22/05/2014 Newsnight


With Laura Kuenssberg. Elections fallout, fracking in Southern England, unrest in Libya and fast food workers fight to supersize their wages.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The campaigning is done, polling stations closed, but who, if anyone


did you choose? If we get what we like things will never be the same


thing. Governments expect a drubbing in local and European election, but


Westminster's trio might all be shamed by Nigel Farage's people's


army. Can I ask you who you voted for? UKIP. Why? They are the best


ones, simple as that. What is wrong with the other parties. Same old


crap. Going underground, the BBC learns an official report will say


there are billions of barrels of oil under England's southern green and


pleasant land. But will the Shires accept fracking.


If intervention is so easy in Libya, why is one of the original backers


of the west's involvement in toppling Gadaffi, supporting another


uprising, we will ask him live from Paris. Super-size me, McDonalds


staff in America ask to super-size their wages. We ask is this the


start of something big? Good evening. 32 minutes ago the doors


closed, the ballot boxes were sealed, and now the race to count


the votes is under way. And although a majority of voters will have


chosen none of the above, by simply staying at home, the results of


these European and local elections are the biggest clues we will get


before the general election about which lucky individual will win the


right to occupy Number Ten from next year.


Governing parties, nearly always take a hammering half-term. If Ed


Miliband can't make gains, packing up and going home might look like an


option. It won't have escaped your notice that voters may have for the


first time ever put UKIP at the top of their list. The party the Prime


Minister once branded "fruitcakes, and loonies". We spent the day in


Thanet in Kent, one you have UKIP's best bets.


Welcome to Ramsgate in east Kent. Even as it votes in European


elections, it feels a very long way from Brussels or Westminster. But


seeing the anger here towards the old political parties is crucial for


understanding changes in British politics.


A disillusionment that is, in part, because of an idea from political


science. An idea that's best understood by looking at how, well,


ice-cream vans work near beaches. So imagine a beach with three ice-cream


vans, each one third of the way along the beach. They would each get


a third of the custom. It would make sense for the two at the end to


drive to join the one in the middle, giving them a bigger market share


each. The similar things happen in politics. That might help explain


why lots of voters here feel that the old political parties are


neither distinctive nor attractive. And one party seems to be the main


beneficiary. I have been a member of UKIP for about a day to be fair. But


they really resonate with me, and I was very anti-politics before they


came along as well. So I had no interest in anything, because


everything was the same. Can I ask who you voted for? UKIP. Can I ask


why? They are the best ones. What is wrong with the other parties? Same


old crap. Do you mind if I ask who you used to vote for? Labour. -- Ten


people around the polling stations said UKIP. UKIP. I don't know what


they have got against everyone else. UKIP, tell the others to go and


stuff themselves! Not that the tide is entirely going UKIP's way. Green


Party. Can I ask why? Because the I wasn't giving UKIP my vote and I'm


fed up with the others and Green Party have a strong manifesto. We


did meet voters for other parties, but we didn't see any of their


activists. So keep an eye on Ramsgate. Nigel Farage might well


run for Westminster from Ramsgate. Nigel Farage might well


it is part of a fiercely fought European electoral region. If you


only follow one constituency during this election I would recommend the


south-east of England, not just because it is enormous, it stretches


from Kent all the way up to Oxford, but also because it is going to be


the scene of some serious political drama. Just how well has UKIP done


and just how bad are things going to be for the Liberal Democrats.


In this constituency back in 2009 the Tories won four seats. UKIP and


the Liberal Democrats picked up two each, the greens and Labour one


apiece. According to Newsnight analysis if things go well for the


Tories they will hold three of these seats only losing one to UKIP. The


Lib Dems will shed one seat and Labour will pick one up. If UKIP do


better than expected you will see it here. They have around 30% chances


of taking another Tory seat. If that happens UKIP will be on track to win


the national vote share handsomely. That will overshadow Labour's


expected gains and Lib Dem losses too. Still, don't read too much into


today's election results. Past performance isn't always a good


indicator of future performance. Next year at the general election


the Lib Dems will have the benefit of some of their very small local


strongholds and UKIP may struggle to keep a hold of some of its newer


supporters. The same lesson applies to today's local elections too.


