27/04/2016 Newsnight

I accept and understand that the words are used caused upset and hurt

to the Jewish community, and I deeply regret that. Anti-Semitism is

racism, full stop. less than four hours

after saying sorry. Labour is struggling to deal

with the charge that it has Liverpool commemorates the loss

of life at Hillsborough. South Yorkshire's chief

constable is out. Where has trust in the police gone,

and how do they get it back? And, the effects

of a President Trump? Candidate Trump has given his first,

serious foreign policy speech: My foreign policy will always put

the interests of the American people and American security above all

else. It has to be first. It has to be.

A promising young Labour MP, Naz Shah, suspended from the party

for comments she put on social media about Israel.

In some, she gleefully suggested the solution to the Israel-Palestine

problem was for Israel to be moved into the United States.

She apologised for those and other remarks today,

it seemed that was enough to satisfy Jeremy Corbyn.

and the eventual decision to suspend her,

are a sign of Labour's sensitivity to the charge

An accusation that has been gathering traction in recent weeks.

Fighting for equality and fairness and justice. Not only here, just

inbred food, but across the world, and in particular, for Palestine and

Kashmir. VOICEOVER: Less than one year ago, Naz Shah set out her pitch

on election night, it is comments she made about Israel and the

Palestinians before being elected that have today seen her suspended

from Labour. The Jewish are rallying, she wrote in one Post, she

likened Israel to Nazi Germany, in another, and suggested the implied

transportation of Israelis Jewish to America. How offensive are these

comments? Newsnight spotted one of the same posts in the comments left

by the public on the page of another Labour MP. That was two years ago.

When we pointed out to miss mood, it was deleted almost immediately. --

Miss Mahmood. Yesterday, Naz Shah, who had posted the comment herself,

resigned as aide to John Madonna, he had made a point of how

anti-Semitism should be treated by the Labour Party. If people have

express those views, there is no role for them in the party, I would

like them out for life. Spike meeting Jeremy Corbyn this morning,

Naz Shah had not been suspended from the party, instead, Jeremy Corbyn

issued a statement, appearing to draw a line under the matter. What

Naz Shah did was offensive and unacceptable, I have spoken with her

and made this clear... Not good enough for the Shadow

Cabinet minister. -- this. We have a policy in the Labour Party that

people who make anti-Semitic remarks are suspended and an investigation

is carried out, I have made clear to the leader 's office my view that

this policy should be followed without exception. All of this

allowing David Cameron to pile on the pressure at prime ministers

questions today. The fact that frankly we have a Labour member of

Parliament with the Labour whip who made remarks about the

transportation of people from Israel to America, and talked about a

solution, and is still in receipt of the Labour whip is quite

extraordinary. Naz Shah later apologised. I accept and understand

that the words are used caused upset, and hurt, to the Jewish

community, and I deeply regret that. Then, another twist. Labour

announced that she would be suspended, and investigated, after

all. The honourable lady has spoken... The problem is that the

Labour leadership are facing in terms of allegations of

anti-Semitism do not just boil down to a lack of decisiveness, it is

more than that, Labour MPs say that it is about their leader, Jeremy

Corbyn, and whether he has the sincerity to really tackle this as

an issue. This leader of a Blairite group

inside Labour says that the party has a problem, and the leadership is

too hesitant. I love the Labour Party and it does great things but

there is sadly a problem and too many instances through to former

candidates, chairs of parties, although way through now, where

people think that it is acceptable to say these things and what has

been sad is the response has not been what we should have expected

and quite frankly it has not been the response that it would have been

of any other racism. Over the past few months, a number of Labour

councillors have been suspended over what appears to be anti-Semitic

results, -- remarks. The chair of the University Labour club has

stepped down, his reasoning: the Labour Party is increasingly

feeling like somewhere that is not a natural home for Jewish people in

the UK, what troubles me is that Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the

