:00:00. > :00:08.For a party of law and order - indeed a party that makes
:00:09. > :00:10.the law and order - the Conservatives have come up
:00:11. > :00:12.short, fined not just for breeching election law,
:00:13. > :00:17.but failing to co-operate with the authorities' investigation.
:00:18. > :00:19.They have imposed a fine on the Conservative Party
:00:20. > :00:21.and the Conservative Party will be meeting that fine, will
:00:22. > :00:26.A report into the Tory battlebus and the way the 2015 election
:00:27. > :00:27.campaign was accounted for makes damning reading.
:00:28. > :00:31.Is this the next expenses scandal, or just the way political business
:00:32. > :00:37.The main political parties didn't want to put anyone
:00:38. > :00:43.But we do have guests to discuss how serious the Tory breech
:00:44. > :00:49.And Scotland said no in its referendum two and half years
:00:50. > :00:52.ago, Theresa May has said no to another vote, at least for now.
:00:53. > :00:59.What the Scottish nationalists are suggesting is that they're not
:01:00. > :01:02.the engines of uncertainty, of chaos -
:01:03. > :01:07.with Brexit, the British government is.
:01:08. > :01:09.Also tonight, is the accusation of racism bandied
:01:10. > :01:14.We'll ask if majority white communities are racist
:01:15. > :01:26.when they want the best for people like them.
:01:27. > :01:29.So the Electoral Commission published a report on allegations
:01:30. > :01:32.against the Conservatives today and the way they've accounted
:01:33. > :01:37.for their spending in various recent elections or by-elections.
:01:38. > :01:40.First thing to remember is that national parties are obliged by law
:01:41. > :01:42.to keep records and receipts of election spending,
:01:43. > :01:46.because there are national caps on how much they can spend.
:01:47. > :01:48.There are also caps on what each local candidate can spend.
:01:49. > :01:56.This was the national party affair, but several police forces have been
:01:57. > :01:58.looking at various Conservative MPs as well.
:01:59. > :02:00.Now, today's news from the Electoral Commission
:02:01. > :02:01.was extraordinarily damning, finding the Conservatives
:02:02. > :02:03.guilty on multiple counts, much of them exposed,
:02:04. > :02:11.Failing to declare all their national spending.
:02:12. > :02:16.Failing to keep proper accounts and records.
:02:17. > :02:19.And, crucially, counting some local spending as national,
:02:20. > :02:27.which may then obviously distort local battles.
:02:28. > :02:30.The Commission said the then Tory Treasurer may have broken
:02:31. > :02:32.criminal law in signing the election records off, and it condemns
:02:33. > :02:35.the party for not even co-operating with its investigation.
:02:36. > :02:45.Well, our political editor Nick Watt is with me.
:02:46. > :02:53.damning report. Take us through some more of the detail. You cannot cross
:02:54. > :02:58.this over. It is a bad day for the Conservative Party. That record
:02:59. > :03:01.fine. The Conservative Party said we complied with the Electoral
:03:02. > :03:06.Commission and they said excuse me, we had to go to the High Court to
:03:07. > :03:10.get some of these documents out of you and the registered treasurer at
:03:11. > :03:14.the time has been referred to the police because he may not have
:03:15. > :03:27.filled in those forms properly. The Conservatives point out that a
:03:28. > :03:29.similar thing recently happened to the Liberal Democrats. There are two
:03:30. > :03:31.particularly important findings from this report off the back of that
:03:32. > :03:34.investigation and the first of those is in Thanet South where the
:03:35. > :03:37.Conservatives defeated Nigel Faia Raige. The report says that the
:03:38. > :03:44.Conservatives should have declared some of the hotel costs for Tory
:03:45. > :03:47.officials, they should have declared that as local spending. The
:03:48. > :03:52.commission said it is located declared some of it as national
:03:53. > :03:56.because the Tories have their anti-UKIP national centre there. The
:03:57. > :03:59.reason why that matters is Nick Timothy, the joint Chief of staff,
:04:00. > :04:04.he was one of the officials down there and the second thing that
:04:05. > :04:08.matters is the same principle about you should have declared some
:04:09. > :04:12.national spending as local applies to the Tory battle buses and that
:04:13. > :04:19.matters because there are Tory MPs under investigation by the police on
:04:20. > :04:23.that matter. We heard from one of those MPs last night. He is now no
:04:24. > :04:28.longer under investigation. What are those Tory MPs with that cloud
:04:29. > :04:31.hanging over them saying? The atmosphere has been dreadful. I
:04:32. > :04:37.understand the atmosphere has calmed down and the reason for that is
:04:38. > :04:41.there is a little noticed element in the Conservative Party statement
:04:42. > :04:45.today and crucially it said that MPs in constituencies visited by the
:04:46. > :04:48.battle buses would have no reason to consider whether it should be
:04:49. > :04:55.included in their local return and then look at the last words, they
:04:56. > :05:00.were directed that the bus would be visiting as part of the national
:05:01. > :05:03.spending. The significant word there is directed at that has been
:05:04. > :05:09.welcomed by MPs because that is the party acknowledging that it obliged
:05:10. > :05:14.them to accept the buses. That statement comes after senior party
:05:15. > :05:18.figures right up to the Cabinet were given a stark warning this week by
:05:19. > :05:23.MPs under investigation saying that one of their central defences, if
:05:24. > :05:28.this got to court, would be to say that feels campaigners, those are
:05:29. > :05:33.the paid party officials, were told by CC HQ to accept a visit by the
:05:34. > :05:37.bus and that would mean that all those connected, the campaigners,
:05:38. > :05:46.the people who gave the orders, they would be brought into court and they
:05:47. > :05:48.would be cross-examined by those MPs defence barristers. What are the
:05:49. > :05:51.party saying about all of this? I spoke to one member of the Prime
:05:52. > :05:55.Minister's circle who was bullish and said there was a cat in hell 's
:05:56. > :06:00.chance of successful prosecutions and the reason for that is because
:06:01. > :06:05.you would have to prove intent to deceive and they think that is a
:06:06. > :06:08.hurdle that will not be met. Ministers are really annoyed with
:06:09. > :06:11.the Electoral Commission and they say that there is no consistency.
