In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.
Browse content similar to 07/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Here we go again, a deluge that leaves thousands of homes
Ike a current to it. It was that fast and that quick coming in, I had
no choice but to literally abandon it and take myself and my little one
upstairs. We can't protect ourselves
from everything the weather throws at us, but we'll ask
if we're even close to rising to the And Finland, the land of
Santa Claus, is pondering giving
a monthly income to everybody. Tyson Fury and the petition to take
him off the shortlist for Nature is a capricious beast
and has struck again, The rain has not just topped some
relatively new flood defences in that part of the country,
but has also topped the records: 34 cm in a 24-hour period - a
month's worth of rain in a day between Friday and Saturday
in the county. And the Met Office have said
a new record had been set for rainfall over a 48-hour period,
with 41 mm falling in 38 hours It's a county wearily familiar
with the consequences. The Prime Minister chaired a COBRA
meeting this morning, What we did after the 2009 floods is
spend millions of pounds building these barriers and they have
prevented floods in Carlisle I think on two occasions, but they weren't
enough on this occasion when we had But after every flood,
the thing to do is sit down, look at the money you're spending,
look at what you're building, look at what you're planning to build in
the future and ask, is it enough? It's pretty inevitable that people
will ask "are we doing enough" to prevent flooding, as they do
after each episode like this. It may be rational to say,
we're not going to bother defending against a flood that occurs only
once every 100 years. But what if we keep having
floods that are only meant The problem is that if some kind
of climate change is occurring, it may be that the statistics relating
to the last 100 years are hopeless Nick Hopkins has been looking
at how much we spend on flood Flooded and fed up. For so many,
Christmas will be spent crying out. Drying out. In the Commons today a
pledge from the Government to everyone who needs help will get it.
The Government will continue to ensure that all resources are made
available to support recovery from this flooding. COBRA will continue
to meet daily to oversee recovery efforts, and I will be travelling to
Cumbria and Lancashire after this statement to continue to ensure we
are doing all we can to help those affected. But as floodwaters recede,
recriminations begin. Labour today accused the Government of breaking
spending promises. The figures show spending on flood defences hit ?670
million in 2010. Before it was slashed under the coalition
Government. The winter floods of late 2013 and early 2014 prompted an
emergency injection of Government cash. But spending this year will
indeed dip. There is money to throw at the problem. Devastation two
years ago prompted Ministers to pledge ?2.3 billion of new spending
over the next six years. But experts warn cuts elsewhere could leave us
vulnerable. I think the question there is, how have the various
Spending Reviews affected all the other organisations that maintain
our flood defences of different sorts, all different assets, be they
highways, water companies and so on. Keswick in Cumbria. This is worse
than the flooding seen here in 2009. That was meant to be a once in a
century event. It wasn't. And that's no accident, say some. We need to
have a long-term strategy. We definitely need to use the science
that we are developing now, which indicate there is going to be a
continuous change in extreme rainfall in flooding and we need to
put that into policy to make sure our populations are resilient. So
that policy doesn't exist at the moment? In some parts it does, but
it could be improved. The threat of flooding is one thing. Ensuring
against it another. Premiums of ?25,000 a year are not unheard of.
Insurers will club together next year to spread the risk, a scheme
which should bring the bills down. I It will give people more access to
insurance, but it is a partial fix. Which sits alongside our choice of
where to build and our choice of how we build. Could extreme weather
require extreme answers? As some areas, are some areas now too great
a flood risk? I think it is realistic to that some places will
be unsustainable in the future. Now people might choose hot to live in
an area of flood risk. People who stay might have to consider flood
proofing their house, raising it up or changing the sockets. You can do
a lot of things, or learn to live with the flooding, which is another
option. Many people do live with flooding quite happily. It is about
a choice but we have to be able to support people in that choice. It is
not that easy when you are actually flooded and your home has been
destroyed to rationally think about whether you can stay in that area.
These floods weren't the first. And they won't be the last. And they may
get much worse. John Sweeney is in Carlisle in Cumbria and he joins us
now. Give us some of the impressions you've been picking up today as
you've been there. I've seen worse tragedies in my time, but it is grim
up here. I've been speaking to a chap who was helping his name, who
is 93, and it is her birthday today. Frankly she said to her neighbour,
listen, I don't want to go home ever again. I've had enough of floods.
