57.Columbia. What a waste of money. That is trivialising where a budget
:39:58. > :40:02.goes. You are not saying it doesn't go there. I'm not defending, I don't
:40:03. > :40:07.have a need to have a the lodge calm defence of the 0 -- theological
:40:08. > :40:11.defence of the 0. 7% target. I would like to say this debate about which
:40:12. > :40:19.countries should be the recipients of aid, there is a live one. You
:40:20. > :40:23.have the OECD assistance. There are 140 countries recipients of aid, and
:40:24. > :40:29.there is a right discussion about whether the countries to which they
:40:30. > :40:34.are going right now is the one that is will benefit. Stop having the
:40:35. > :40:40.sticky plaster of aid and open up the European markets. If you let
:40:41. > :40:45.India trade more freely with the European, that is the solution,
:40:46. > :40:53.trade not aid. Aid just puts off a problem and gives it next year. If
:40:54. > :40:55.you stopped the European super power stopping countries trading that
:40:56. > :40:58.would be a better discussion. I think the thing to remember is this
:40:59. > :41:02.is an issue about Britain's role in the world. I think this was about
:41:03. > :41:08.the first point you made was about British soft power. In what sense
:41:09. > :41:13.are British interests advanced by doubling aid to a country like
:41:14. > :41:19.Nigeria whose policy on gay rights, for example, is utterly
:41:20. > :41:23.indefenceable to the Princes of the country. How does that advocate soft
:41:24. > :41:29.power? That is the kind of debate we should be HACHLTH how much, for
:41:30. > :41:34.which countries to do what. No, no, we are not giving them to countries,
:41:35. > :41:41.you well know that more of the aid is given to organisations like
:41:42. > :41:47.euro-aid. He We haven't doubled the amount of money we give to Nigeria
:41:48. > :41:53.but increased to ubeganed dark both discriminate against gay people
:41:54. > :41:59.which we think is something intolerable. I was working and
:42:00. > :42:05.saying all the money coming in is going on the black market. You could
:42:06. > :42:09.get British aid products sold in the market. They are not going to people
:42:10. > :42:13.with a purpose. When you have a 0. 7% target the department is spend,
:42:14. > :42:20.spend, spend because you have to reach the target. Not looking at as
:42:21. > :42:25.you argue whether it is necessary to spend the money. The issue of
:42:26. > :42:30.accountability with high is important, and this country ranks
:42:31. > :42:34.highly in indicators. We have the issue of aid effectiveness, which
:42:35. > :42:38.looks closely into the effectiveness of aid investment. I think most
:42:39. > :42:41.people tend to look at this as an investment, an investment in
:42:42. > :42:47.political stability around the world. Whether it should be
:42:48. > :42:51.ring-fenced or not should be up for discussion. This is a false choice
:42:52. > :42:58.between aid and trade. How can that possibly be of any benefit at all. I
:42:59. > :43:03.think if this argument is some how about colonial soft power, that is a
:43:04. > :43:10.terrible reason to give overseas aid. The reason to give it is to
:43:11. > :43:16.help countries grovel. Grow. If you can't get them in you are wasting
:43:17. > :43:21.your aid money. This country is the most generous in the world, when
:43:22. > :43:28.outside they say that Britain has joined the ranks of the G5,
:43:29. > :43:38.countries that have reached the zero % target. I don't think people will
:43:39. > :43:43.be saying yipee for cuts in their constituency and then aid being
:43:44. > :43:55.given. It is about values and the image that Britain wants to probing
:43:56. > :44:01.post ject. In -- protect. Comic Relief was good at raising money.
:44:02. > :44:06.You heard Jacob in the beginning how countries are transformed by private
:44:07. > :44:12.aid and trade. That is how you solve the problem, not the sticky plaster
:44:13. > :44:21.of towel doling money out. It is like earlier in the wees about ODI,
:44:22. > :44:25.we do see that aid works if the right accountability mechanisms are
:44:26. > :44:31.in place. We need to make sure it is not direct today corrupt countries.
:44:32. > :44:34.I argued and said to the International Development Minister I
:44:35. > :44:38.said there is a problem with sume trafficking in central Europe, let's
:44:39. > :44:43.put some of the overseas aid money into poorer countries in central
:44:44. > :44:48.Europe to stop girls being traffiked here for sexuality exploitation. We
:44:49. > :44:52.don't do it because it was not recognised as part of ODA. That is
:44:53. > :44:56.the problem, it is a tick-box exercise and not looking at the real
:44:57. > :44:58.issues. I'm going to have to interrupt you, sadly we have run out
:44:59. > :45:42.of time. The front pages now. That's all for tonight, Kirsty is
:45:43. > :46:23.here tomorrow, until then good nationwide.
:46:24. > :46:28.For Thursday, not an awful lot of change on the weather front,
:46:29. > :46:30.effectively, the further west and north you live the more likely you
:46:31. > :46:32.are