Politics is perhaps more complicated than ice-cream. We will have to wait


until Monday before the results of the European elections, but in less


than an hour the results of the local elections will start coming


in. And Emily our political editor will be watching them all from the


BBC election hair election lair, where she is now? What's happening?


After weeks of campaigning we where she is now? What's happening?


finally slowly get the results in of the 161 councils in England, about


finally slowly get the results in of 4,000 councillor, why are we looking


finally slowly get the results in of so closely? Because of the points


Chris was making. This is about direction of travel of all the


parties in the lead-up, less than a year away to the general election.


That is why there will be an year away to the general election.


amount of scrutiny over these kinds of results. I have pulled up now the


places that the Conservatives are defending end to, blue for the


Tories. They have Swindon at the top, a majority of one, what does it


mean, if you go inside it and look at the shape of it, they are in a


race against Labour, if they lose one councillor it goes into no


overall control. If Labour gain six councillors they will turn it red, a


feather in the cap for Ed Miliband. Croydon, a similar story, a


two-horse race, lots of demographic change in Croydon, more nonwhite


British families here, perhaps Labour can take advantage of that


and see that share of the vote coming through. Tamworth, quite an


interesting one, this is somewhere we will be looking out for, a lot of


parliamentary marginals in the west Midland, around Tamworth. What could


happen here, Labour is fighting hard to gain three seats to end ten years


of Tory rule. Those are the two main parties. Haven't mentioned the Lib


Dems yet. Chris went into a lot of detail. You were in Kingston upon


Thames there yesterday lawyer ruchings the picture there is --


Laura, the picture is different there, the Lib Dems up against the


Conservatives, Ed Davie may be worried his seat at parliamentary


level next year. With all the fuss about UKIP, why haven't you got a


giant purple button on the snazzy screen? There is no purple button


that is because simply UKIP to date haven't gained an entire council. It


was a point that Nigel Farage made to Jeremy on Monday, mathematically


it is very hard for them to do so, almost impossible to do so outside


London were they don't farewell. That doesn't mean they haven't been


doing extraordinarily well in these sorts of elections to date. I will


take you to Basildon in Essex, if we go inside there. This is somewhere


where UKIP had 30% of the vote. They turned that into some seats on the


coupity council. What will they do at Basildon council. We will look at


that. And last the also the kind of place cities in the north, the big


metropolitans, this is at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, a


known unknown. They are trying to stand in places where we don't know


how well they will do and neither do they just yet.


Plenty of numbers and hopefully some more big clues about what it all


really means in the next 48 hours. Later in the programme we will


debate what might be behind the prominence of that party, who needs


a purple button? Before that the BBC has learned tonight that tomorrow


the British geological society will confirm just how much oil and gas is


waiting to be hydraulically fractured from under our feet. In


the Weld, an area that includes thousands of acres of manicured Tory


shires, in Sussex and Kent. It could be billions worth. But blasting it


out from under the rocks is less than straight forward. Not least


because it is hard to find that many people who want a hawed drawlic


drilling -- high draw drawlic drilling -- hydrolic drill as their


neighbour. In America it is very different, we have been to the


fracking fields of the US and the heart of southern England.


This is the Weld, a classic English landscape, you might not think of it


as oil country. But between the villages of Cudford and Wisborough


Green, there is a license to drill for exploratory oil in a local


field. Before they can do anything they still need planning permission


from West Sussex County Council. Right now the planning committee is


deliberating over the decision, what they are only too keenly aware of is


in Britain and particularly in parts of Britain like this, the opposition


to gas exploration is passionate and intense.


That's interesting, because in the US, where there is something like


two million hydraulically fractured sites the atmosphere is different.


Why is that? Last year I went to Louisiana in America's Deep South.


