16/03/2017 Newsnight


16/03/2017

In-depth investigation and analysis with Evan Davis. Topics include the Tory expenses row, the possibility of another Scottish referendum, and Trump and postmodernism.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

For a party of law and order - indeed a party that makes

:00:00.:00:08.

the law and order - the Conservatives have come up

:00:09.:00:10.

short, fined not just for breeching election law,

:00:11.:00:12.

but failing to co-operate with the authorities' investigation.

:00:13.:00:17.

They have imposed a fine on the Conservative Party

:00:18.:00:19.

and the Conservative Party will be meeting that fine, will

:00:20.:00:21.

A report into the Tory battlebus and the way the 2015 election

:00:22.:00:26.

campaign was accounted for makes damning reading.

:00:27.:00:27.

Is this the next expenses scandal, or just the way political business

:00:28.:00:31.

The main political parties didn't want to put anyone

:00:32.:00:37.

But we do have guests to discuss how serious the Tory breech

:00:38.:00:43.

And Scotland said no in its referendum two and half years

:00:44.:00:49.

ago, Theresa May has said no to another vote, at least for now.

:00:50.:00:52.

What the Scottish nationalists are suggesting is that they're not

:00:53.:00:59.

the engines of uncertainty, of chaos -

:01:00.:01:02.

with Brexit, the British government is.

:01:03.:01:07.

Also tonight, is the accusation of racism bandied

:01:08.:01:09.

We'll ask if majority white communities are racist

:01:10.:01:14.

when they want the best for people like them.

:01:15.:01:26.

So the Electoral Commission published a report on allegations

:01:27.:01:29.

against the Conservatives today and the way they've accounted

:01:30.:01:32.

for their spending in various recent elections or by-elections.

:01:33.:01:37.

First thing to remember is that national parties are obliged by law

:01:38.:01:40.

to keep records and receipts of election spending,

:01:41.:01:42.

because there are national caps on how much they can spend.

:01:43.:01:46.

There are also caps on what each local candidate can spend.

:01:47.:01:48.

This was the national party affair, but several police forces have been

:01:49.:01:56.

looking at various Conservative MPs as well.

:01:57.:01:58.

Now, today's news from the Electoral Commission

:01:59.:02:00.

was extraordinarily damning, finding the Conservatives

:02:01.:02:01.

guilty on multiple counts, much of them exposed,

:02:02.:02:03.

Failing to declare all their national spending.

:02:04.:02:11.

Failing to keep proper accounts and records.

:02:12.:02:16.

And, crucially, counting some local spending as national,

:02:17.:02:19.

which may then obviously distort local battles.

:02:20.:02:27.

The Commission said the then Tory Treasurer may have broken

:02:28.:02:30.

criminal law in signing the election records off, and it condemns

:02:31.:02:32.

the party for not even co-operating with its investigation.

:02:33.:02:35.

Well, our political editor Nick Watt is with me.

:02:36.:02:45.

damning report. Take us through some more of the detail. You cannot cross

:02:46.:02:53.

this over. It is a bad day for the Conservative Party. That record

:02:54.:02:58.

fine. The Conservative Party said we complied with the Electoral

:02:59.:03:01.

Commission and they said excuse me, we had to go to the High Court to

:03:02.:03:06.

get some of these documents out of you and the registered treasurer at

:03:07.:03:10.

the time has been referred to the police because he may not have

:03:11.:03:14.

filled in those forms properly. The Conservatives point out that a

:03:15.:03:27.

similar thing recently happened to the Liberal Democrats. There are two

:03:28.:03:29.

particularly important findings from this report off the back of that

:03:30.:03:31.

investigation and the first of those is in Thanet South where the

:03:32.:03:34.

Conservatives defeated Nigel Faia Raige. The report says that the

:03:35.:03:37.

Conservatives should have declared some of the hotel costs for Tory

:03:38.:03:44.

officials, they should have declared that as local spending. The

:03:45.:03:47.

commission said it is located declared some of it as national

:03:48.:03:52.

because the Tories have their anti-UKIP national centre there. The

:03:53.:03:56.

reason why that matters is Nick Timothy, the joint Chief of staff,

:03:57.:03:59.

he was one of the officials down there and the second thing that

:04:00.:04:04.

matters is the same principle about you should have declared some

:04:05.:04:08.

national spending as local applies to the Tory battle buses and that

:04:09.:04:12.

matters because there are Tory MPs under investigation by the police on

:04:13.:04:19.

that matter. We heard from one of those MPs last night. He is now no

:04:20.:04:23.

longer under investigation. What are those Tory MPs with that cloud

:04:24.:04:28.

hanging over them saying? The atmosphere has been dreadful. I

:04:29.:04:31.

understand the atmosphere has calmed down and the reason for that is

:04:32.:04:37.

there is a little noticed element in the Conservative Party statement

:04:38.:04:41.

today and crucially it said that MPs in constituencies visited by the

:04:42.:04:45.

battle buses would have no reason to consider whether it should be

:04:46.:04:48.

included in their local return and then look at the last words, they

:04:49.:04:55.

were directed that the bus would be visiting as part of the national

:04:56.:05:00.

spending. The significant word there is directed at that has been

:05:01.:05:03.

welcomed by MPs because that is the party acknowledging that it obliged

:05:04.:05:09.

them to accept the buses. That statement comes after senior party

:05:10.:05:14.

figures right up to the Cabinet were given a stark warning this week by

:05:15.:05:18.