party, has not adequately dealt with these problems. This Labour MP

thinks that the comments by Naz Shah are the latest to cross the line

from acceptable criticism of Israel, which is not anti-Semitic, into

something more troubling. Criticism of Israel is personally justified,

like any other country can be criticised, I have done a good deal

of criticism of it myself, is ready policies. The way in which she put

forward her remarks, the outburst, given the history of the Jewish

people, it is totally unacceptable. She has apologised and says she

understands the harm and the hurt that has been done as a result of

these remarks. Newsnight has learned that Labour is now working on a

proactive package on anti-Semitism, including news new ways for Jewish

Mahmut Ozen become more actively involved in the party. That might be

easier said than done. One backbench Labour MP has told the programme

that they are worried that a tsunami of anti-Semitism has been joined up

-- has joined up, emboldened by Jeremy Corbyn's past associations

with people who are anti-Semitic and critical of Israel.

A lot of questions are being asked about Labour, and there is a debate

among those in the Jewish community as to how serious it is.

I'm joined by two prominent members of that community now.

From Tel Aviv, Lord Levy, the Labour Peer and former Chief

and in the studio with me, Rabbi and Baroness Julia Neuberger.

Does Labour have a problem with anti-Semitism? Yes, in a word, that

is not to say that other parties have not had problems, or that it is

not elsewhere, but Labour has a particular problem, a particular

problem at the moment, this Naz Shah case illustrates that, and more than

anything else, the Oxford University Labour club. You are a crossbench

peer. You are not a member of Labour. I was a Lib Dem peer, I have

been a crossbench peer the five-year is, I was brought up in the Labour

Party, true, my parents would be turning in their graves. Lord Levy,

how serious a problem do you think that Labour has in this regard?

Well, unfortunately, I have to say that I think that it is a serious

problem. The lack of sensitivity when a member of Parliament talks

about transportation of the largest Jewish community in the world... I

think it just shows such ignorance. The comments, the Twitter posts that

she made an Adolf Hitler... I begin to scratch my head in despair as to

how people like this can enter our Parliament with such a lack of

knowledge, discretion, such a lack of sensitivity. Julia just said that

she does not believe that this is restricted to the Labour Party comic

yes, the Labour Party is coming under a microscope at the moment. --

Julia just said she did not believe that this is restricted to the

Labour Party, yes. Every party needs to put anti-Semitism on their agenda

and make sure that it is eradicated, that there is zero tolerance of

anti-Semitism right across the political spectrum. I'm not quite

clear, are you saying Labour has a worse problem than other parties or

that all parties are equally bad in this regard? You heard what Julia

had said, when she was a member of the Liberal Democrats, she knows

what some of the members of that party have said. When I went into

the House of Lords, as I have said before, I was told that those on the

Tory benches said, who is the Jewish lad brought into the house now?

There are definite issues of anti-Semitism across the political

spectrum. At this moment in time, I have to say it seems more prominent

within the Labour Party, and it is absolutely crucial that the

leadership of the party stamp this out. And for once and for all, and

our system needs to deal with it, because there can be criticism of

the state of Israel but anti-Semitism, using the word

Zionist as another form of anti-Semitism, frankly that can no

longer be tolerated. How specific do you think it is to Labour? Do you

agree with Lord Levy? At the moment it is much more specific to Labour,

it is attached to the Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader, and therefore,