This whole region is sitting on top of the shale rock, it is the gas


from that shale that has made some of the farmers here millionaires


overnight. Or as they are referred to here "shalionaires". There it is,


it is $434,000. I don't think I have seen a figure as high as that? This


man has made his fortune by selling drilling rights on his farm? We see


something we want, we buy it. And he's not the only one, across the US


the financial rewards for landowners are substantial. And the oil


companies can pay for upgrades to local schools and roads. So the


community can benefit. But also the country itself is large and sparsely


populated, so the wells can disappear into the landscape. In


England it is rural but densely populated as a village. Some of the


local people have made their opposition to fracking clear. What


is your expectation of what you will be confronted with? We will have


four lorries an hour from the site into the village. It will disrupt


the whole of the village lane. The another, the traffic, the


disturbance to our wildlife and our environment. Would you put up with


that? I don't think you would. I was keen to know whether money might


make the difference? The guidelines are that a community gets 1% of


revenue plus ?100,000? What price can you put on way of life. We have


an idyllic village, so what price can you really put on that? We have


probably all lost ?100,000 on the value of our houses at a stroke, so


?100,000 to the village wouldn't even mend the road. I can imagine in


some communities that amount of cash might be attractive? These things


have a cost. If you are saying, you know, let's compensate against that,


that means that they have a problem, they know there is a problem and


they are going to try to buy you off. That is not the way we should


work, that is bribery almost. So quite a contrast with what I found


in America. Less than 20 miles down the road, there is a similar


campaign opposing the local search for oil and gas, but not everyone is


against it. I'm really interested to meet this one couple, the -- they


are the one couple that have agreed to give permission for exploration


on their land. They have agreed to speak to me. Carla was a parish


councillor and her husband's family lived here for 200 years. They own


170 acres of local land. You have done something surprising, you are a


landowner who has allowed a company to have the application to drill


underneath your land. Why did you do that? Because we thought there was


no problem from our point of view to use our land for exploration and


advancement. To find out what is there? To find out what is actually


there. Because nobody knows for sure. So it was in the national


interest to find it, because it is indigenous, it is here. We thought


it would be of benefit to the community. So I guess the criticism


that is often levelled at people like yourselves is you are in it for


the money? I wish. We would be off to the bah Hama, never mind


Australia if we were to have the money we were alleged to be get. It


is a pleasant income, it is more than the market rate for letting


agricultural land. So one of the things I find especially interesting


is that you are actually kind of a pillar of the community, you are a


central plank in the local parish community? No, were! Were! Before


this happened we were the sort of household people go they will help


us out. And we were always happy to. It has changed our lives forever. We


hardly ever go out. I get to go to the supermarket, or the garden


centre. Occasionally to the dentist. That's about it. I only spoke to


them for an hour or so but Robin and Carla seem very different to the


landowners I met in America, much more concerned about conservation


and wider energy issues than money. But the situation in this village


highlights another contrast between the UK and the US. Property law is


different. American landowners can negotiate big pay-offs because they


own what is beneath their land. That is not the case in the UK, where the


Crown owns the gas and oil. And there is a further issue, fracking


involves the neighbour's land too. The pipes snake out laterally away


from the drilling site, underground for perhaps two miles. Is that Lyle?


Ellen Stokes lectures in property law at Cardiff University. In a


prospective drilling site a mile-and-a-half that way, they could


come down and go laterally and end up underneath these people's


sub-surface property. Are they allowed to do that? That would


constitute an actionable trespass. We have a 2010 Supreme Court


decision on this. That involved a diagonal drilling beneath somebody


else's land for oil. In that case the court held that it did


constitute an actionable trespass and ?1,000 in damage was awarded.


Why so little? Because the landowner in that case hadn't suffered any


consequences or physical loss and his use of the land wasn't disturbed


or interfered with. Even without the multimillion dollar pay-offs in the


US, could the lower level of money available here still be an


incentive, particularly among the people of Fernhurst. We knocked on


50 doors, given the sensitivity of the situation, even only a few would


speak to us. I don't see why they have their backs up, I don't see


long-term effects. I can see both sides of the argument, I can


understand homeowners seeing how it can affect properties and just the


general environment. A lot of the villagers have been saying about


traffic coming through and all of that kind of thing. But there is the


job prospects, maybe the revenue or whatever that it would bring in, so


I'm kind of on the fence about it. Why is fracking more accepted in the


US, it is less populated with big landowners and generous pay-offs,


and better rewards for the local communities. Where as Britain is a


land more densely populated, with different property laws, generating


lower financial incentives. And far from embracing fracking, a recent


poll conducted by YouGov suggests support in Britain is falling. You


get the feeling something big will have to change before fracking takes


off in the UK as it has in the States.


With us are Andrew Austin, the chief executive of IGas, one of the


companies who potentially hopes to make money out of fracking in this


country. And Caroline Lucas the Green MP is with us this evening.