MPs under investigation saying that one of their central defences, if

:05:19.:05:23.

this got to court, would be to say that feels campaigners, those are

:05:24.:05:28.

the paid party officials, were told by CC HQ to accept a visit by the

:05:29.:05:33.

bus and that would mean that all those connected, the campaigners,

:05:34.:05:37.

the people who gave the orders, they would be brought into court and they

:05:38.:05:46.

would be cross-examined by those MPs defence barristers. What are the

:05:47.:05:48.

party saying about all of this? I spoke to one member of the Prime

:05:49.:05:51.

Minister's circle who was bullish and said there was a cat in hell 's

:05:52.:05:55.

chance of successful prosecutions and the reason for that is because

:05:56.:06:00.

you would have to prove intent to deceive and they think that is a

:06:01.:06:05.

hurdle that will not be met. Ministers are really annoyed with

:06:06.:06:08.

the Electoral Commission and they say that there is no consistency.

:06:09.:06:11.

Why are you not investigating the Labour Party which also had battle

:06:12.:06:16.

buses? I understand that these concerns have been passed to the new

:06:17.:06:19.

leadership of the Electoral Commission but I am told that if

:06:20.:06:23.

this whole saga ends in no prosecutions, the Conservative Party

:06:24.:06:27.

will go public and make a big song and dance about how the Electoral

:06:28.:06:37.

Commission is not living up to its statutory obligations to act fairly.

:06:38.:06:40.

Thank you. This is one of those gambles were everyone is at it

:06:41.:06:41.

and... Well, is this one of those scandals

:06:42.:06:41.

where everyone's at it and it carries on until suddenly some light

:06:42.:06:44.

is shone upon it, at which point there is outrage,

:06:45.:06:47.

followed by a reset The MPs' expenses scandal

:06:48.:06:49.

comes to mind as similar, or the broadcasters' use

:06:50.:06:52.

of premium-rate phone Chris Cook has been looking

:06:53.:06:54.

at the thorny issue This week than Westminster election

:06:55.:07:03.

spending bills have been in the news. Today we learned that the

:07:04.:07:08.

Conservative Party has been fined a record ?70,000 and its former

:07:09.:07:11.

treasurer reported to the police for breaching the rules on campaign

:07:12.:07:17.

spending. This matters because campaigning matters. There is a

:07:18.:07:21.

pretty good science quantifying what it takes to turn someone out. We

:07:22.:07:28.

know that if you have a volunteer, a knocking on doors that forever 14

:07:29.:07:31.

doors you not, if they have the right type of interaction you can

:07:32.:07:35.

generate a Bolt. In certain types of direct mail, for about $50 per vote,

:07:36.:07:40.

you can turn a nonvoter into a voter. These are things that have a

:07:41.:07:47.

measurable impact. The spending rules for election are important and

:07:48.:07:50.

they occupy a lot of time for candidates on the ground and the

:07:51.:07:54.

type of people who work in places like Conservative campaign

:07:55.:07:58.

headquarters. They keep the money from taking too big a role in our

:07:59.:08:03.

politics and it makes it harder for an individual rich person to buy

:08:04.:08:07.

themselves a seat in our Parliament. There is an important extent to

:08:08.:08:11.

which the spending rules really are very otherworldly. A key principle

:08:12.:08:16.

of these rules as they split spending into local and national,

:08:17.:08:20.

local has tight spending limits, national does not. That is why the

:08:21.:08:24.

Electoral Commission found itself investigating whether people bust

:08:25.:08:28.

into marginal seats were promoting the local candidate or the Tory

:08:29.:08:32.

party at large. If the leaflets have the local candidate's name on it it

:08:33.:08:36.

counts as local campaign material. If they do not and have David

:08:37.:08:40.

Cameron on, they would not. Political parties pay a lot of

:08:41.:08:44.

attention to these rules, it affects the way they behaved but it

:08:45.:08:49.

constrains the amount of money they spend mentioning local candidates

:08:50.:08:53.

and consistent -- constituencies and the concentrate their money and

:08:54.:08:56.

firepower on a much more presidential style of campaigning,

:08:57.:08:59.

where they mention the national party, the leader of the party and

:09:00.:09:03.

you can actually basically parachuting millions of pounds worth

:09:04.:09:07.

of leaflets in theory, so long as they stay away from the local name

:09:08.:09:12.

of the area. An important principle to political parties is everything

:09:13.:09:16.

happens summer. National parties will often put on national events

:09:17.:09:21.

for the national media that count against national spending. These

:09:22.:09:25.

events are often much larger than anything a local party could ever

:09:26.:09:30.

afford. These events, though, have to happen summer. Take the so-called

:09:31.:09:38.