:06:12. > :06:16.Why are you not investigating the Labour Party which also had battle
:06:17. > :06:19.buses? I understand that these concerns have been passed to the new
:06:20. > :06:23.leadership of the Electoral Commission but I am told that if
:06:24. > :06:27.this whole saga ends in no prosecutions, the Conservative Party
:06:28. > :06:37.will go public and make a big song and dance about how the Electoral
:06:38. > :06:40.Commission is not living up to its statutory obligations to act fairly.
:06:41. > :06:41.Thank you. This is one of those gambles were everyone is at it
:06:42. > :06:41.and... Well, is this one of those scandals
:06:42. > :06:44.where everyone's at it and it carries on until suddenly some light
:06:45. > :06:47.is shone upon it, at which point there is outrage,
:06:48. > :06:49.followed by a reset The MPs' expenses scandal
:06:50. > :06:52.comes to mind as similar, or the broadcasters' use
:06:53. > :06:54.of premium-rate phone Chris Cook has been looking
:06:55. > :07:03.at the thorny issue This week than Westminster election
:07:04. > :07:08.spending bills have been in the news. Today we learned that the
:07:09. > :07:11.Conservative Party has been fined a record ?70,000 and its former
:07:12. > :07:17.treasurer reported to the police for breaching the rules on campaign
:07:18. > :07:21.spending. This matters because campaigning matters. There is a
:07:22. > :07:28.pretty good science quantifying what it takes to turn someone out. We
:07:29. > :07:31.know that if you have a volunteer, a knocking on doors that forever 14
:07:32. > :07:35.doors you not, if they have the right type of interaction you can
:07:36. > :07:40.generate a Bolt. In certain types of direct mail, for about $50 per vote,
:07:41. > :07:47.you can turn a nonvoter into a voter. These are things that have a
:07:48. > :07:50.measurable impact. The spending rules for election are important and
:07:51. > :07:54.they occupy a lot of time for candidates on the ground and the
:07:55. > :07:58.type of people who work in places like Conservative campaign
:07:59. > :08:03.headquarters. They keep the money from taking too big a role in our
:08:04. > :08:07.politics and it makes it harder for an individual rich person to buy
:08:08. > :08:11.themselves a seat in our Parliament. There is an important extent to
:08:12. > :08:16.which the spending rules really are very otherworldly. A key principle
:08:17. > :08:20.of these rules as they split spending into local and national,
:08:21. > :08:24.local has tight spending limits, national does not. That is why the
:08:25. > :08:28.Electoral Commission found itself investigating whether people bust
:08:29. > :08:32.into marginal seats were promoting the local candidate or the Tory
:08:33. > :08:36.party at large. If the leaflets have the local candidate's name on it it
:08:37. > :08:40.counts as local campaign material. If they do not and have David
:08:41. > :08:44.Cameron on, they would not. Political parties pay a lot of
:08:45. > :08:49.attention to these rules, it affects the way they behaved but it
:08:50. > :08:53.constrains the amount of money they spend mentioning local candidates
:08:54. > :08:56.and consistent -- constituencies and the concentrate their money and
:08:57. > :08:59.firepower on a much more presidential style of campaigning,
:09:00. > :09:03.where they mention the national party, the leader of the party and
:09:04. > :09:07.you can actually basically parachuting millions of pounds worth
:09:08. > :09:12.of leaflets in theory, so long as they stay away from the local name
:09:13. > :09:16.of the area. An important principle to political parties is everything
:09:17. > :09:21.happens summer. National parties will often put on national events
:09:22. > :09:25.for the national media that count against national spending. These
:09:26. > :09:30.events are often much larger than anything a local party could ever
:09:31. > :09:38.afford. These events, though, have to happen summer. Take the so-called
:09:39. > :09:44.Ed Stone launch, it did not happen in either a rock-solid or a no-hoper
:09:45. > :09:50.seat, these things are big local events in important marginals. And
:09:51. > :09:54.actually, sometimes campaigners can drive national campaigns to avoid
:09:55. > :09:57.breaking local spending limits. It is quite easy to dress up
:09:58. > :10:01.effectively local campaigning so that it looks like a national
:10:02. > :10:05.campaign. There are examples, like in Sheffield Hallam, the seat of
:10:06. > :10:10.Nick Clegg, some of the unions invested a lot of money in these
:10:11. > :10:13.enormous billboards criticising the Liberal Democrats. They were clearly
:10:14. > :10:17.targeted at trying to cut down his vote in the local area but because
:10:18. > :10:20.his name was not mentioned and it did not say Sheffield, a counted as
:10:21. > :10:37.a national campaign. Still, our parties only spent ?38
:10:38. > :10:39.million at the last General Election. Hillary Clinton spend ?100
:10:40. > :10:42.million in just the last three weeks of her campaign. We managed to keep
:10:43. > :10:45.our politics cheap, which is almost certainly a good thing. Generally we
:10:46. > :10:47.find that once you get up into a presidential election, tens and
:10:48. > :10:51.hundreds of millions of dollars, that marginal increases of the next
:10:52. > :10:55.ten or $100 million are not doing a lot, mostly because people are
:10:56. > :11:00.bombarded with information, a lot of it conflicting and contrary and we
:11:01. > :11:06.know that it is very difficult to change the minds of people. The
:11:07. > :11:11.Tories did break the spending rules so why aren't other parties pressing
:11:12. > :11:15.them too hard? In short, it is because of this fuzziness in the
:11:16. > :11:20.national and local rules and as the MPs expenses scandal shows,
:11:21. > :11:21.sometimes everybody does it is not an excuse that the public will
:11:22. > :11:22.accept. Let's talk about what this story
:11:23. > :11:32.tells us about the purity None of the parties wanted to
:11:33. > :11:33.discuss this. Let's talk about what this story
:11:34. > :11:36.tells us about the purity or otherwise of our political
:11:37. > :11:38.and electoral system with Phil Collins, commentator
:11:39. > :11:40.for The Times and former speechwriter for Tony Blair,
:11:41. > :11:55.and writer and comedian Ava Vidal. I consider you the political
:11:56. > :12:00.outsider in this conversation. He is a complete insider. How does it
:12:01. > :12:04.feel, what do you feel when you see what the Tories were doing? It is a
:12:05. > :12:10.reasonably technical distinction, but do you think it is outrageous?
:12:11. > :12:16.Yes, I do feel outraged. I think a lot of ordinary people are going to.
:12:17. > :12:19.You have the Tory party, they are constantly talking about having to
:12:20. > :12:22.live to certain standards, the standards that they want to impose
:12:23. > :12:26.on ordinary people, one of the things they talk a lot about is
:12:27. > :12:32.benefit fraud which is actually minuscule, but they make a big deal
:12:33. > :12:35.about it. They came up with the strivers and shirkers and you find
:12:36. > :12:39.out that they are corrupt themselves. People are not going to
:12:40. > :12:44.take that kindly. It is the principle of them breaking a law or
:12:45. > :12:46.is it the particular thing? Are you thinking, these people should not
:12:47. > :12:59.have won the last election because they cheated?
:13:00. > :13:01.That is what some people think. Politician should be beyond
:13:02. > :13:04.reproach. They are leaders in society, they are supposed to show
:13:05. > :13:06.the way. We find out they are doing things like this. Of course people
:13:07. > :13:09.will be angry and disappointed. Just on the narrow point and we have seen
:13:10. > :13:15.it in the peace there, how serious or how egregious was it what the
:13:16. > :13:18.Tories did? It was bad. They broke the rules and their attitude in
:13:19. > :13:23.forcing the Electoral Commission to go to court to get their information
:13:24. > :13:26.was foolish and stupid. It is bad and they have been fined and I think
:13:27. > :13:31.it is a rather paltry fine and I think it should be more. That is an
:13:32. > :13:36.issue. The fine could have been bigger. I think the fine should be
:13:37. > :13:40.bigger and the fact that we take this case very seriously even though
:13:41. > :13:43.I regard it as not terribly egregious but the fact we take it
:13:44. > :13:48.seriously is one of the reasons why it is quite rare in British politics
:13:49. > :13:54.that we have cases like this. Do you think the public care? Yes, they do.
:13:55. > :14:00.We know that they do. That is why this is such a bad case. Although, a
:14:01. > :14:03.bit like benefit fraud, this is also small, but it does not seem like it
:14:04. > :14:07.when you have incidents like this. It gives people a reason to think
:14:08. > :14:15.they are all in it for themselves and it is quite corrupt. That is a
:14:16. > :14:20.thing. Is it a defence to say, one suspects that the fuzzy line between
:14:21. > :14:24.local and national spending has been used or abused by other parties in
:14:25. > :14:30.other elections? Does that make a difference? It makes absolutely no
:14:31. > :14:35.difference. They keep speaking about it being a fuzzy line, I do not
:14:36. > :14:39.think it is fuzzy. It is clear. It shows the way they go around it and
:14:40. > :14:43.I do not think the fine is good enough either, especially for the
:14:44. > :14:47.Tory party. I do not think it is a deterrent. They say SNMP is found
:14:48. > :14:54.guilty of doing it, they will step down. That is not enough. We see MPs
:14:55. > :14:57.walk out or lose their job and walk into the board of a business and
:14:58. > :15:05.earn lots more money. How does that make sense?
:15:06. > :15:10.Let's step back, because although this deserves the condemnation
:15:11. > :15:15.you've given it, in the big scale of things our system is relatively
:15:16. > :15:20.clean, and eyes that -- I defend that proposition. Yes, relative to
:15:21. > :15:24.other countries and relative to our own history. The transparency do an
:15:25. > :15:30.audit of corruption every year and we come tenth out of 176 measured
:15:31. > :15:34.countries, so we are a relatively clean system. I think that's in part
:15:35. > :15:38.because we are so vigorous in trying to police things like this, so we
:15:39. > :15:44.are not deeply corrupt in our politics at all. We are relatively
:15:45. > :15:47.clean. So is your line that this is not a particularly large offence? We
:15:48. > :15:56.are right to make a big fuss about it but in the big picture of things,
:15:57. > :16:01.this isn't, you know, people being given palaces and things? I think
:16:02. > :16:07.most of the money parties spend on elections is wasted anyway! They are
:16:08. > :16:11.wasting their money. We've seen so many lavishly funded campaigns that
:16:12. > :16:16.lead to failure. Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush. Swimming in money for no
:16:17. > :16:20.good at all! And I think that's true of a lot of spending in politics. So
:16:21. > :16:25.we could reduce the spending and make no difference at all. Do you
:16:26. > :16:28.think our political system has a sort of corruption at the heart of
:16:29. > :16:36.it? People say it about the US political system, you know, you need
:16:37. > :16:39.to be rich to be president of the United States. Do you think that's
:16:40. > :16:44.the case here? I read the piece today and I thought it was a bit
:16:45. > :16:48.naive, sorry to be rude. Today we have a relatively clean system here
:16:49. > :16:53.is absolutely not true, and we are only just seeing the effects of the
:16:54. > :17:00.bribery that came in 2010. It takes a while for the law to catch up. And
:17:01. > :17:07.then you have the deferred prosecution agreement, so you have
:17:08. > :17:11.that that is basically the government that doesn't look like a
:17:12. > :17:16.government that wants to tackle corruption properly. It's basically
:17:17. > :17:21.giving people an out cause. Sorry. Do you think the party with the most
:17:22. > :17:25.money winds? Is it about money? The Conservatives have the most money
:17:26. > :17:30.and they won. Is it the money or is it something else? The money as a
:17:31. > :17:37.consequence of them being likely to win. It doesn't cause the victory,
:17:38. > :17:44.it is because people think they will win, so it flows. Do you agree with
:17:45. > :17:48.that? No, I don't. I don't want to get into the Jeremy Corbyn side of
:17:49. > :17:54.it, but if you say we have one of the cleanest systems in the world, I
:17:55. > :17:56.don't think so. This is not me saying so, these are
:17:57. > :18:00.well-established surveys that go through all the countries and they
:18:01. > :18:05.conclude we are tenth out of 176 out of a range of measures. That seems
:18:06. > :18:11.to accord with what I know about British processes. Gas, I've read
:18:12. > :18:16.them, the latest one I read was 2013, but if you look at the case of
:18:17. > :18:19.Rolls-Royce, we're at the tip of the iceberg of the level... There are
:18:20. > :18:26.lots of other aspects of our lives which may or may not be... Systemic,
:18:27. > :18:29.which is actually going on. Thank you to you both.
:18:30. > :18:33.Theresa May has told Nicola Sturgeon there won't be an independence
:18:34. > :18:36.That leaves us in a new constitutional place -
:18:37. > :18:39.a real argument between Westminster and Holyrood about the legitimacy
:18:40. > :18:44.There's no doubt about the law - it's the UK Parliament that governs
:18:45. > :18:47.But Nicola Sturgeon called it a democratic outrage today
:18:48. > :18:49.that the elected Scottish Government is being blocked.
:18:50. > :19:08.It felt like quite a significant day. Is that right? Yes, this is a
:19:09. > :19:14.really big move by Theresa May, and, as you say, her mantra today was,
:19:15. > :19:18.now is not the time, and she was saying how on earth can you expect
:19:19. > :19:21.the voters of Scotland to decide to leave the UK when they don't know
:19:22. > :19:26.what the Brexit deal for the whole of the UK will be until 2019?
:19:27. > :19:30.Ministers believe they are on very strong ground, because Alex Salmond,
:19:31. > :19:34.the former First Minister, signed the Edinburgh Agreement that created
:19:35. > :19:41.the grounds for the last referendum in 2014, and in that agreement, he
:19:42. > :19:47.agreed to abide by what the result was, whatever it was. Alex Salmond
:19:48. > :19:52.said his resignation believe the Scottish Government of its duties
:19:53. > :19:55.under the Edinburgh Agreement, however, and Nicola Sturgeon is not
:19:56. > :19:58.bound by it. But the Prime Minister's take today did not say
:19:59. > :20:03.whether she would reject a referendum right up to 2020, which
:20:04. > :20:07.means maybe there could be one after Brexit. But I spoke to one Cabinet
:20:08. > :20:11.minister who floated the idea of actually rejecting the referendum
:20:12. > :20:16.for the whole of the UK Parliament and essentially challenging the SNP
:20:17. > :20:19.and say, go ahead, get a mandate in the next Holyrood election in 2021
:20:20. > :20:24.for a referendum, and hope that because they lost their majority
:20:25. > :20:29.before, they would lose even more seats and not be in a majority for
:20:30. > :20:33.independence. The SNP were very cross as they hold their conference
:20:34. > :20:39.now. They are officially crossed but I spoke to one member in private who
:20:40. > :20:44.said they are delighted. They have said Theresa May has walked into a
:20:45. > :20:50.trap laid by them and it might actually leave both sides of the
:20:51. > :20:53.issue feel they are being denied a vote by Westminster. So she could be
:20:54. > :20:59.feeding a sea -- a sense of grievance. There is a big tent --
:21:00. > :21:08.contingent at Westminster who can disrupt business there, let's not
:21:09. > :21:14.forget. Parnell was able to drum up business in the late 19th century
:21:15. > :21:18.and here's a of Alex Salmond, and UK ministers no one crucial bit of
:21:19. > :21:24.Brexit legislation, the great repeal bill, which takes all that EU law
:21:25. > :21:29.into UK law, that will need the permission, ministers believe, a
:21:30. > :21:31.legislative consent motion in Holyrood, and they could cause
:21:32. > :21:33.trouble there. Thank you. Well, John Sweeney has been
:21:34. > :21:36.in Edinburgh and Dundee over the last couple of days,
:21:37. > :21:57.to see how the referendum Are you for or against Scotland
:21:58. > :22:03.staying in the UK? What do you think? I'm asking the question. From
:22:04. > :22:08.BBC News. I think Scotland should be a country that is part of the world,
:22:09. > :22:12.and because Westminster has put Scotland in such a terrible
:22:13. > :22:18.position, Scotland is going to want to be independent. Two and a half
:22:19. > :22:25.years ago for -- a referendum voted to stick with the UK. We don't want
:22:26. > :22:30.to go through that process again. Do you detect any change in the
:22:31. > :22:33.position of your friends? Both ways. If you want independence at all cost
:22:34. > :22:39.then another referendum is a good thing, but there are those who were
:22:40. > :22:44.pro-independence who are thinking, this is too much, too soon. On
:22:45. > :22:50.Monday, Scotland's First Minister opened fire. I can confirm today I
:22:51. > :22:55.will seek the authority of the Scottish Parliament to agree with
:22:56. > :22:59.the UK Government the details of a Section 30 order. It is a procedure
:23:00. > :23:03.that will enable the Scottish Government to legislate for an
:23:04. > :23:07.independence referendum. UK Government was clear in 2014 that an
:23:08. > :23:13.independence referendum showed in their words be made in Scotland by
:23:14. > :23:17.the people of Scotland -- should. That is a principle that should be
:23:18. > :23:21.respected today. Nicola Sturgeon's ambush was a great piece of
:23:22. > :23:26.political theatre and it was rude, too. What the Scottish Nationalists
:23:27. > :23:36.are suggesting is that they are not the engines of uncertainty. -- was
:23:37. > :23:40.shrewd. . With Brexit, the British government is. Once Scottish
:23:41. > :23:43.technology lead the world. The dream of the Nationalists is that
:23:44. > :23:51.independence will make Scotland great again.
:23:52. > :23:56.Never mind this new rubbish, this is the great classic of Scottish
:23:57. > :24:01.engineering. So what do the descendants of the people who built
:24:02. > :24:04.this great thing, people who live here in North Queensferry, think
:24:05. > :24:13.about the new Scottish referendum? I really do not want to be out of
:24:14. > :24:20.Europe. Also, I feel... That in Scotland, we have a lot more
:24:21. > :24:25.ecological thinking, I like the way the SNP has combined with the Green
:24:26. > :24:29.Party, in that they share a lot of use. The referendum gives you hope
:24:30. > :24:37.because it makes you feel safer? Yes. So you are safer out? I just
:24:38. > :24:42.think Scotland has grown very far away from England in terms of the
:24:43. > :24:46.viewpoints. And we are a country. Scotland is a country. Are you
:24:47. > :24:51.pleased not pleased about the referendum? Very not pleased. It was
:24:52. > :24:56.supposed to be once in a generation with the referendum and that's not
:24:57. > :25:03.the case. I voted against Brexit but I support the vote because the
:25:04. > :25:05.majority voted that way. Unionists like him can take succour from the
:25:06. > :25:09.Prime Minister's remarks today. There is a proposal that has been
:25:10. > :25:12.put forward by the SNP Government in Scotland that wants to start
:25:13. > :25:15.talking now about a second Now is not the time,
:25:16. > :25:19.because if we were to put energies We want to be coming together,
:25:20. > :25:24.working together, because that's the best opportunity we've got
:25:25. > :25:26.to get the right deal for Scotland, the right deal for the UK as we're
:25:27. > :25:40.negotiating with the European Union. Theresa May has just said now is not
:25:41. > :25:49.the time for a second Scottish referendum. What, right this moment?
:25:50. > :25:54.I would disagree personally. Disagree that she's blocked it,
:25:55. > :25:58.because it's taking away from the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament,
:25:59. > :26:07.personally. Are you in favour of leaving the UK? Yes, now that
:26:08. > :26:10.Britain is leaving the EU. I did vote for independence only for the
:26:11. > :26:14.sake of my children, because they were all for it, and I thought we
:26:15. > :26:19.might not be here in ten or 20 years, so to help them, I voted for
:26:20. > :26:27.independence last time. Will you do so again this time? Probably.
:26:28. > :26:33.Our wholly unscientific sampling found no great enthusiasm for
:26:34. > :26:38.another referendum. But also perhaps that Brexit is
:26:39. > :26:41.weakening the glue that keeps the kingdom united.
:26:42. > :26:44.If you've spent the last few months trying to work out why Donald Trump
:26:45. > :26:47.won the American election and how he gets away with as many
:26:48. > :26:49.inconsistencies and inaccuracies as he does, you're not alone.
:26:50. > :26:53.The journalist and writer Peter Pomerantsev has been giving
:26:54. > :26:56.some philosophical thought to the President, his
:26:57. > :27:02.We asked him to set out his theory for us, and in return we put
:27:03. > :27:14.These sorts of ideas have been prevalent among philosophers
:27:15. > :27:19.for the last few decades, often described as post-modernist.
:27:20. > :27:22.Originally meant to help unseat those in power to bring
:27:23. > :27:25.in previously repressed voices into the political debate,
:27:26. > :27:29.they are today being used by a new breed of leaders
:27:30. > :27:36.Meet the post-modern politician, who doesn't just bend the truth
:27:37. > :27:40.like his predecessors, but fundamentally subverts the idea
:27:41. > :27:46.that there is any knowable or objective truth at all.
:27:47. > :27:54.He happily contradicts himself, for example, boasting that he had
:27:55. > :27:59.once pretended to pose as his own PR man and then denying it.
:28:00. > :28:02.He asserts things that most sources claim are just false -
:28:03. > :28:05.that the crowds at his inauguration were bigger than Obama's
:28:06. > :28:13.Putin has the same disdain for facts.
:28:14. > :28:15.As his army blatantly annexed Crimea, he went on TV and,
:28:16. > :28:18.with a smirk, told the world there were no Russian
:28:19. > :28:23.Meanwhile, Trump maintained that we will never really
:28:24. > :28:26.know who shot down MH17, despite all the evidence pointing
:28:27. > :28:35.Putin and Trump's undermining of the possibility of establishing
:28:36. > :28:41.They thus remove the space where one can make a rational
:28:42. > :28:47.Criticism becomes lost in a fog of unknowing.
:28:48. > :28:50.Indeed, maybe Putin and Trump's post-modernist disdain for objective
:28:51. > :28:58.Facts are, after all, unpleasant things.
:28:59. > :29:01.They tell you that you are going to die,
:29:02. > :29:04.that you might not be good-looking, rich or clever.
:29:05. > :29:12.There is a rebellious joy in throwing off the weight of them.
:29:13. > :29:15.Trump's disdain for the truth is an anarchic liberation
:29:16. > :29:22.He comes from the fantasy land of the reality show -
:29:23. > :29:26.that magical space where ordinary people can burst through the usual
:29:27. > :29:31.glass ceilings of class and brains to attain fame and fortune.
:29:32. > :29:34.So is the post-modern politician unbeatable?
:29:35. > :29:38.Whether one is building a bridge or a new society,
:29:39. > :29:41.facts are necessary to prove you're achieving your vision.
:29:42. > :29:52.It's no coincidence that both Trump and Putin are backwards-looking,
:29:53. > :29:57.selling fake memories to make America or Russia great again.
:29:58. > :30:02.Nostalgia has an emotional appeal, but to bring back facts,
:30:03. > :30:09.What one paradoxically needs is the imagination to envisage
:30:10. > :30:18.Well, that's Peter Pomerantsev on Donald Trump's
:30:19. > :30:22.Well, among the President's preoccupations today has
:30:23. > :30:24.been his travel ban meeting new legal obstacles.
:30:25. > :30:27.It's an example of populism in action which divides opinion
:30:28. > :30:29.between those who say it's racist and those who say it's quite
:30:30. > :30:34.reasonable to listen to the concerns of ordinary people.
:30:35. > :30:39.In a way, populism has opened up a debate about the word racism.
:30:40. > :30:41.Can a majority white community assert its interests as a community
:30:42. > :30:48.Or is that just to use the word too widely?
:30:49. > :30:50.Let's talk about that now with Eric Kaufmann,
:30:51. > :30:52.Professor of Politics at Birkbeck University of London,
:30:53. > :30:54.and Zubaida Haque, researcher at the Runnymede Trust,
:30:55. > :31:05.a think tank that deals with racial equality.
:31:06. > :31:13.Given name. What has been the problem in terms of the relationship
:31:14. > :31:21.of those who use the word racism and the majority community? I think,
:31:22. > :31:24.there is an interesting piece by a Muslim American writer who makes the
:31:25. > :31:29.distinction between racism and racial self interest and with racial
:31:30. > :31:32.self interest, something like wanting slower immigration,
:31:33. > :31:37.something that a certain section of the majority community once, to
:31:38. > :31:43.label that as racism is problematic and counter-productive. We need to
:31:44. > :31:48.get more forensic about what is racism. That partly explains what
:31:49. > :31:52.some would call the backlash and the populism. People are being fed up of
:31:53. > :32:01.being told they cannot talk about these things. Do you buy any of
:32:02. > :32:06.that? I think part of the problem is that you simplify what racism is.
:32:07. > :32:13.Racism is very complex. It is a problem that we just use the word
:32:14. > :32:18.racism when in fact racism hides a whole plethora of attitudes.
:32:19. > :32:22.Prejudices, of overt racism of covert racism, of subtle
:32:23. > :32:27.discrimination and unless you unpack back, you do not really understand
:32:28. > :32:31.the nation -- nature of the game off racism and understand how people
:32:32. > :32:34.experienced disadvantages, discrimination and how they end up
:32:35. > :32:42.worse off when they should be better off. I want to work out on what you
:32:43. > :32:47.agree and disagree on. Would you both agree there should be a taboo
:32:48. > :32:55.around public expression of hatred for an ethnic or religious group?
:32:56. > :32:59.You would both say that should be a to-do social thing and the charge of
:33:00. > :33:06.racism, if you say you hate black or white people. I think you both agree
:33:07. > :33:12.it would be racist if you said I do not want as many black people in my
:33:13. > :33:16.neighbourhood? When you are focusing on a single group you do not like, I
:33:17. > :33:25.think that is racist. You would agree with that. I think it is more
:33:26. > :33:33.complex. This is where I want to challenge his work. Professor
:33:34. > :33:36.Kaufman himself has said, that it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate
:33:37. > :33:41.for people to say, I want to live with my own kind and even if that
:33:42. > :33:45.involves colour, that is perfectly legitimate. What I would say, what
:33:46. > :33:52.does that exactly mean when people say I want to live with my own kind?