Thank you, it looks like the Geological Survey will confirm there


is potentionally billions of barrels of oil under the south-east of


England. I know you haven't seen the details of the report, you must be


delighted, a lot of potential there? We have known this across the


country but particularly in terms of oil in the basin, the area that


stretches from Winchester across to Gatwick up to the M 25 and down to


the coast at Chichester. But there has been a lot of history of oil


exploration in this area. We as a company produce oil and gas from


around 20 sites across that area. Around 40 million barrels have been


recovered to date across that area. You are already using conventional


techniques to produce oil and gas in the south-east of England with


people apparently hardly even noticing. Caroline Lucas, that


doesn't sound so bad, what have you got to be afraid of? What no-one has


talked about is the impact on climate change, it seems to be


particularly perverse to be searching after yet more hard to


reach fossil fuels when experts are telling us we need to leave 80% of


known fossil fuels in the ground if we are to have any hope of


preventing two degrees warming. We had the reports recently on climate


change, saying the urge to shift energise is closer than ever. That


is the direction we should be going in. There is a lot of urgency that


millions of householders feel about getting their energy bills down.


Businesses want their power costs to come down, in the US fracking has


transformed that, gene plies prices falling through the floor. Lord


Stern has called it baseless economic, here in the UK if we frack


in the UK we don't use the gas or oil in the UK, it gets sold on


European markets at the going price. That is different from the States,


because it is a much bigger country and they are less locked into the


bigger world market they use their own gas and oil as they frack it.