Ed Stone launch, it did not happen in either a rock-solid or a no-hoper

:09:39.:09:44.

seat, these things are big local events in important marginals. And

:09:45.:09:50.

actually, sometimes campaigners can drive national campaigns to avoid

:09:51.:09:54.

breaking local spending limits. It is quite easy to dress up

:09:55.:09:57.

effectively local campaigning so that it looks like a national

:09:58.:10:01.

campaign. There are examples, like in Sheffield Hallam, the seat of

:10:02.:10:05.

Nick Clegg, some of the unions invested a lot of money in these

:10:06.:10:10.

enormous billboards criticising the Liberal Democrats. They were clearly

:10:11.:10:13.

targeted at trying to cut down his vote in the local area but because

:10:14.:10:17.

his name was not mentioned and it did not say Sheffield, a counted as

:10:18.:10:20.

a national campaign. Still, our parties only spent ?38

:10:21.:10:37.

million at the last General Election. Hillary Clinton spend ?100

:10:38.:10:39.

million in just the last three weeks of her campaign. We managed to keep

:10:40.:10:42.

our politics cheap, which is almost certainly a good thing. Generally we

:10:43.:10:45.

find that once you get up into a presidential election, tens and

:10:46.:10:47.

hundreds of millions of dollars, that marginal increases of the next

:10:48.:10:51.

ten or $100 million are not doing a lot, mostly because people are

:10:52.:10:55.

bombarded with information, a lot of it conflicting and contrary and we

:10:56.:11:00.

know that it is very difficult to change the minds of people. The

:11:01.:11:06.

Tories did break the spending rules so why aren't other parties pressing

:11:07.:11:11.

them too hard? In short, it is because of this fuzziness in the

:11:12.:11:15.

national and local rules and as the MPs expenses scandal shows,

:11:16.:11:20.

sometimes everybody does it is not an excuse that the public will

:11:21.:11:21.

accept. Let's talk about what this story

:11:22.:11:22.

tells us about the purity None of the parties wanted to

:11:23.:11:32.

discuss this. Let's talk about what this story

:11:33.:11:33.

tells us about the purity or otherwise of our political

:11:34.:11:36.

and electoral system with Phil Collins, commentator

:11:37.:11:38.

for The Times and former speechwriter for Tony Blair,

:11:39.:11:40.

and writer and comedian Ava Vidal. I consider you the political

:11:41.:11:55.

outsider in this conversation. He is a complete insider. How does it

:11:56.:12:00.

feel, what do you feel when you see what the Tories were doing? It is a

:12:01.:12:04.

reasonably technical distinction, but do you think it is outrageous?

:12:05.:12:10.

Yes, I do feel outraged. I think a lot of ordinary people are going to.

:12:11.:12:16.

You have the Tory party, they are constantly talking about having to

:12:17.:12:19.

live to certain standards, the standards that they want to impose

:12:20.:12:22.

on ordinary people, one of the things they talk a lot about is

:12:23.:12:26.

benefit fraud which is actually minuscule, but they make a big deal

:12:27.:12:32.

about it. They came up with the strivers and shirkers and you find

:12:33.:12:35.

out that they are corrupt themselves. People are not going to

:12:36.:12:39.

take that kindly. It is the principle of them breaking a law or

:12:40.:12:44.

is it the particular thing? Are you thinking, these people should not

:12:45.:12:46.

have won the last election because they cheated?

:12:47.:12:59.

That is what some people think. Politician should be beyond

:13:00.:13:01.

reproach. They are leaders in society, they are supposed to show

:13:02.:13:04.

the way. We find out they are doing things like this. Of course people

:13:05.:13:06.

will be angry and disappointed. Just on the narrow point and we have seen

:13:07.:13:09.

it in the peace there, how serious or how egregious was it what the

:13:10.:13:15.

Tories did? It was bad. They broke the rules and their attitude in

:13:16.:13:18.

forcing the Electoral Commission to go to court to get their information

:13:19.:13:23.

was foolish and stupid. It is bad and they have been fined and I think

:13:24.:13:26.

it is a rather paltry fine and I think it should be more. That is an

:13:27.:13:31.

issue. The fine could have been bigger. I think the fine should be

:13:32.:13:36.

bigger and the fact that we take this case very seriously even though

:13:37.:13:40.

I regard it as not terribly egregious but the fact we take it

:13:41.:13:43.

seriously is one of the reasons why it is quite rare in British politics

:13:44.:13:48.

that we have cases like this. Do you think the public care? Yes, they do.

:13:49.:13:54.