She is worried the police might have knocked down her front door and that
looters may have come in. I don't think it is a massive reality, but
the it is a fear. How did this happen? In 2005 there was a big
flood here. Flood defences were built and they were 23 feet height.
The water came in over the weekend at 25 feet. The result is thousands
of people have had their homes flooded, and many hundreds are
industrial without power, including this area where we are now. It is a
grim story and this is the film we've made about it, which we'll
show now. Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink. The floods
are not just a catastrophe, but the people here in Cumbria and the
north-west of England they are bad news for the Government and the
taxpayer too. Ten years ago a great flood happened here in Carlisle. It
was described as a once in a 100 years event. The bad news, it has
happened again. Not once in a century but twice in a decade. The
great flood of 1853 set the record for flooding here in Carlisle. That
level was toppeded in 2005 by half a metre. This weekend the water
summered a further half a metre, higher again. After the 2005 floods,
the Government spent ?38 million on new flood defences here. Some locals
could be forgiven for wondering whether that money was poured down
the drain. You could hear cracking. We thought the French patio doors
had cracked, but it was the wooden flooring, it has risen up. Have you
got kids? We've got a 1-year-old and a 17-year-old. They are my aunty's.
And how were they? Milly is special needs. She was really scared. She
ended up going out on a boat with the Life Guards yesterday afternoon.
You can blame this flood on global warming, or say that it has got
nothing whatsoever to do with it. There's a big argument about that
happening in Paris right now. But people in Cumbria say the flood
defences have let them down. Tonight the tally stands at 4,000 homes
flooded. Many are still without electricity. For now, from here,
Britain's flood defences don't look that great.
Here with me now to discuss some of these issues is the Conservative MP,
Neil Parish, who is chair of the Select Committee for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs and also has a farm in Somerset, which was struck
Good evening to you. Just on the funding, and I don't want to get
into pernickety argument about whether it is 1 periods up or 1%
down, but is the settlement higher than previous Parliaments? It is
about the same as previous Parliaments. I think the big
argument now is, do we need to spend more? My heart goes out to the
people of Cumbria. We were flooded in 1981 with sea floods with where I
farm and that was really bad. Lost a lot of sheep and the house was
flooded. Are we spending enough of our resource to defend ourselves
from the sea and from Inland Regional Centre flooding? That's my
question to you. Are we spending enough? More or less. We are saying
we are doing well because we are keeping spending higher than it was
in the 1990s, but is it remotely enough? Figures show that for every
?1 we spend on flood protection, it is worth ?4 to ?9 for the local
economy. Therefore I would argue we need to spend more. We need to
defend our holes against floods, and we need to defend our coast against
floods. I think whether it is global warming, whether it is patterns,
what wherever it is, what we can't do is allow our homes to be flooded,
nor should we allow our country to be flooded. It is not just with
these floods now. I've been on about this for many years. In Somerset we
suffer floods a lot of the time by its very nature. You've got to
accept that some areas will flood. This flood that happened now,
probably if you get a month's rain in a day, you are going to have
problems. But we still have to face up to this. These are one in 100
events, but these are happening every five years. If you are on a
trajectory that's going up, it is obviously going to happen more than
once every 100 years. Run that figure by me again. For every ?1 you
invest there are ?4 of benefit? Yes. Are there schemes that we are not
doing, not taking up, where that kind of benefit to cost ratio
exists? Yes, we need more money. So hang on. Before you move on, how do
we justify to ourselves that there are schemes where we honey believe
for ?1 we spent we get ?4 of benefit and we say, can't be bothered to do
it? We'll have the Permanent Secretary of Defra in front of us in
January, along with the Secretary of State. That's precisely the
questions we'll be asking. And he will say incidentally. She will say.
Sorry. She'll say that they don't have the money. The Chancellor will
say for infrastructure, there's never been a better time to do it
because interest rates are low. So therefore we have to look at flood
and sea defence, because in the end we have to defend our country. You
only have to spend the Netherlands, who spend a fortune on it, or they
wouldn't have a country, we don't spend enough. We'll probably have to
persuade the Chancellor, whether a Conservative or Labour Chancellor,
but we've got to face up to the fact we need to spend more money. Some of
the benefits come not just next year but in 50 years' time or possibly
100ees' time. Do you think Government in this country is well
tuned to thinking about the 50 to 100 years' time? We'll need to,
because the insurance companies will need to reinsure these properties,
so they've got to have some confidence. We have to make sure
people can afford their premiums and don't have huge excesses. We are
going to have to be much longer thinking on this issue. You have
been very honest, one of the government's ideas is through the
private sector, maybe localities, to put more money in themselves to
their own flood defence. It frankly hasn't been working, has it? There
has been some money coming in but not as much as we would like to see.