Even the experts, even people in the forefront of the fracking ideology


are saying, actually, it is not going to lead to higher prices. So


if you want higher prices you need to go down the renewable route. What


is the point? Let's try to separate out the two different issues that


Caroline spoke about, she rightly spoke about both of them. Firstly in


terms of climate change, if we are using renewables from my where, or


oil and gas from anywhere we are better using it in a highly


regulated market close to the place of consumption. So the cost of


transporting oil and g in terms of the climate impact of doing that is


very, very considerable. Secondly into that mix, if you are going to


use any pots sill fuels you need to be using gas rather than coal goal


is the enme in this occasion -- enemy in this occasion. I agree gas


is better than coal but that is not the question we are confronting. The


coal doesn't stay in the ground it gets sold somewhere else and the


impact on climate is the same. We should be talking about the


difference between a greener energy future, based on renewable energise,


and energy efficiency, lots of jobs, lower fuel bills. It is right now


people's bills are very high, right now we have to confront the issues


and renewables only 4% in this country, don't we need the mix? Can


I answer that one, it feels such an ironically that exactly that time


when on shore wind is about to become more comparable with fossil


fuels in terms of cost, at exactly that time the Government is issuing


a moratorium on wind energy, because the main companies are terrified


that it will take their place. Isn't it true that for all the reasons


discussed in the film it is not going to happen here. People don't


want it? There are different issues into this mix. I completely agree


with Caroline in terms of the importance of climate change


targets. The two degree target is imperative. Prior to this I was


involved in the renewable industry, I ran a solar panel manufacturing


industry in the United States. A built solar farms. I completely


understand and embrace that agenda. If, however, into that mix, in the


same way as has happened in the United States. Gas has sur planted


coal. You will still need gas in the mix. If you are going to use gas at


all you are better using it domestically. In terms of the price


argument raised here. Two or he three shale gas sites across the


country will not bring down the price of gas for retail consumer. If


we have a material shale gas industry in this country, by which I


mean around 100 sites across the country, a fraction of the space


used for other particular land uses, including renewable energise, then


we will start to get to a point where we can have a downward effect


on prices. Until we have a material industry that won't happen. But the


climate change gains in the meantime are more important. If you have a


material industry based on shale you won't get your emissions down. We


are out of time on a complicated issue, we look


it turns out. It all seemed so easy, the west may


never have put boots on the ground, but our finger prints were all over


the overthrew of Colonel Gadaffi in 2011, David Cameron even joined his


political friend, Nicolas Sarkozy, to take the applause of Libyan


crowds. It was relatively quick, if not painless, but not a terrible war


that dragged on for years. Maybe not for the west. In the last week


around 80 people have been killed and one of Gadaffi's former generals


leading an armed uprising says he will fight not talk. After his


soldiers attacked the national parliament. The toppling of Muammar


Gaddafi was billed by backers as a new type of arm's length


intervention. Today I authorised the Armed Forces of the United States to


begin a limited military action in Libya. America and its allies acted


as the rebel air force, but no boots on the ground. But having empowered


the revolutionary brigades, the west is now watching as they tear the


country apart. Rival militias are lining up behind a general on one


side and on the lining up behind a general on one


Islamist-dominated parliament. On Sunday the general's supporters


tried to disperse parliament, the National Congress. Even now it is


scattered, but one National Congress. Even now it is


this evening told us what happened. TRANSLATION: At 6. 30, after the


parliament ended its session, and there were just a few of us in the


chamber, a big group of armed vehicles arrived, with automatic


weapons mounted on top. They started firing indiscriminately, nah a very


fast way, then they started breaking into the building and going into the


rooms inside. And they were looking for members of the Congress. 20


civil servants and one member of the Congress were arrested.


When we filmed the first anniversary of the revolution, we watched a the


different rebel brigades take over the event. It was time to show off


the heavy weaponry and face down rival units. They had refused to


disband, and while attempts to form a regular army faltered, the


brigade's power actually grew. There is no political settlement yet in


Libya between the key tribes and other political forces, until there


is a political settlement. Until the transition makes real progress and


in two-and-a-half years it has made almost no progress. There isn't


really be an effort to build up the regular forces. Serious attempts at


demobilising Libya's militias were postponed until after new elections


in June 2012. Far from resolving the country's problems, that vote set


the scene for further conflict, between east and west, Islamists and


secularists. In October 2013 the Prime Minister was briefly kidnapped


by one of the armed groups. An ominous sign that gun law was taking


over. Militias in the east tried to seize oil exports from September


2013 on wards, refusing to recognise the Trippick Government. These same


-- Tripoli Government, these same groups back the general. He has


quickly built up power over the recent months. The head of the air


force was dismissed for providing support to Haftar in April. Very


quickly a lot of support has come from a number of quarters for him.


There are suspicions, he has been back from overseas. The Dubai-based


outlet has been extremely positive in reporting of him. We met the


general during the revolution and interviewed him in Gaza. He had


rumoured die Thais to the CIA, and during the war he was getting


British and French help. Are you receiving practical help whether


communications and weapons. We are still waiting. Now we have new


reports that he has a new master. TRANSLATION: We believe he's


supported by a number of Arab and non-Arab countries in many forms and


shapes. We believe they are being sent weapons and jamming devices, we


have intelligence that the equipment is reaching the forces in western


Libya. Western intervention might have disposed of Gadaffi, but all


sorts of forces, regional, tribunal and religious have filled the


vacuum. The question is will they destroy a country where westerners


still have major economic interests. One of France's most celebrated


philosophers, and the man credited in 2011 with persuading Sarkeesian


to -- Nicolas Sarkozy to recognise the rebel leaders which ultimately


led to the intervention. Do you think Libya is a better place now


that Colonel Gadaffi has been toppled. Since before then there was


chaos on the ground? I think it is a better place, yes, of course. I'm


not sure you can imagine how terrible and horrid was the


dictatorship of Gadaffi. It was one of the worst of the last 40, 50


years. For sure it is, it was good to topple him. It was right to


topple him. It is true that it is not a valley of hundred, but who can


give lessons to the Libyan people? Surely not us French? You say it is


not of value of honey, but in fact 100 people have been killed since


last Friday. There are kidnappings, militia's roaming the place, there


have been three Prime Ministers since march and you are suggesting


supporting another uprising. Do you know how many people are killed in


Syria since three years because there was no intervention, because


we did let Bashar Al-Assad commit his bloodbath. This is the real


comparison. Of course that 80 people are dead yesterday, Thursday, it is


heart-breaking and 80 sons of Libya, a camp of 17th of February, who I


know so much killed, this is horrible. The real comparison is how


many in Syria because of the nonintervention. What would have


happened in Libya without intervention would probably have


been the same as what is happening today in Syria.