We know that they do. That is why this is such a bad case. Although, a

:13:55.:14:00.

bit like benefit fraud, this is also small, but it does not seem like it

:14:01.:14:03.

when you have incidents like this. It gives people a reason to think

:14:04.:14:07.

they are all in it for themselves and it is quite corrupt. That is a

:14:08.:14:15.

thing. Is it a defence to say, one suspects that the fuzzy line between

:14:16.:14:20.

local and national spending has been used or abused by other parties in

:14:21.:14:24.

other elections? Does that make a difference? It makes absolutely no

:14:25.:14:30.

difference. They keep speaking about it being a fuzzy line, I do not

:14:31.:14:35.

think it is fuzzy. It is clear. It shows the way they go around it and

:14:36.:14:39.

I do not think the fine is good enough either, especially for the

:14:40.:14:43.

Tory party. I do not think it is a deterrent. They say SNMP is found

:14:44.:14:47.

guilty of doing it, they will step down. That is not enough. We see MPs

:14:48.:14:54.

walk out or lose their job and walk into the board of a business and

:14:55.:14:57.

earn lots more money. How does that make sense?

:14:58.:15:05.

Let's step back, because although this deserves the condemnation

:15:06.:15:10.

you've given it, in the big scale of things our system is relatively

:15:11.:15:15.

clean, and eyes that -- I defend that proposition. Yes, relative to

:15:16.:15:20.

other countries and relative to our own history. The transparency do an

:15:21.:15:24.

audit of corruption every year and we come tenth out of 176 measured

:15:25.:15:30.

countries, so we are a relatively clean system. I think that's in part

:15:31.:15:34.

because we are so vigorous in trying to police things like this, so we

:15:35.:15:38.

are not deeply corrupt in our politics at all. We are relatively

:15:39.:15:44.

clean. So is your line that this is not a particularly large offence? We

:15:45.:15:47.

are right to make a big fuss about it but in the big picture of things,

:15:48.:15:56.

this isn't, you know, people being given palaces and things? I think

:15:57.:16:01.

most of the money parties spend on elections is wasted anyway! They are

:16:02.:16:07.

wasting their money. We've seen so many lavishly funded campaigns that

:16:08.:16:11.

lead to failure. Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush. Swimming in money for no

:16:12.:16:16.

good at all! And I think that's true of a lot of spending in politics. So

:16:17.:16:20.

we could reduce the spending and make no difference at all. Do you

:16:21.:16:25.

think our political system has a sort of corruption at the heart of

:16:26.:16:28.

it? People say it about the US political system, you know, you need

:16:29.:16:36.

to be rich to be president of the United States. Do you think that's

:16:37.:16:39.

the case here? I read the piece today and I thought it was a bit

:16:40.:16:44.

naive, sorry to be rude. Today we have a relatively clean system here

:16:45.:16:48.

is absolutely not true, and we are only just seeing the effects of the

:16:49.:16:53.

bribery that came in 2010. It takes a while for the law to catch up. And

:16:54.:17:00.

then you have the deferred prosecution agreement, so you have

:17:01.:17:07.

that that is basically the government that doesn't look like a

:17:08.:17:11.

government that wants to tackle corruption properly. It's basically

:17:12.:17:16.

giving people an out cause. Sorry. Do you think the party with the most

:17:17.:17:21.

money winds? Is it about money? The Conservatives have the most money

:17:22.:17:25.

and they won. Is it the money or is it something else? The money as a

:17:26.:17:30.

consequence of them being likely to win. It doesn't cause the victory,

:17:31.:17:37.

it is because people think they will win, so it flows. Do you agree with

:17:38.:17:44.

that? No, I don't. I don't want to get into the Jeremy Corbyn side of

:17:45.:17:48.

it, but if you say we have one of the cleanest systems in the world, I

:17:49.:17:54.

don't think so. This is not me saying so, these are

:17:55.:17:56.

well-established surveys that go through all the countries and they

:17:57.:18:00.

conclude we are tenth out of 176 out of a range of measures. That seems

:18:01.:18:05.

to accord with what I know about British processes. Gas, I've read

:18:06.:18:11.

them, the latest one I read was 2013, but if you look at the case of

:18:12.:18:16.

Rolls-Royce, we're at the tip of the iceberg of the level... There are

:18:17.:18:19.

lots of other aspects of our lives which may or may not be... Systemic,

:18:20.:18:26.

which is actually going on. Thank you to you both.

:18:27.:18:29.

Theresa May has told Nicola Sturgeon there won't be an independence

:18:30.:18:33.

That leaves us in a new constitutional place -

:18:34.:18:36.

a real argument between Westminster and Holyrood about the legitimacy

:18:37.:18:39.

There's no doubt about the law - it's the UK Parliament that governs

:18:40.:18:44.

But Nicola Sturgeon called it a democratic outrage today

:18:45.:18:47.

that the elected Scottish Government is being blocked.

:18:48.:18:49.