If it is not going to come from the private sector, they will need to be
more public sector support, but I think it is right to get the private
sector to contribute, but we don't want that stopping schemes, we have
to let them go forward. This evening Donald Trump has
generated a great deal of interest. The first is that the latest polls
show his lead solder fine -- solidifying in I/O outcome of the
first state in next year but Mac primary season, at a rather
unassailable looking 33%. The second is yet another round of very
controversial comments on Muslims in the United States. Donald Trump is
proposing a total ban on Muslims coming into America. He did so in
this press release. It dropped into our inboxes an hour ago, many people
thought it was a fake, a parody but it is for real. It says Donald Trump
is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the
United States and tell our country's representatives can figure out what
is going on. Now, we have spoken to his spokespeople, they have been
saying that this man would -- this ban would apply to tourist train to
come into America and also Muslim immigrants seeking entry as well.
Quite how they would find out the fate of people entering America is,
they are not sure on that detail, and not sure if it would apply to
American Muslims who leave the country and want to come back but it
has been fiercely condemned by the White House less than 24 hours after
President Obama made a plea for racial tolerance. Saying this is
contrary to American values, and it has been said by Jeb Bush to be
unhinged. Donald Trump has been saying so much in this campaign,
trashed a war hero, made sexist remarks about a journalist, imitated
a person with a disability. One wonders what else the guy is going
to do to court controversy. Will this make a difference, is this the
one where people will say we're not going to vote for the guy now, or
will it carry on adding to his own momentum? We have been asking that
question ever since he started insulting people and is not must
have gone up. What has propelled his candidacy, not just the celeb take
his money, his hardline stance on immigration. It was set out in that
very first press conference in Trump Tower when he called Mexican
immigrants rate this and criminals and vowed to build a wall between
Mexico and America. Recently he called for a registry of American
Muslims, yet every time he has made what many people would think of as
racist comments, his poll numbers have gone up. I should add there has
been a very strong condemnation from Muslim groups in America this
evening. One group has said we are now entering the realm of the
fascist. Whether this disqualified him from the presidency, who knows?
Every time he had said something outrageous in the past, as I have
said, his poll numbers have tended to go up.
We learned today that sometimes government happens more slowly
The final decision on a third runway at Heathrow was kicked into this
parliament from the last one, and then when we got the verdict of
the Davies commission, was kicked into December from the summer.
And guess what - today we learned that it has now reportedly been
But laugh as we might at the endless obfuscation, that is not the only
Hopes of wrapping it all up for Christmas have gone.
The President of the EU Council, Donald Tusk,
What did we learn today? He gave us this new goal of February, he said
he wants it done and dusted by then. He suggested that dithering so far
over Britain's renegotiation had caused instability across Europe.
There will be some relief for British Conservatives. They were
worried it would be a never-ending referendum. They would go on and on.
Now you could have a deal in February and conceivably have the
referendum done by mid-to-late June. It is really tough. It would require
everything to fall into place like clockwork but is still slightly
possible. If it is going to be February, the agreement, it requires
a lot of work to be done. The actual exercise Donald Tusk has done is he
has gone round the other a youth member state and says what do you
reckon about what Britain is asking for? A massive fact-finding mission,
and he has found, what a surprise, the problem is the tax credits
issue. David Cameron, they would like to say the new migrants coming
to Britain in the future, you would have to wait four years before you
could get in work benefits. We have reported that Jeremy Hayward has
told the Prime Minister you are not going to get that, it would be
illegal, you might get six months. Task is coming back essentially
saying what we sort of knew already, just at a more formal level, that it
is looking pretty tricky. David Cameron has some good news in that
the Tories really don't want this to dominate the next parliament, but
equally there is no way, no clear way through on tax credits yet.
It's an idea that's been around for decades, but few countries have
been brave enough - or perhaps stupid enough - to adopt it.
The idea is to scrap welfare as we know it, and instead to offer every
So step forward Finland, because the Prime Minister there
Everybody would be given 800 euros a month - ?600 or so to keep.
It has enormous appeal, but does it work?
We'll hear from a proponent in a moment,
Should we replace the existing system of pensions, child payments,
disability allowances, housing support and all the rest with what
A simple flat tax-free payment to all adults that
That notion may now be taking a step away from the seminar room
and towards reality, with moves in Finland to start trials of the idea.
The body that administers social security there has commissioned
a new study, and the policy has support, according to
But then who wouldn't like a tax free payment every month
The Finnish proposal is to abolish existing benefits and replace them
with a monthly payment of 800 euros to every adult.
Paying every adult that would cost about 46 billion euros a year,
about in line with current Finnish benefit spending.
Counterintuitive as it might sound, the aim is to reduce unemployment.
In theory, paying people a flat rate of cash regardless of whether they
work or not should make it easier for people to move into work.
They won't lose benefit as they earn more, reducing disincentives.
Well, there are several, and some of them are pretty big.
Any move towards a basic income would create lots of winners,
amongst people who don't get much cash from the state at the moment.
Basically people in decent paying work without children.
But it what create serious losers too.
Disabled people, for example, who often get larger payments from
the social security system to help them cope with their conditions.
People with children, especially those with larger families
on lower income tax, who would lose out on child benefit payments.
And people who currently get support with housing costs
Of course, you could try and add in circumstances-specific top-up
payments, but then you would be undermining the simplicity of the
A basic income which doesn't cut the payments to the most vulnerable
be more expensive than the current system and implies higher taxes.
And that's the issue Finland will now have to face.
Joining me to talk about basic incomes, Newell Lawson, chair of the
left of centre campaigning group, Compass. He is an advocate of doing
this in Britain. It is a live debate as you are concerned, you are doing
a seminar on it tomorrow. Very live. What do you like about this scheme?
Our Social Security system is broken, it was invented in 1945 and
the world has moved on from working in factories. A new world is
coming, where technology will displace lots of jobs actually, and
there will be huge productivity gain from that. Unless we want food
riots, we are going to have to find a way of paying people to spend
money in the supermarkets. All the evidence suggests that people don't
do nothing, actually what they do is they work, they become more
entrepreneurial, they volunteer, they care for people, they do a
whole load of things. Our social security system is built on
believing the worst in people, and what a citizen's income does is it
gives them the belief of the best in people. That is what it is about.
Let's go through the basic problem with the basic income scheme, what
Duncan mentioned, if it isn't very generous, basically it is not very
nice to people who are in hardship, who can't but by going out to work
for example. We are modelling this at the moment, and actually if you
swapped to some kind of citizen's income in the UK where every adult
was given ?75 and you kept housing benefit and child benefit, one or
two other benefits, as a kind of way into it to begin to introduce it,
now then, if we are right... ?75 a week? Gas, which is enough, it is
not perfect, not as much as the Finns are doing it, and the Finns
are doing it, why can't we? It begins to introduce the system and
it puts a floor under people. If there are going to be huge
productivity gains from new technology, the question is who
gains from that? Does it just go to the tech companies or can we
redistributed through a citizens income? ?75 which doesn't sound like
a good enough wage. I wouldn't have thought somebody from the left would
think that. As soon as you start topping it up with a disability
premium, child benefit already in there, which I believe Finland isn't
proposing to do, then you have made it all complicated, you have just
reinvented universal credit with a lower withdrawal. You are treating
everyone as a citizen and giving them worth, giving them some kind of
floor under their feet. When you start giving people 70 something
pounds a week, the unemployed move into employment, those who are
taking very poorly paid jobs, refuse poorly paid jobs and go the better
paid jobs. So it helps all round. You get rid of the competitive
benefit system, the humiliation of means testing. You have got rid of
means testing and the humiliation, but in order to give me ?75 a week,
you have got to put up everybody's tax rate in order to find all those
?75. So you have given everyone a lump sum all week but the basic
income tax rate has to go up very substantially. No it doesn't, it can
go up a bit. But look, every time we introduce something radically
different and transformative, the NHS, the minimum wage, the Social
Security system itself originally, everyone says it is not possible,
right? It is possible, it is just whether it is attractive. Finland
are showing it is possible and if this technology thing is happening,
and if jobs are going to be displaced, then we have to find a
way to pay people. There is no way out of this. It is why people on the
left are supporting it, like me, but why people across the political
spectrum from the RSA to the Adam Smith Institute all sorts of
economists, and more than anything technologists, arriving at
citizen's income is the policy issue of the 21st century. If Finland, who
are considering it now, if they look at it, back away and say this isn't
going to work, will it change mine? Everywhere it has happened, been
tried, it has moved people into being productive and has helped
people reach their potential and fulfil their potential. If it can do
that, then it is a policy we ought to be looking at.
The sports glitterati will gather at the SSE Arena in Belfast
for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year event.
They'll drag the show out for more than two hours, but the clue
as to the bit you're meant to relish is in the title - the crowning of
One winner out of twelve shortlisted contenders.
But, this year, there is a petition against one name on that shortlist:
boxer Tyson Fury, world heavyweight champion.
His remarks likening homosexuality to paedophilia, and suggesting that
the legalisation of homosexuality is a sign of the apocalypse have upset
many, as have comments about fellow shortlistee, Jessica Ennis, who, he
said "slaps up good" and "looks quite fit".
Now, do his comments make him unsuitable as a winner?
Or should those taking offence simply look
I'm joined by the boxing promoter, Kellie Maloney, and the
Good evening to you both. Good evening. Kellie, knowing what Tyson
Fury has said, when you saw him box Klitschko, who were you rooting for?
Obviously Tyson Fury, because he's British. It was one of the dull test
heavyweight fights I have ever watched, but his achievement was
unbelievable. He went into the lion's den against all odds. No-one
picked him to win, including myself. And he came away with the title, so
his sporting achievement is unbelievable. But? His comments
leave a lot to be desired. I didn't really know about the comment until
this morning people phoned me. At first I thought he should be taken
off the list. But the more I've listened to it today, even to Tyson
himself speaking, I think he should be left on the list and the British
public should make that decision. Right, so has he ever said anything
about transagendaered boxing promoters? No, but he said a lot of
things about Frank Maloney. He's been up before the board of control
before and has been fined for derogatory remarks against boxers
and their families and women before. It is not the first time Tyson has
let steam off. Do you think sports people owe a duty to be a role
model, upholding civic values and not making subtling remarks or
should they say what they think and be done with it Of course it would
be nice to think that all sports people should be role models, but
that's an unrealistic expectation to put on people. Sports people come
from all walks of life. To me it is like saying everyone in society
should be a role model and act in a certain way. We have different types
of people from different social, economic, academic backgrounds. Not
everyone is going to be able to uphold and put their best foot
forward. It is the same for sports people. Of course it would be nice
but unrealistic. With expectation there is's disappointment and that's
what happens. Let's talk about specific cases. Glenn Hoddle, an
English football manager, made remarks about karma and people with
disabilitiesment basically he lost his job as a result. Do you think
that was the right thing, Kellie? Not really. He should be judged on
what he does for sport. It seems there's some rules for certain
people in sports and some rules for others. If he had been winning he
would have... Kept his job. For me, and this is a little controversial,
I feel the media also have a responsibility. If you think about
it, the media love to give column inches and TV time to controversial
figures in sport. They love the give all that attention. So we entice the
comments? Exactly. We talk about, the media talk about people should
be role models, but think about it. If you gave them limelight and
glorified the great sports people in society that are doing the great
work, being great role models and stopped giving it to the
controversial, maybe it would inspire the controversial ones to be
better role models. Supposing he said something about black athletes,
would it change your view on this? Would you be more angry than you are
exhibiting at the moment? A lot of the time he's speaking about his way
of life. His community, how they are. Of course it is not we as a
whole society think, but at the same time it is what they do and they are
happy with it. But if they were happy with racist views, for
example, would you it is OK for him to be on a personality sports list?
It is not a winner's roster. But the public do decide, so the public make
that decision. If the public, I think he's, I think his remarks are
wrong and they are very very think he's, I think his remarks are
wrong and they are very a certain section of society. But he's a human
being, you have to understand where he is coming from. He is from a
closed community. Trained by his uncle. They don't have any
outsiders, they live in their own world. And we are talking about
sports personality of the year. Certain things, with what he said,
there's two different things we are talking about here. Sports
Personality of the Year, what are the the criteria? If they are about
your sporting prowess and what every achieved in your sporting field,
that's one thing, which I think it is. If some of the criteria are that
you have to be a role model and you can't do this and this... You
wouldn't have him there? Absolutely not, because it is not in the rules.
Maybe the BBC needs to change the rules and then he can't be in, but
for now let him in and allow people to vote. You think he should be in?
I do now, for what he has achieved in sport. Who would you vote for?
Jessica Ennis hill? I think Andy Murray for the Davis Cup. I think
Jessica Ennis, obviously. Thank you both.
Ten years ago, we could have done a piece on how coffee shops are
If we had, some of us would have said the growth of Starbucks
We would have made puns about there being too much froth
Coffee bars have continued to proliferate.
It's a lesson that sometimes you can extrapolate an unsustainable
So what is the success of coffee telling us?
At home the British may still be a nation of tea drinkers, but on the
Coffee shops, branded and independent, are spreading.
The idea of spending ?2, ?3 or even more pounds on a cup
of coffee no longer seems entirely alien to everyone.
Some have even spoken about a flat white economy.
If I'm honest I don't know what a flat white is
and I'm quite suspicious of the kind of people that order them.
But what I do know is that one of the fastest growing bits
Despite severe recession, despite a big squeeze
in household incomes, if you go back six years, about one in nine
Last year though, it was one in five.
In the last decade-and-a-half, the number of coffee outlets on
In the noughties that was driven by the growth of the brand of chains,
like Starbucks and Costa, but more recently there's been a pick-up
And the market has been entered by non-specialists.
Notably Gregg's the bakers and pub chain Wetherspoons.
We began our research 18 years ago and we were told the market was
already saturated then, there were enough coffee shops.
Today we are looking at over 22,000 coffee shops,
We think the market still has perhaps even double to go.
The rise of out of town supermarkets and internet shopping has impacted
on the high street, freeing up retail space and lowering rents.
That's giving major opportunities for quality coffee shops,
branded or nice quality independents to move in at affordable rents
People flock to coffee shops to socialise and,ing inially, to work.
People flock to coffee shops to socialise and to work.
And it is a meeting place of I guess people that
We have a lot of people that come in here and buy one coffee and sit
Combining the leisurely graces of 17th century England with
the colour, art and imagination of modern taste,
coffee houses like this one in Kensington are having a new...
The last decade wasn't Britain's first coffee shop boom.
Tastes change over time and the 1960s saw something similar,
But the first real coffee boom was 300 years before.
On the left we have something very exciting, a rather fetching blue
plaque marking the site of London's first coffee house, opened in 1562,
plaque marking the site of London's first coffee house, opened in 1652,
and within a couple of weeks Londoners were flocking here in
their hundreds to try out the bitter Mohammedan gruel,
a 17th century term for coffee, but I'm surprised no hipster coffee
Commerce was intrinsic to the coffee house experience.
Some of the institutions in the City, like the insurance
industry at Lloyds, and the stock markets, they all grew out of these
smoky candlelit coffee houses.
Until the arrival of coffee, most people were either slightly or
very drunk all day long, because you couldn't drink the river
So the arrival of coffee triggers the dawn of sobriety that lays the
foundation for spectacular economic growth in the decades that followed,
partly because people are thinking clearly for the first time.
Of course, 17th century coffee was very different.
Matthew Green still prepares it in the same way
It was routinely compared to oil, ink, soot, mud,
Coffee's relationship to the wider economy continues today.
Some people are using coffee shops as indicators of gentrification
I looked at coffee shops in an area and the number of chicken
My theory was if you find a place that has a high density
of coffee shops and low density of chicken shops and low house prices,
The presence of coffee shops might tell us if coffee prices in
But coffee doesn't tell us much about the state of the wider
economy, because this is a market that seems to keep on growing
The reason is because it is a narcotic and once we've started we
need evermore to keep us going. Before we go, we thought we should
mark the occasion of David Cameron's 10th anniversary as leader
of the Conservative Party. In that decade he left his daughter
in a pub and won a couple of elections. So here are some
of his highlights and low points. I want to talk about the future. He
was the future once. There is such a thing as society. It's just not the
same thing as the state. It is now formally a hung Parliament. I want
to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal
Democrats. Calm down, dear, calm down. Of
course I would rather you supported West Ham. I'm a Villa fan.
REPORTER: Do you choose West Ham or Villa? Sorry, I had, these things
sometimes happen when you're on the stump. Together, together, together.
Let's pull together. Let's come together. Let's work together.
Together, together, together, together, and together. Too many
twits might make a twit. Hello there. Sunny spells and scattered
showers for Tuesday. We've got early