You are now as I understand it supporting the general, so are you


just going to keep supporting other uprisings until you get the kind of


Government you want? No, no, I don't support anybody, I support the


Libyan people. I think that the Libyan people, citizens of the


country, of Tripoli and other cities, paid such a high price for


their freedom, and for toppling the dictator, that today they deserve


peace. They deserve not to be killed, neither by the Islamists,


nor by the general. The Libyan people have paid the price, now he


deserves piece and freedom. That is what I think. Now what I think also


is that if you see the French Revolution, for example, it took


time and it took general Bonaparte to achieve finally democracy and


freedom. So this is the terrible and tragic course of nearly all


revolutions, this is what is happening in Libya and we Europeans


we have not the right to give them lessons of good behaviour. It is


never like this. You briefly did think you had the right to suggest


to your friend, Nicolas Sarkozy, that France and Britain should


intervene? I not only thought that France and Britain should intervene,


I thought that the intervention should and had to go till the


toppling of the dictator. Till the moments the Libyan people could be


responsible for its own destiny. Nobody can deprive a people from its


own destiny. All people of the world have the right to the side of their


future, to decide on their future. It takes time and takes a terrible


moment which the one that the Libyan people are facing. It is like this,


all over the world, and I would hope that the forces of reason and peace


would prevail in my dear Libya. McDonalds workers have probably


always wanted to super-size their wage that is come withic that


McJobs, it appears they have had enough of their meagre portions, at


the food chain's Annual General Meeting shareholders approved the


$9. 5 million pay packet. Outside at least 100 staff were arrested as


they gathered to demand better wages. Right now some staff are paid


not more than the cost of a big -- big Mac Meal per hour. For a second


day fast food workers in Chicago marched, these cleaners, cooks and


till staff had a simple message for their bosses over the road.


till staff had a simple message for McDonalds' employees in the US earn


as little as ?5 an hour, or $8. They want at least $15. Fuelling a


national debate about pay and equality, when many Americans are


struggling to make ends meet. In the hall opposite the McDonald's chief


executive had his $#. 5 million pay packet approved with barely a


whisker, 94% of shareholders voted with him. It is an outrage, I stood


with the fast food workers this morning, who understand they have to


keep pressing the organisation to respond to their demand. While they


confirm the pay right for the CEO, there has been no response


whatsoever to the fact that people are working harder and harder. This


corporation is earning record profits, it makes different


decisions around the globe. Mary Kay was one of a hundred arrested


yesterday at another march to was one of a hundred arrested


corporate headquarters. Since the recession has ended lower-wage jobs


have grown three-times faster than jobs that pay that $15 mark.


McDonald's won't reveal what it is paying the average employee other


than it meets minimum wage requirements. America's national


minimum wage is $7. 25 an hour, and has been since 2009. President Obama


wants to raise it to $10. 10, a move blocked from Congress, still a long


way for the dollar 15 an hour the workers are marching for. This is


not just a fast food phenomenon, last week all over this there were


protests about low pay and working conditions. Populist pushes for a


higher wage floor. Whether the US or Switzerland or Germany in its own


way, you are seeing mature economies, affluent societies where


a large swathe of working people have missed out you see on economic


growth before the crisis and have done badly since then. You are


thinking trade unions of looking for a way to be relevant to the whole


debate on pay and the minimum wage is what they are latching on to.


That is part of the reason you are seeing the upsurge in radicalism.


McDonald's insists it pay as competitive amount, giving


youngsters the chance to move up. Many on the right of the debate


claim a significant hike in the minimum wage will cost jobs. I have


a huge amount of people who want to raise the minimum wage, they have


the right idea what the problem is. The problem is low pay, the wrong


idea is the solution they have. Raising the minimum wage creating


unemployment and over the long-term reducing the rate on new jobs


created. I think unemployment is reducing the rate on new jobs


worst evil here. For workers surviving on $8 an hour it might not


mean much. Protestors in the US have made headlines this week, whether


the executives and politicians are really listening is another matter.


Whatever the exact results of the local and European elections held


today, one thing is for certain, UKIP has dominated the lead-up to


voting. What is less certain is why. Why does the apparent pop all right


of the party, what does it say about modern Britain and the issues that


matter to the Great British public. I'm joined by the author Bonnie


Greer, the chief political commentator in the Telegraph and


Independent columnist. Why do you think this has happened this time


round? It says something very profound about our politics. For the


last ten years we have had all these ernest groups, Helena Kennedy and


others saying why are the British people apathetic about politics.