It felt like quite a significant day. Is that right? Yes, this is a

:18:50.:19:08.

really big move by Theresa May, and, as you say, her mantra today was,

:19:09.:19:14.

now is not the time, and she was saying how on earth can you expect

:19:15.:19:18.

the voters of Scotland to decide to leave the UK when they don't know

:19:19.:19:21.

what the Brexit deal for the whole of the UK will be until 2019?

:19:22.:19:26.

Ministers believe they are on very strong ground, because Alex Salmond,

:19:27.:19:30.

the former First Minister, signed the Edinburgh Agreement that created

:19:31.:19:34.

the grounds for the last referendum in 2014, and in that agreement, he

:19:35.:19:41.

agreed to abide by what the result was, whatever it was. Alex Salmond

:19:42.:19:47.

said his resignation believe the Scottish Government of its duties

:19:48.:19:52.

under the Edinburgh Agreement, however, and Nicola Sturgeon is not

:19:53.:19:55.

bound by it. But the Prime Minister's take today did not say

:19:56.:19:58.

whether she would reject a referendum right up to 2020, which

:19:59.:20:03.

means maybe there could be one after Brexit. But I spoke to one Cabinet

:20:04.:20:07.

minister who floated the idea of actually rejecting the referendum

:20:08.:20:11.

for the whole of the UK Parliament and essentially challenging the SNP

:20:12.:20:16.

and say, go ahead, get a mandate in the next Holyrood election in 2021

:20:17.:20:19.

for a referendum, and hope that because they lost their majority

:20:20.:20:24.

before, they would lose even more seats and not be in a majority for

:20:25.:20:29.

independence. The SNP were very cross as they hold their conference

:20:30.:20:33.

now. They are officially crossed but I spoke to one member in private who

:20:34.:20:39.

said they are delighted. They have said Theresa May has walked into a

:20:40.:20:44.

trap laid by them and it might actually leave both sides of the

:20:45.:20:50.

issue feel they are being denied a vote by Westminster. So she could be

:20:51.:20:53.

feeding a sea -- a sense of grievance. There is a big tent --

:20:54.:20:59.

contingent at Westminster who can disrupt business there, let's not

:21:00.:21:08.

forget. Parnell was able to drum up business in the late 19th century

:21:09.:21:14.

and here's a of Alex Salmond, and UK ministers no one crucial bit of

:21:15.:21:18.

Brexit legislation, the great repeal bill, which takes all that EU law

:21:19.:21:24.

into UK law, that will need the permission, ministers believe, a

:21:25.:21:29.

legislative consent motion in Holyrood, and they could cause

:21:30.:21:31.

trouble there. Thank you. Well, John Sweeney has been

:21:32.:21:33.

in Edinburgh and Dundee over the last couple of days,

:21:34.:21:36.

to see how the referendum Are you for or against Scotland

:21:37.:21:57.

staying in the UK? What do you think? I'm asking the question. From

:21:58.:22:03.

BBC News. I think Scotland should be a country that is part of the world,

:22:04.:22:08.

and because Westminster has put Scotland in such a terrible

:22:09.:22:12.

position, Scotland is going to want to be independent. Two and a half

:22:13.:22:18.

years ago for -- a referendum voted to stick with the UK. We don't want

:22:19.:22:25.

to go through that process again. Do you detect any change in the

:22:26.:22:30.

position of your friends? Both ways. If you want independence at all cost

:22:31.:22:33.

then another referendum is a good thing, but there are those who were

:22:34.:22:39.

pro-independence who are thinking, this is too much, too soon. On

:22:40.:22:44.

Monday, Scotland's First Minister opened fire. I can confirm today I

:22:45.:22:50.

will seek the authority of the Scottish Parliament to agree with

:22:51.:22:55.

the UK Government the details of a Section 30 order. It is a procedure

:22:56.:22:59.

that will enable the Scottish Government to legislate for an

:23:00.:23:03.

independence referendum. UK Government was clear in 2014 that an

:23:04.:23:07.

independence referendum showed in their words be made in Scotland by

:23:08.:23:13.

the people of Scotland -- should. That is a principle that should be

:23:14.:23:17.

respected today. Nicola Sturgeon's ambush was a great piece of

:23:18.:23:21.

political theatre and it was rude, too. What the Scottish Nationalists

:23:22.:23:26.

are suggesting is that they are not the engines of uncertainty. -- was

:23:27.:23:36.

shrewd. . With Brexit, the British government is. Once Scottish

:23:37.:23:40.

technology lead the world. The dream of the Nationalists is that

:23:41.:23:43.

independence will make Scotland great again.

:23:44.:23:51.

Never mind this new rubbish, this is the great classic of Scottish

:23:52.:23:56.

engineering. So what do the descendants of the people who built

:23:57.:24:01.

this great thing, people who live here in North Queensferry, think

:24:02.:24:04.

about the new Scottish referendum? I really do not want to be out of

:24:05.:24:13.