old... For those of us old enough to remember Militant, it existed there,

it is an issue with the hard left and in particular a criticism of

Israel, and I suspect that peoples whose views would not have been

acceptable in the Labour Party have rejoined or they have joined, and I

think we have seen that. In a way it is a problem of the left, what you

might call the hard left, they have a much harder line on Israel, the

state of Israel, and Palestine. Specifically, yes, at the moment,

that is where it comes, also seems to be the case with student

politics, and this awful use of... Have you seen this?... The use of

zio zio as a term of abuse, to Jewish students. It is easy to band

about these claims. You just disagree with them, easy insult,

does that happen? Of course, and it has happened on many occasions, I

ought to lay on the line, this is the first time I have gone seriously

public saying that there is a real problem of anti-Semitism, I have

often said when people have cried anti-Semitism, you know what, I am

not sure... But this time I'm absolutely sure, it is a concerted

thing, lots of different places at the same time. Let's talk about how

the party is dealing with it, Lord Levy, do you think that Jeremy

Corbyn, the senior party officials, have taken this problem seriously

enough, for your satisfaction? I think that it has taken too long for

them to have taken this action. Somehow, they just at the beginning,

there has been talk of a statement being changed. One statement made,

and then action taken thereafter. I think that this must be dealt with

in almost eight proactive way, so that members of the party, and

anyone associated with the Labour Party coming out with this sort of

anti-Semitic verbiage, it cannot be tolerated. But you know, Julia just

said, about her position on anti-Semitism, I have always taken

that you, I had my office in the Foreign Office, the Foreign Office,

-- Foreign Commonwealth Office, for ten years, I never thought that

there were anti-Semitic people in the cupboard, but we must look at

this very carefully, with great respect to Julia, if we just look at

the situation and say that it is from the left and not on the far

right as well, then I think that is being somewhat naive. Every party

needs to look very carefully in their cupboards as to what is going

on on anti-Semitism at the moment. You know, it is very difficult...

For a very small community in our country. We need to work closely

with the Muslim community, we need to work closely with all

communities, there needs to be an understanding of what our

differences are, there needs to be an understanding of what is going on

in the Middle East. There needs to be an education process as to what

is happening. I think that is crucial. Thank you very much. Last

one, there will be people watching, they say that this gets used as a

cover to close down discussion, legitimate discussion, about the

state of Israel and its policies, how does Jeremy Corbyn, who feel

strongly on that issue, how does he steer the line between eradicating

anti-Semitism but opening the discussion to Israel? It has to be

legitimate to criticise Israel, as it is possible to criticise any

other country but look at the way language is used, when the word

Zionist is used, instead of the word Jewish, and you began to talk about

conspiracies, that is not about Israel, that is about Jewish people,

that is when you have two pick it up and run with it. Quite a lot of

criticism of Israel is also anti-Semitic, I must say, but there

is a particular strand going on at the moment. -- have to. That is why

I disagree with Michael, there is anti-Semitism on the right, in the

middle, and on the left. This particular anti-Semitism that is

going on at the moment is a conflation of using the word Zionist

to mean Jewish, to begin talking about some kind of Zionist

conspiracy, which is loyal, and in praise of Hitler... That really is

very shocking! Naz Shah was not the only high

profile suspension today. The chief constable

of South Yorkshire Richard Crompton was cast aside by the Police

and Crime Commissioner there in the wake of

the Hillsborough inquest verdict. Because trust in the police

force was fading, It came shortly before

the commemoration in Huge crowds at St George's Square,

it was an emotional occasion. When we were sitting in that court

these past two tears and listening to the same lies to blame our fans,

the system itself, the police force of South Yorkshire to be ashamed of

themselves and hang their heads. it was perhaps important to be seen

to act ahead of this. Now the police were

still the subject of public anger at the fact

that the Hillsborough inquest had taken two years, which was

blamed on the police Andy Burnham made the point

on our programme last night, and expanded on it

in the commons today. Mr Speaker let me be clear, I don't

blame the orderly police officers, the men and women who did their very

best on that day and who today are out there keeping our streets safe.

But I do blame their leadership and culture which seems rotten to the

core. How much more evidence do we need before we act?

South Yorkshire may have had more than its fair share of problems,

but the police nationally have faced criticism after criticism -

where do you start in listing all the problems, from Jean Charles

de Menezes to the original hacking investigation to Operation Midland.