Actually the answer has been, which is beyond all these grand and the


good is that she and the politicians are apathetic about the British


people. They have tried to deny politicalies course to the British


people, we have been in a post democratic political environment. If


you go back 20 years any discussion of public spending suggesting it


might fall or will stay the same was treated by the BBC which has been


one of the greatest criminals in all of this as some form of crime


against humanity. If you try to discuss immigration, which you


weren't allowed to do on the BBC, that would be regarded, I'm sorry it


has been acknowledged even by your boss. They are shaking their heads.


Any discussion about immigration was treated as a form of racism. Any


discussion about Europe was treated as a form of zenophobia, in other


words public debate was there. At the same time there was a conspiracy


between the three main parties to deprive access to democracy, to the


vast majority of voters. The point there I believe Pete certificate


trying to make. Thank you for telling what I'm saying. There is


something wrong with people not being interested in them and the


elite rather than the other way around? This has gone far enough,


this has been the Tory of the elections and will continue -- the


story of the elections and will continue to be next year. I think


there are too many people in this country who got the idea that all


their own personal obsessions and I'm not talking about the truly


dispossessed, the people truly suffering in all the restructuring


that has happened. I'm talking about people who think if I can't get my


way, all politicians are crap. I mean am I allowed to say that. You


just said it let's not worry about it? Apologies, this idea that


democracy has to sustain all my prejudices and what each of us wants


is the problem. Has that changed Bonnie, this is a different swathe


and level of support for this kind of party this time round, it is new


isn't it? It is the UK's tea party moment, the United States got it in


2007. As a result, and Peter is right to a tiny extent, of a kind of


consensus. That's in the media, that's in the political class, and


so you have this other group that gets born in the shadows, and all it


needs is a kick-start and this has happened here. This is the United


Kingdom's tea heart. And it has all the -- tea party. It has all the


hallmarks of it. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong. It as


movement, it is not a political party. This party is a flag of


convience for a lot of people who are deeply ditties gruntled about


probe -- deeply disgruntled about progress. It is true going back to


what was said about the BBC. Let's not talk too much about the BBC? My


point is that the politics has become home midgeised, and within


that are various groups on the right and far right taking advantage. I


would like to go back to Peter first? I think something horrible


happened to British politics, Labour, Liberal Democrats and the


Tories were captured by the modernising movement, which met a


group of experts, this man Axel Rod, worshipped by my colleagues in the


lobby is an example. They don't come from activists, they are experts.


What they decided was that 95% of British voters didn't matter. If you


voted in a safe seat, if you were a Glasgow ship worker who was out of a


job in Glasgow that was a safe Labour seat. Excuse me if you were a


Lieutenant Colonel in Tonbrige wells you didn't cut it. If you were a


swing voters in a marginal seat constructed around you. Politicians


have always been there? This has always been there. That is the


revolt. Of the 95%. I do not recognise the country the politics


that Peter is decribing, I think what changed was the Internet, the


idea that we could complain about and feel dissatisfied about almost


everything. Now, I think we do have an enviable democracy, and you know,


I hate it that the entire political system is being dumbed down by


people like him and creating this mess. To end this, we are in a new


age, they are an age of technology, we are moving faster than our


political establishment, faster than the journalist, and they, who


actually are the ones who have consolidated politics, need to wake


up to what people are saying on the left, right and centre, and people


who have no political point at all. It is moving faster than they


understand. Perhaps none of us can understand what is happening in the


country Except he's wrong! That's enough. You can follow all the


election excitement throughout much of the night on BBC One and the BBC


News channel. While it might not translate into high turnout, these


campaigns certainly have not been dull this time round we can safely


say that. One event didn't quite work out as planned. That was UKIP's


attempt at a corn carnival in Croydon. It was to demonstrate the


multicultural credential, but the steel band decided to pick up their


instruments when they found out who asked them to play. We thought it


was such a shame to get politics in the way of music, here on the


results day eve here they are, the endurance steel orchestra with their


version of Daft Punk Get lucky. Good evening, it was going to be


Wales and more western parts of England that get the heaviest of the


rain tomorrow morning. Further north I


Northern Ireland in the afternoon might struggle to get into double


Northern Ireland in the afternoon figures where... . (steel band)