Europe. Also, I feel... That in Scotland, we have a lot more

:24:14.:24:20.

ecological thinking, I like the way the SNP has combined with the Green

:24:21.:24:25.

Party, in that they share a lot of use. The referendum gives you hope

:24:26.:24:29.

because it makes you feel safer? Yes. So you are safer out? I just

:24:30.:24:37.

think Scotland has grown very far away from England in terms of the

:24:38.:24:42.

viewpoints. And we are a country. Scotland is a country. Are you

:24:43.:24:46.

pleased not pleased about the referendum? Very not pleased. It was

:24:47.:24:51.

supposed to be once in a generation with the referendum and that's not

:24:52.:24:56.

the case. I voted against Brexit but I support the vote because the

:24:57.:25:03.

majority voted that way. Unionists like him can take succour from the

:25:04.:25:05.

Prime Minister's remarks today. There is a proposal that has been

:25:06.:25:09.

put forward by the SNP Government in Scotland that wants to start

:25:10.:25:12.

talking now about a second Now is not the time,

:25:13.:25:15.

because if we were to put energies We want to be coming together,

:25:16.:25:19.

working together, because that's the best opportunity we've got

:25:20.:25:24.

to get the right deal for Scotland, the right deal for the UK as we're

:25:25.:25:26.

negotiating with the European Union. Theresa May has just said now is not

:25:27.:25:40.

the time for a second Scottish referendum. What, right this moment?

:25:41.:25:49.

I would disagree personally. Disagree that she's blocked it,

:25:50.:25:54.

because it's taking away from the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament,

:25:55.:25:58.

personally. Are you in favour of leaving the UK? Yes, now that

:25:59.:26:07.

Britain is leaving the EU. I did vote for independence only for the

:26:08.:26:10.

sake of my children, because they were all for it, and I thought we

:26:11.:26:14.

might not be here in ten or 20 years, so to help them, I voted for

:26:15.:26:19.

independence last time. Will you do so again this time? Probably.

:26:20.:26:27.

Our wholly unscientific sampling found no great enthusiasm for

:26:28.:26:33.

another referendum. But also perhaps that Brexit is

:26:34.:26:38.

weakening the glue that keeps the kingdom united.

:26:39.:26:41.

If you've spent the last few months trying to work out why Donald Trump

:26:42.:26:44.

won the American election and how he gets away with as many

:26:45.:26:47.

inconsistencies and inaccuracies as he does, you're not alone.

:26:48.:26:49.

The journalist and writer Peter Pomerantsev has been giving

:26:50.:26:53.

some philosophical thought to the President, his

:26:54.:26:56.

We asked him to set out his theory for us, and in return we put

:26:57.:27:02.

These sorts of ideas have been prevalent among philosophers

:27:03.:27:14.

for the last few decades, often described as post-modernist.

:27:15.:27:19.

Originally meant to help unseat those in power to bring

:27:20.:27:22.

in previously repressed voices into the political debate,

:27:23.:27:25.

they are today being used by a new breed of leaders

:27:26.:27:29.

Meet the post-modern politician, who doesn't just bend the truth

:27:30.:27:36.

like his predecessors, but fundamentally subverts the idea

:27:37.:27:40.

that there is any knowable or objective truth at all.

:27:41.:27:46.

He happily contradicts himself, for example, boasting that he had

:27:47.:27:54.

once pretended to pose as his own PR man and then denying it.

:27:55.:27:59.

He asserts things that most sources claim are just false -

:28:00.:28:02.

that the crowds at his inauguration were bigger than Obama's

:28:03.:28:05.

Putin has the same disdain for facts.

:28:06.:28:13.

As his army blatantly annexed Crimea, he went on TV and,

:28:14.:28:15.

with a smirk, told the world there were no Russian

:28:16.:28:18.

Meanwhile, Trump maintained that we will never really

:28:19.:28:23.

know who shot down MH17, despite all the evidence pointing

:28:24.:28:26.

Putin and Trump's undermining of the possibility of establishing

:28:27.:28:35.

They thus remove the space where one can make a rational

:28:36.:28:41.

Criticism becomes lost in a fog of unknowing.

:28:42.:28:47.

Indeed, maybe Putin and Trump's post-modernist disdain for objective

:28:48.:28:50.

Facts are, after all, unpleasant things.

:28:51.:28:58.

They tell you that you are going to die,

:28:59.:29:01.

that you might not be good-looking, rich or clever.

:29:02.:29:04.

There is a rebellious joy in throwing off the weight of them.

:29:05.:29:12.

Trump's disdain for the truth is an anarchic liberation

:29:13.:29:15.

He comes from the fantasy land of the reality show -

:29:16.:29:22.

that magical space where ordinary people can burst through the usual

:29:23.:29:26.

glass ceilings of class and brains to attain fame and fortune.

:29:27.:29:31.

So is the post-modern politician unbeatable?

:29:32.:29:34.