I'm joined by the former Minister for policing,

Damian Green, and from Liverpool by Elkan Abrahamson,

lead solicitor for 20 of the families involved

It's been quite a day, or two days for those families, how much

difference do you think that the Chief Constable makes? Will this

suspension solve the problems of South Yorkshire Police? I don't

think it will, it's a welcome first step and we hope it will be followed

not by scapegoating him but by examining his conduct whether it

amounts to misconduct and what steps should be taken. But also by

examining the culture of the force and considering if special measures

should be taken to ensure South Yorkshire Police adopt a more

ethical policy of conducting the way they do their business. At heart

what do you think because of the problem is, is it a culture problem

at the heart of the police in your view? I think there is a culture

problem in any large organisation whether it be the police, the army

or private companies. We see again and again the reluctance of people

at the top these organisations to admit to their faults, whether those

are criminal or otherwise. We also see again and again that those

companies that do accept their responsibility when they do

something wrong are the quickest to change the culture within their

organisation. And encourage those lower down in the company to act

ethically. I think that is the main problem with the police but as I

say, not just the police. Damian Green, did you find when you were

responsible for the police a particular resistance to recognising

when they had got something wrong, trying instead to cover it up and be

defensive? They were defensive but I agree that many other organisations

are defensive as well and we should not forget that confidence in the

police is quite high. Compare to other institutions. Is it? Yell yes.

Clearly it is not in Liverpool for reasons which are terribly obvious

but puttable do still have a high level of trust in the police. What

has happened and one of the reasons the police are better than they used

to be, you now have someone who can hold the police to account,

introducing things like the College of policing to improve

professionalism, all of that is good and make things better but I

absolutely agree that one thing you can do, but in the long and much

more deeply what you need to do is change the culture. But why is the

culture so hard, so resistance to change in the police? It does seem

very difficult to get mistakes properly analysed like they would in

the aviation industry for example, how do you get that culture into the

police? Some of it, we as citizens expect the police to do difficult

and dangerous things every day and to get them to do that they need to

develop a huge esprit de corps, the act collectively. At the margin that

can go over into it is us against the world, we will defend each other

whatever. Trying to create a culture of whistle-blowing in that kind of

institution is very difficult. Elkan, some people have called for

the disbanding of South Yorkshire Police and the police and crime

commission said he did not know what that would mean because you cannot

cause the police down in South Yorkshire. What do people mean when

they say we should disband it and would that make sense as a solution

to the culture problem you have spoken about? It would be possible

in theory to merge two forces but whether that would be a solution or

not is impossible to say at this stage. What I am asking the Home

Secretary to consider is special measures which would require an

examination as to whether there are special steps which need to be taken

because there is not enough legitimacy responsibility at the

top. I don't know if that is definitely the case or not but

perhaps an enquiry by the Home Office would reveal that. And can I

just pick up the point about the problem the police have with, to use

the phrase esprit de corps, it's right that the more difficult and

dangerous the job the more an organisation has two encourage its

members to protect themselves but that should not become what may. We

need people to understand the ethics that they should adopt wherever they

are. Police forces have a code of ethics and have had for several

years and it need to be at every level so people accept that

responsibility. Last one for you Damian, to the police make more

mistakes than they should? A large organisation will make a lot of

mistakes, statistically... It is more than 100,000 people doing a

very difficult job. It is just that a lot of what they do is so

sensitive that when they make mistakes terrible things can happen,

as happened there. I agree about the code of ethics, this is something

you introduced a few years ago, you might have assumed there had always

been a code of ethics but there hasn't been. Making that an

instinctive part of the culture so that everyone in the police service

lives and breathes a code of ethics, that is the long-term aim. Thank you

both very much. We did ask to speak to both

and to the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Donald Trump has called himself the Republican

And he is not being that presumptious in

The bookies have put an 83% chance of him

Now, while Mr Trump has been a phenomenal campaigner and a good

laugh along the way, even his best friends would concede

that he hasn't always looked Presidential.

So today was a very big moment in his campaign,

He gave a foreign policy speech without any of that

"who'll pay for the wall?" rhetoric;

it was his statement of what he calls an "America First"

foreign policy, with lots of implications for us all.