:33:53. > :33:56.I was on the race riot panels in 2001 and I am a social scientist and
:33:57. > :34:03.what I would challenge you with, is what I found in 2001 during the
:34:04. > :34:08.riots is when I asked people, white communities and ethnic communities,
:34:09. > :34:12.what do you mean? Are you living in segregated communities? It was
:34:13. > :34:15.interesting, what you slowly unpicked was behind people's views
:34:16. > :34:22.about wanting to live along with the same kind, unconscious biases or
:34:23. > :34:27.prejudices, but also with ethnic minorities, there were fears. They
:34:28. > :34:33.were afraid to live in isolated communities and not amongst
:34:34. > :34:37.themselves. Is it correct that you say that people should be allowed to
:34:38. > :34:41.say I want to live with my own kind even if that has a racial view? I do
:34:42. > :34:45.not believe in living segregated lives but I think it is legitimate
:34:46. > :34:50.for a group to be attached to a community and be worried about rapid
:34:51. > :34:55.change. I think that is fine. It does not mean we should stop the
:34:56. > :34:59.change. I think it is not necessary -- necessarily racist to express
:35:00. > :35:02.that sense of cultural loss. Why is it not racist? Just because someone
:35:03. > :35:08.says it is not racist but you have to understand that underneath racism
:35:09. > :35:13.are unconscious biases, people do not realise they are racist, but
:35:14. > :35:16.that is how we have moved on. You're both the green on the most
:35:17. > :35:21.fundamental point is that the word racism covers a million different
:35:22. > :35:26.things. I want to say something about the study we did with Policy
:35:27. > :35:30.Exchange and what you see, what people consider racism is affected
:35:31. > :35:34.by their partisan ship. Most Clinton voters do not think it is racist for
:35:35. > :35:38.a Latin American to want more immigration from Latin America to
:35:39. > :35:42.boost their group's share the big think it is racist for white
:35:43. > :35:49.American to want less immigration to midtown their group share and vice
:35:50. > :35:52.versa for Trump voters. You have a certain sense of what proportion you
:35:53. > :35:58.are in the country and you want to stabilise that or hold it. There is
:35:59. > :36:02.an assumption there that when they say races, you and that person mean
:36:03. > :36:05.the same thing and we have seen it in the immigration debate and you
:36:06. > :36:10.know this is a politics professor that when you ask people about their
:36:11. > :36:14.views on immigration and they are talking about immigrants, you do not
:36:15. > :36:23.always been the same thing. Their interpretations of what kind of
:36:24. > :36:26.immigrant is acceptable and who they mean is very different from the
:36:27. > :36:28.questions will stop I think I know what you might say, but what
:36:29. > :36:37.proportion of the population do you think are meaningfully racist.
:36:38. > :36:47.Overt. Over we can measure. We can see in hate crime statistics. That
:36:48. > :36:52.is a difficult question. We can see it through hate crimes. Do you think
:36:53. > :36:55.the professor is racist. I think the professor has come up at the wrong
:36:56. > :37:02.answer to the right question. I think the right question you had
:37:03. > :37:06.every right to ask and we are all interested in, is what is British
:37:07. > :37:11.does, what does it take to be British, what is acceptable in
:37:12. > :37:16.Britishness and our ethnic minorities British? You can ask it
:37:17. > :37:21.but you also need to ask our white majority groups British? In many
:37:22. > :37:26.ways, what you have done is, but the wrong diagnosis in the wrong answer
:37:27. > :37:30.to the right question. I also think we need to open up space to be able
:37:31. > :37:40.to talk about these majority cultural interests. What are they?
:37:41. > :37:44.We know that in this country, 75% or so of people want less immigration
:37:45. > :37:50.and I do not think that makes them racist. There are a hard-core
:37:51. > :37:54.racists, this is about a sense of cultural loss. It means it is
:37:55. > :38:01.something we should be cognisant of. If we call that races, we are going
:38:02. > :38:05.to alienate a lot of people. I am so sorry, we have to leave it there. We
:38:06. > :38:06.will get you back on and talk another time.
:38:07. > :38:07.Some say remainer, some say remoaner.
:38:08. > :38:10.Whatever you call the tribe, it's going to be a tough couple
:38:11. > :38:12.of years for those who are not comfortable with Brexit.
:38:13. > :38:15.So here's a challenge for that group - without changing their mind,
:38:16. > :38:18.can they at least find something positive to say about it?
:38:19. > :38:23.We're asking prominent remainers to find a reason to be
:38:24. > :38:26.We're starting with Matthew Parris, the former Tory MP
:38:27. > :38:29.A couple of weeks after the referendum, he wrote that
:38:30. > :38:32."for the first time in his life he felt ashamed to be British".
:38:33. > :38:49.Can he now see the glass as half-full?
:38:50. > :38:55.On cost-benefit, I think Remain wins.
:38:56. > :38:58.But it's more than that - it's also an emotional thing.
:38:59. > :39:00.We've never liked the European Union and I've never really
:39:01. > :39:05.liked the European Union, and I don't think we ever will.
:39:06. > :39:08.It's like one of those little stones in the shoe.
:39:09. > :39:11.It's not a very big stone, it doesn't stop you walking but it
:39:12. > :39:20.Well, leaving will be getting rid of the stone in the shoe.
:39:21. > :39:23.Now, the cost-benefit analysis may be in favour of staying but the "get
:39:24. > :39:26.rid of the stone in the shoe" analysis is perhaps a bit more
:39:27. > :39:30.It will help us, perhaps, take a firmer grip on our
:39:31. > :39:35.sense of who we are, our sense of identity.
:39:36. > :39:38.It may make us sleep a little more comfortably in our beds.
:39:39. > :39:51.So here, with the glass not quite half-full, is to Brexit.
:39:52. > :39:55.Matthew Parris looking on the bright side of Brexit, which does not come
:39:56. > :40:00.naturally to him.