Whether one is building a bridge or a new society,

:29:35.:29:38.

facts are necessary to prove you're achieving your vision.

:29:39.:29:41.

It's no coincidence that both Trump and Putin are backwards-looking,

:29:42.:29:52.

selling fake memories to make America or Russia great again.

:29:53.:29:57.

Nostalgia has an emotional appeal, but to bring back facts,

:29:58.:30:02.

What one paradoxically needs is the imagination to envisage

:30:03.:30:09.

Well, that's Peter Pomerantsev on Donald Trump's

:30:10.:30:18.

Well, among the President's preoccupations today has

:30:19.:30:22.

been his travel ban meeting new legal obstacles.

:30:23.:30:24.

It's an example of populism in action which divides opinion

:30:25.:30:27.

between those who say it's racist and those who say it's quite

:30:28.:30:29.

reasonable to listen to the concerns of ordinary people.

:30:30.:30:34.

In a way, populism has opened up a debate about the word racism.

:30:35.:30:39.

Can a majority white community assert its interests as a community

:30:40.:30:41.

Or is that just to use the word too widely?

:30:42.:30:48.

Let's talk about that now with Eric Kaufmann,

:30:49.:30:50.

Professor of Politics at Birkbeck University of London,

:30:51.:30:52.

and Zubaida Haque, researcher at the Runnymede Trust,

:30:53.:30:54.

a think tank that deals with racial equality.

:30:55.:31:05.

Given name. What has been the problem in terms of the relationship

:31:06.:31:13.

of those who use the word racism and the majority community? I think,

:31:14.:31:21.

there is an interesting piece by a Muslim American writer who makes the

:31:22.:31:24.

distinction between racism and racial self interest and with racial

:31:25.:31:29.

self interest, something like wanting slower immigration,

:31:30.:31:32.

something that a certain section of the majority community once, to

:31:33.:31:37.

label that as racism is problematic and counter-productive. We need to

:31:38.:31:43.

get more forensic about what is racism. That partly explains what

:31:44.:31:48.

some would call the backlash and the populism. People are being fed up of

:31:49.:31:52.

being told they cannot talk about these things. Do you buy any of

:31:53.:32:01.

that? I think part of the problem is that you simplify what racism is.

:32:02.:32:06.

Racism is very complex. It is a problem that we just use the word

:32:07.:32:13.

racism when in fact racism hides a whole plethora of attitudes.

:32:14.:32:18.

Prejudices, of overt racism of covert racism, of subtle

:32:19.:32:22.

discrimination and unless you unpack back, you do not really understand

:32:23.:32:27.

the nation -- nature of the game off racism and understand how people

:32:28.:32:31.

experienced disadvantages, discrimination and how they end up

:32:32.:32:34.

worse off when they should be better off. I want to work out on what you

:32:35.:32:42.

agree and disagree on. Would you both agree there should be a taboo

:32:43.:32:47.

around public expression of hatred for an ethnic or religious group?

:32:48.:32:55.

You would both say that should be a to-do social thing and the charge of

:32:56.:32:59.

racism, if you say you hate black or white people. I think you both agree

:33:00.:33:06.

it would be racist if you said I do not want as many black people in my

:33:07.:33:12.

neighbourhood? When you are focusing on a single group you do not like, I

:33:13.:33:16.

think that is racist. You would agree with that. I think it is more

:33:17.:33:25.

complex. This is where I want to challenge his work. Professor

:33:26.:33:33.

Kaufman himself has said, that it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate

:33:34.:33:36.

for people to say, I want to live with my own kind and even if that

:33:37.:33:41.

involves colour, that is perfectly legitimate. What I would say, what

:33:42.:33:45.

does that exactly mean when people say I want to live with my own kind?

:33:46.:33:52.

I was on the race riot panels in 2001 and I am a social scientist and

:33:53.:33:56.

what I would challenge you with, is what I found in 2001 during the

:33:57.:34:03.

riots is when I asked people, white communities and ethnic communities,

:34:04.:34:08.

what do you mean? Are you living in segregated communities? It was

:34:09.:34:12.

interesting, what you slowly unpicked was behind people's views

:34:13.:34:15.

about wanting to live along with the same kind, unconscious biases or

:34:16.:34:22.

prejudices, but also with ethnic minorities, there were fears. They

:34:23.:34:27.

were afraid to live in isolated communities and not amongst

:34:28.:34:33.

themselves. Is it correct that you say that people should be allowed to

:34:34.:34:37.

say I want to live with my own kind even if that has a racial view? I do

:34:38.:34:41.

not believe in living segregated lives but I think it is legitimate

:34:42.:34:45.

for a group to be attached to a community and be worried about rapid

:34:46.:34:50.

change. I think that is fine. It does not mean we should stop the

:34:51.:34:55.

change. I think it is not necessary -- necessarily racist to express

:34:56.:34:59.

that sense of cultural loss. Why is it not racist? Just because someone

:35:00.:35:02.

says it is not racist but you have to understand that underneath racism

:35:03.:35:08.

are unconscious biases, people do not realise they are racist, but

:35:09.:35:13.

that is how we have moved on. You're both the green on the most

:35:14.:35:16.

fundamental point is that the word racism covers a million different

:35:17.:35:21.

things. I want to say something about the study we did with Policy

:35:22.:35:26.