We'll discuss those shortly, but first Mark Urban looks

We have all heard Donald Trump on the stump, uncompromising and at

times outrageous. Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the

United States. I am going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it.

When was the last time anybody saw us feeding, let's say, China. We are

going to have our borders nice and strong, we are going to build the

wall. Would I approve water boarding? You bet your as I would. I

would knock the hell out of Isis, you have to take out their families.

When did we feed Japan? But with delegates priming up in one primary

after another it was Jane Fonda gear change, from the contender talking

to the Republican base to the nominee apparent addressing the

wider American public. So today we got a detailed foreign policy

speech, it was scripted unlike some of his off the calf campaign marks

and the tone was softer than before as well. At the under lying message

was the same, an assertion of American exceptionalism. My foreign

policy will always put the interests of the American people and American

security above all else. It has to be first. It has to be. He roundly

attacked President Obama's Iran nuclear dear, what many think is his

biggest foreign policy achievement. We have a president who dislikes our

friends and bones to our enemies, something we have never seen before

in the history of our country. He negotiated a disastrous deal with

Iran and then we watched them ignore its terms even before the ink was

dry will stop Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, cannot be

allowed, remember that, cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Letting the militaries ball to rack and ruin, he promised to restore its

relevance. There would be much more spending on defence and a warning to

allies in Europe that scene is expected of them. Our allies must

contribute towards their financial, political and human costs, they have

to do it, of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply

not doing so. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost its

defence and if not the United States must be prepared to let these

countries defend themselves. We have no choice. What is all this hardware

for? Restoring American power and global onslaught against a radical

Islam he said. Nato would be welcome he said to join in that effort and

encountering migrants. But should steer wheel clear of going up

against Russia as President Trump would be negotiating our resected

inhalations with them as part of his vision for foreign policy. We will

no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of

globalism. The nation state remains the true foundation for happiness

and harmony. I am sceptical of international unions that tie us up

and bring America down. Trump instils joy among

some, strikes the fear And others simply say they don't

know what he believes, Let's ask which is

the right view of him.. I'm joined from Washington

by Edward Luttwak, a historian and political scientist,

and by David Frum, who was a speechwriter

for George W Bush. Edouard, is there a Donald Trump

that is not as crazy as some people say he is? The Donald Trump that

exists exists in the United States of America. He talks about a wall on

the border of Mexico and in fact under the Obama administration a lot

of money has been spent on a fence along the Mexican border. He talks

about not giving a Visa to people from Muslim countries, or elsewhere

and under the Obama administration entering the United States for

people holding passports from the Muslim countries, and recently with

the restriction on the Visa waiver programme, British people who have

travelled to Muslim countries are no longer Visa free. In other words

they are caught between the existing Obama and the existing Donald Trump,

the gap is far narrower than you might imagine. Look at what he says

about immigration and so on, or Bama's record in the number of

deportations and so it goes. Equally, in regard to getting the

situation of course with spending and Nato is that Nato where only 2%

criteria which is half the Cold War spending. Nobody is spending 2%, web

hello, including Britain, yet they still pretend to set up the table

and pronounce... We will come back to that. Let me put this point to

David Frum, two day definitely he looked a little more serious and a

bit more presidential and that was partly the decor but do you think

there is a serious Donald Trump trying to get out of the comedy

Donald Trump we have seen in the campaign?

did not try very hard to make sense, Donald Trump began with one

paragraph he said that we are going to drop allies, as allies who do not

pay, and then in the next paragraph he complained that America buzz

allies see the country as unreliable. Perhaps they see it as

that because of the thing you said just one paragraph previous(!) the

speech did not try to make sense, but there was something serious at

work, something disquieting, politico Europe reported that in the

front row of the talk, not a big talk, not a big room, Russian

ambassador. We know that the Kremlin has made big attempted penetrate

Democrats that all systems, the Front National in France, the

national front in the UK, also persistent rumours of involvement

with the Scottish Nationalist... We cannot go into any of that, because

we do not know what the financing is but... The point is... Yes,

something with Russia... A little bit more than a rapprochement with

Russia, it is an open door, look at the advisers of Donald Trump, look

at some of the most important people in his operation, this is beginning

to look like something that a lot of French people, German people,

British people would recognise as uncomfortable. Edward, on that

specifically, a kind of warmer, reaching out to Vladimir Putin, good

or bad? Again, maybe good, maybe terrible, but if you were to go and

ask the normal foreign policy experts, the people in my line of

business, talk with former senior ambassadors, at the highest level,

all of them believe that the United States as to improve relations with

Russia. There is talk about reviving an algorithm society, and because of

the notion of hostility to Russia is only affected in the degree that you

can actually stop Russia. -- Elbe River Society. If there was a

willingness in Nato, among members, Italy, France, Britain, Germany, to

send trips to the Ukraine, in the United States could be there and

confront Russia, if you cannot confront Russia, because of the

American position, or the Allied position, then you should improve

relations with Moscow. There is a consensus, go to the Council for

foreign relations, that is exactly what they say. Let me put that point

to David, it sounds like Europe should be quite worried by Donald

Trump, threatening Nato, obviously taking a different attitude towards

Russia, is that the right leading of what we heard today? -- right

reading. Europe should be worried not because of what Donald Trump is

saying but Europe should be worried because the likeliest outcome of

this Donald Trump candidacy and nomination, a historic collapse in

Republican strength. We are looking at the high likelihood of a Clinton

presidency, you will not find that uncomfortable, but major Democratic

gains in the Senate and possibly the house as well, congressional

Democrats are well to the left of where a Clinton presidency would be,

from trade to giving support on the migration measures, that Britain

desperately needs to take. You may find that there is a second order of

the trump candidacy, that you are facing a United States less

sympathetic and understanding to the problems of Europe than the historic

norm, which has prevailed between the two continents. Inky very much

indeed. -- thank you very much indeed.

You don't need to be a psephologist to notice that politics

Fights within big parties; smaller parties exerting huge influence.

And huge regional and national variations.

Scottish politics is in a very different place to that of England

and Wales for example, we'll probably get more evidence

of that in the Scottish election, a week tomorrow.

Psephologist John Curtice has been struck by the changes

VOICEOVER: The question that Labour MPs at Westminster will be asking

themselves when they see the results of the local and devolved elections

on May the 5th, what do they tell them about Labour's prospects for

winning an election under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in 2020? In so

doing, they are in danger of making a big mistake, the truth is, British

politics is dead. No longer is electoral success confined to

parties like Labour and the Conservatives, who fight elections

on a Britain wide basis. Party support no longer necessarily moves

in the same direction, across the country. The issues that mattered

the most two voters have diverged. Scotland's links with British

politics were already weakened, by the failure of the Conservatives

north of the border to make any significant recovery from the slump

in their support and representation back in 1997. Then in last year 's

general election, Labour suffered a historic collapse in support. Now,

the key test that Labour MPs say Jeremy Corbyn must pass is the

restoration of Labour's dire position in Scotland, on May five.

Things are going really well. There is now fundamental differences

between elections in Scotland and those in England and Wales. The

electoral scene in Scotland is now dominated by the SNP, a party that

does not even contest elections south of the border. The

Nationalists provide virtually all of Scotland's MPs at Westminster,

which means Labour and the Conservatives are effectively only

English and Welsh parties. So, the outcome in last year 's general

election in Scotland was in truth completely different from that in

England and Wales, in Scotland, the Labour vote collapsed, whereas

Labour actually gained some ground in England and Wales. Equally, the

Conservative vote in Scotland, already unbelievably low, fell yet

further, to a new record low, whereas in England and Wales, again,

the party was making progress. Here is very clear evidence that the

fortunes of Labour, the fortunes of the Conservatives, can be very

different in Scotland from what they are in either England or Wales, the

only similarity that Scotland now enjoys with England and Wales is the

rather sad fate of the Liberal Democrats, now a very small party in

Scotland, much as is true in England and Wales. The issue that now above

all divides voters in Scotland is the independence question, an issue

that is peripheral to voters in England and Wales. If we look at

what happened in last year 's general election, around 85 to 90%

of those people who had voted yes to independence in September 2014 in

the referendum held then went on to reaffirm their faith by voting for

the SNP, whereas only around 15 to 20% of those that voted no to

independence were willing to buck to the Nationalists. This is a

constitutional question, that is now at the heart of the Scottish

electoral politics, whereas in England and Wales, it hardly figures

at all. The polls in Scotland have not moved

forward it is, indeed not four months. As a result, it looks as

though Labour could do at least as badly on May the 5th as they did 12

months ago. The truth is, for voters in Scotland, it is independence that

matters. Not what they think of Jeremy Corbyn.

STUDIO: John Curtice's view of our non-national politics.

Let's stay in Scotland; the leader of the Labour party there has

all the challenges set out in John's piece.

The rug pulled from under the party by the SNP.

The election will be a test for Kezia Dugdale, who has

been in charge of Labour there since last summer.

Some have speculated on whether the party could even

Isn't it the case that the referendum changed the way that

elections are framed in Scotland, and the key divined is either

whether you are for independence or the union? The trouble was that

Labour did not see this coming. That is fundamentally correct, what you

have said, Scottish politics has completely changed since the

referendum, the Labour Party must change with it, that is what I have

done as the labour of the Scottish Labour Party, tried to renew a sense

of who we are and what we stand for, what I'm trying to do, it is

important and quite brave, to appeal to people who voted both yes and no,

because I believe it is a dark day, dark future for Scotland, if how we

vote in the general election, even for your local councillor, is

defined by what you did on one day in September in 2014. You can say

that the way that people voted for years and years and years, they

voted time and again for Labour. The problem is, Labour did not

understand over the years, Labour talked about evolution killing

nationalism stone dead, arrogant and lazy, and it was not true. That was

one voice, George Robertson, he make the case, the rest of the Labour

Party was making the case for devolution, more power from London

to Edinburgh. Ends must change. We are talking about my leadership, the

time that I have been in charge, I am responding to the worst general

election results almost possible in the Scottish election last year,

going from 41 MPs down to one MP. But what we have now is eight

prospectus for change, policy platform which is about ending

austerity. Is it about realism, one political commentator at the weekend

talked about she said that she is so relentlessly upbeat it is troubling,

that you are like a puppy that does not see the bus coming, you are not

going to win. What drives me out of my bed every day is tackling poverty

and inequality, and opposition I can deliver some of that, but I can

transform that country from a position of power. I will not give

that up. You are set to lose 20 seats, by the latest polls, the

lowest standing since devolution, that would be, surely it is going to

take a lot more than just the same old same old, to win a Scottish

electorate, which in the moment has got its head. I do not accept those

numbers, when they run the numbers, they produce different results, I

intend to campaign with every last breath over this next week or so to

make the case for why people should vote Labour. You say same old same

old, this election is very different, it is the Labour Party,

the only party that is able to say that we have an anti-steroid to

pledge. Our tax proposals, raising enough revenue to stop the cuts,

one-year ago, Nicola Sturgeon was the one saying that she was the

anti-austerities champion, who was going to tax the rich, now she's

supports austerity and refuses to tax it. The problem with the tax

plans, they are not about taxing the rich, it is a penny in income tax

which hits taxpayers over 20,000 a year, last time that was put

forward, John Smith, 1993, Shadow Chancellor, it is suggested that is

what lost the election. We live in different time, people in Scotland

desperately wants to stop the cuts and end austerity, we have a

platform for that. When you look at the opinion polls you have just

cited, three show overwhelming support for our tax proposals, the

BBC's own poll, the number one most popular policy was the 50p tax, and

then income tax. It is Labour plans to stop the cuts which are proving

most popular in this election.