Exchange and what you see, what people consider racism is affected

:35:27.:35:30.

by their partisan ship. Most Clinton voters do not think it is racist for

:35:31.:35:34.

a Latin American to want more immigration from Latin America to

:35:35.:35:38.

boost their group's share the big think it is racist for white

:35:39.:35:42.

American to want less immigration to midtown their group share and vice

:35:43.:35:49.

versa for Trump voters. You have a certain sense of what proportion you

:35:50.:35:52.

are in the country and you want to stabilise that or hold it. There is

:35:53.:35:58.

an assumption there that when they say races, you and that person mean

:35:59.:36:02.

the same thing and we have seen it in the immigration debate and you

:36:03.:36:05.

know this is a politics professor that when you ask people about their

:36:06.:36:10.

views on immigration and they are talking about immigrants, you do not

:36:11.:36:14.

always been the same thing. Their interpretations of what kind of

:36:15.:36:23.

immigrant is acceptable and who they mean is very different from the

:36:24.:36:26.

questions will stop I think I know what you might say, but what

:36:27.:36:28.

proportion of the population do you think are meaningfully racist.

:36:29.:36:37.

Overt. Over we can measure. We can see in hate crime statistics. That

:36:38.:36:47.

is a difficult question. We can see it through hate crimes. Do you think

:36:48.:36:52.

the professor is racist. I think the professor has come up at the wrong

:36:53.:36:55.

answer to the right question. I think the right question you had

:36:56.:37:02.

every right to ask and we are all interested in, is what is British

:37:03.:37:06.

does, what does it take to be British, what is acceptable in

:37:07.:37:11.

Britishness and our ethnic minorities British? You can ask it

:37:12.:37:16.

but you also need to ask our white majority groups British? In many

:37:17.:37:21.

ways, what you have done is, but the wrong diagnosis in the wrong answer

:37:22.:37:26.

to the right question. I also think we need to open up space to be able

:37:27.:37:30.

to talk about these majority cultural interests. What are they?

:37:31.:37:40.

We know that in this country, 75% or so of people want less immigration

:37:41.:37:44.

and I do not think that makes them racist. There are a hard-core

:37:45.:37:50.

racists, this is about a sense of cultural loss. It means it is

:37:51.:37:54.

something we should be cognisant of. If we call that races, we are going

:37:55.:38:01.

to alienate a lot of people. I am so sorry, we have to leave it there. We

:38:02.:38:05.

will get you back on and talk another time.

:38:06.:38:06.

Some say remainer, some say remoaner.

:38:07.:38:07.

Whatever you call the tribe, it's going to be a tough couple

:38:08.:38:10.

of years for those who are not comfortable with Brexit.

:38:11.:38:12.

So here's a challenge for that group - without changing their mind,

:38:13.:38:15.

can they at least find something positive to say about it?

:38:16.:38:18.

We're asking prominent remainers to find a reason to be

:38:19.:38:23.

We're starting with Matthew Parris, the former Tory MP

:38:24.:38:26.

A couple of weeks after the referendum, he wrote that

:38:27.:38:29.

"for the first time in his life he felt ashamed to be British".

:38:30.:38:32.

Can he now see the glass as half-full?

:38:33.:38:49.

On cost-benefit, I think Remain wins.

:38:50.:38:55.

But it's more than that - it's also an emotional thing.

:38:56.:38:58.

We've never liked the European Union and I've never really

:38:59.:39:00.

liked the European Union, and I don't think we ever will.

:39:01.:39:05.

It's like one of those little stones in the shoe.

:39:06.:39:08.

It's not a very big stone, it doesn't stop you walking but it

:39:09.:39:11.

Well, leaving will be getting rid of the stone in the shoe.

:39:12.:39:20.

Now, the cost-benefit analysis may be in favour of staying but the "get

:39:21.:39:23.

rid of the stone in the shoe" analysis is perhaps a bit more

:39:24.:39:26.

It will help us, perhaps, take a firmer grip on our

:39:27.:39:30.

sense of who we are, our sense of identity.

:39:31.:39:35.

It may make us sleep a little more comfortably in our beds.

:39:36.:39:38.

So here, with the glass not quite half-full, is to Brexit.

:39:39.:39:51.

Matthew Parris looking on the bright side of Brexit, which does not come

:39:52.:39:55.

naturally to him.

:39:56.:40:00.

Topics include the Tory expenses row, the possibility of another Scottish referendum, Trump and postmodernism, and Matthew Parris on the case for Brexit. Plus a look at whether we are too quick to call people racist.

With Evan Davis.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS