13/07/2014 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Just two months to go until Scotland decides if it should stay


As the campaign heads for the final furlong,


what are the issues and arguments that will determine the result?


The SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me live.


David Cameron's scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday.


Many of those tipped for promotion are women.


So have efforts to promote diversity in public life barely started or


And don't know whether to support Germany or


In the east, our offshore political guide to the World Cup.


In the east, our offshore industry is holding their breath over


It's World Cup final day and as usual the BBC's snagged the


Yes, eat your heart out, ITV, because for top football analysis


we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, and Alan Shearer.


And for top political analysis you may


as well tune in to them too because all we could come up with is Nick


David Cameron will reshuffle his cabinet on Tuesday.


The Sunday papers are full of stories telling us who'll be


in and who'll be out, though they don't really know.


The Mail on Sunday has one of the more eye-catching lines,


reporting that former defence secretary and right-winger Liam Fox


is in line for a return to the political front line.


But there's general agreement that women will do well and some


of the old men in suits guard will do badly.


Here's senior Tory backbencher David Davis speaking to this programme.


It's good to make parliament more representative.


But you've got to do it in a way that doesn't create


injustices, and you can't put people in a job who can't do the job.


And I've seen that too over the last 20 years, people being


accelerated too far too fast and they come to


a screeching halt where they have to catch up with themselves.


I am not going to give an example. Is this not a bit cynical? He is


going to promote these women into cabinet positions, but they will not


be able to do anything. I am sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It


is an un-written pact in that the media and the government have a


great interest in talking it up. The government says, haven't we


refreshed ourselves? Generally it doesn't refresh the government.


David Cameron wants to send out a new signal. You're going to see the


old guard getting a P 45 and you will see a lot of women come in and


a lot of younger men. We will find there will be a lot of resignations.


A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I told you 18 months ago, I want to


move on. Because the Conservatives have this perception of not being


very good with women and not being good with black and ethnic minority


voters, they are going to want to do something about that. Why did he not


do it before? This reshuffle might be the triumph of the a list. A lot


of the women coming through the ranks have been from the a list


which was a half measure because they knew they could not bring all


of them in. You are going to see more women but that is a result of a


long-term strategy. David Cameron is not the world's most raging


feminist. He is doing this for practical reasons. He knows he has


an image problem for the party and he has to solve it. He was stung by


that picture of the all-male bench at Prime Minister's Questions


because visibly it gave you the problem that you have been talking


about. I do not think he has allowed it to be all-male since that


embarrassing image. I can understand the criticism made of this approach


if it was the case that all the women being promoted by talentless


but you have to be very harsh to look at them and say that they would


have much less to offer than the likes of Andrew Lansley. You can be


pro-feminist. The tests for David Cameron is that having raised


expectations he has to give them substantial jobs. They have to be


given departments to run or big portfolios to carry. If they are


given media campaign positions in the run-up to the election it looks


perfunctorily. He is under some trouble to perhaps suggest a female


commissioner to the European Union Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has


made clear that if he proposes a woman candidate they will get a


better job. Saying they would like ten out of the 28 to be women. We


are going to get the name of the British candidate at the same time


as the reshuffle. The first face-to-face meeting, he will be


able to put a name. There are other names in the frame. People like


Archie Norman. That come from? His name is in the frame. There would be


great scepticism of giving it to Andrew Lansley. People would think


he was the man who mucked up the reform of the NHS. Who is it going


to be? Either a woman or a man. I would not be surprised if they go


for someone believe dynamic. Someone who would square the party. Would


that not mean a by-election? It might. She is a high profile


Eurosceptic. She is a very competent former banker. It would be the smart


choice. I have no idea but my favourite rumour is Michael Howard.


That had some legs for a while. The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street


predict with confidence that the PM is going to promote more women


in his cabinet reshuffle. The move can be seen as part


of a move across British public life to do more to make our institutions


less male and less white. But as the list


of schemes to encourage diversity grows ever-longer, have we abandoned


the idea of appointment by merit? Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for


new trains. It does not get more macho than the Crossrail project.


When Crossrail looked at the construction industry they realise


that less than 20% was made up construction industry they realise


women and they asked, can we fix it? They are trying with a recruitment


drive that has brought in female engineers like this woman. She even


has a tunnel named after her. Having more female engineers and


construction brings a bigger range of opinions, a bigger range of


ideas, more diversity, into the industry, and makes it better as a


whole. It is the issue being grappled in another male dominated


workplace, the Cabinet. There is about to be a reach shuffle and the


rumour is David Cameron is going to promote a lot of female ministers.


It was a lack of promotion that annoyed Harriet Harman this week.


She claimed Gordon Brown did not make her Deputy Prime Minister


because she was a woman. It was strange that in a hard-fought highly


contested election to be deputy leader of the Labour Party, and


having won against men in the Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy


leader of the Labour Party I discovered that I was not to be


appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. For women in this country, no matter


how able they are, the matter how hard they might work, they are still


not equal. There are initiatives to make the world feel more equal. In


the City the EU wants a quarter for women in the boardroom but that goal


of making 40% of the top floor female. At the BBC the boss of the


TV division says no panel show should ever be all-male. In the ever


glamorous movie business the British film Institute announced their new


thematic system to get lottery funding projects improving diversity


on screen and off and helping social mobility. Employers like Crossrail


are not allowed to positively discriminate but under the quality


act of 2010 if two candidate for a job are just as good you are allowed


to base your decision on characteristics like race, sexuality


and gender. Some worry it has chipped away at the idea of hiring


on merit. A woman and three men going for a job, two of the men are


really good and the woman is not quite as good but she gets the job


anyway. That will create injustice, a feeling that she did not deserve


the job, resentment. It does not advance equality in society at all.


On this project they want to leave a concrete legacy of a more diverse


construction industry. The question is, what tools do you use when it


comes to the rest of society? I'm joined now by


Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a columnist for the Independent,


and by Munira Mirza, the deputy mayor of London responsible


for education and culture. Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches


though. Should David Cameron be promoting women? He is going to do


it anyway. He should have a long time ago. It does not feel quite


right that a few months before the election it would do the party a lot


of good to be seen as a party properly reflective of the entire


population. He should promote women because they are women? I think he


should think about lots of different factors, whether the people he wants


promote have proven themselves in their current reefs, whether they


are good performers in the media, whether they represent different


parts of the party, but the main principle is to promote on basis of


merit. There are many talented women who fill that description. It should


be that merit is the important thing rather than what you were born with.


The thing about positive discrimination as it flies in the


face of that kind of principle. You are shaking your head. We have


always had positive discrimination. Men of a certain class have


appointed in their own image because they feel most comfortable with


that. We have had unspoken positive discrimination in this country and


every other country throughout history. We are asking as women,


every other country throughout history. We are asking as women all


minorities, let us get into the same game. What do you say? You cannot


solve the racism or the sexism of the past by more racism and sexism.


It is not the past. There are complex reasons why a smaller number


of women will appear in certain industries. It has a lot to do with


childcare, education, expected. You cannot short cut that by setting a


target. That is not how you achieve equality. Things are changing and


more women are appearing in engineering and so on but it will


take time. My worry is that these kinds of measures are


counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it on


their own merit rather counter-productive and undermine the


perception that women can do it than because they need a helping hand. It


is not a helping hand. It is to say, we are as good as men and these


hidden barriers. Dot. Either they are not as good or they do not want


it, which is just how we persuade are not as good or they do not want


it, which ourselves that it is not happening, or there are barriers.


How we judge meritocracy is at the heart of it. Are lots of industries


won there are not that many women, such as engineering. We need more


engineers generally. I think it is fine to try to encourage more women


to study that subject. By setting a target you put pressure on an


organisation. You tried to ignore the complex reasons why women do not


go into those sectors. I think an all-female short list achieved


miracle in Parliament. This is following up from having an


injection of women coming up because the system was changed and a large


percentage of women went into Parliament under the all-female


short list were brilliant, so why not? So if the Prime Minister is


mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has to be female and vice versa? Yes,


absolutely, 50-50. We need to reflect the population. If we want


to play this as a symbolic gesture, ideally we should have one of each.


Why should a man get the job if you have a great female prime minister


and a great female Deputy Prime Minister? I personally wouldn't mind


this. I hear the disgruntled man and I want to come -- them to come with


us. You're choosing people on the basis of traits they were born


with. Are there too many Indian doctors in the NHS? I would argue


not. Given that we tend to have male prime ministers rather than female


ones, and we don't see another female one coming down the pipe very


quickly... In the time before women short lists by the way. If you had a


male prime minister with a female Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that


give some balance? Why women? Why not working class person, which


group do you prioritise? I would go with you that we need something


fundamental to change. This idea that what we have now is a


reflection of a genuine meritocracy is highly questionable. I would


argue that when you look at the statistics things are changing.


argue that when you look at the statistics things There are more


women appearing in parts of public life, that is a long-term trend,


women appearing in parts of public life, that is a long-term trend but


if you are trying to appoint people on what they were born with... That


is not the only reason but it is an additional reason. She has to be


able to do the job, obviously. I am saying the policy of hazard to


discrimination explicitly state that you should choose somebody who is


female because they are female. At the moment there is already enough


suspicion about women who are successful to get to the senior


position and if you institutionalise it you reinforce that suspicion.


it you reinforce that suspicion Harriet Harman is still complaining


women are not being treated fairly. I think the policy reinforces the


prejudice that women are not getting there because they are treated on


the same basis. Although you may not want to have the all-female short


list forever, wasn't it the kind of shock to the system that made a


visible change in female representation, which the Tory side


hasn't got? Of course it will work short-term but longer term it has a


very degrading effect on the principle of equality and the fact


Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't treated equally, whether it is true


or not, the perception is still there. A number of women find this


position must be reserved for a woman lying patronising, and


speaking of patronising women, you spoken your Independent column, she


presses all of the buttons for white people... Was that patronising and


offensive? Probably. I wrote it because I felt that at the time but


the point is that I was a token when I was appointed. The paper brought


me in because I was a woman and I was a muslin or whatever. You are


not writing about yourself. I was writing... It doesn't mean you don't


criticise other women. We absolutely have to be tough, Manira is tough


and so am I. Do you want to take back what you wrote? No. Do you


really think positive discrimination has gone too far? I think there is


already a suspicion out there that in certain sectors women are being


promoted for the wrong reasons or ethnic minorities are being promoted


for the wrong reasons. That is a shame and my worry is that by tying


funding to your ethnicity or your gender, by saying you will get a


promotion if you check that box, but promotion if you check that box but


you feel that resentment and prejudice and undermine the case for


inequality. I wanted to be treated equally, because I am capable of


doing that job. Only two months to go before Scotland takes its biggest


constitutional decision in 300 years - should it quit or stay with the


UK? For some in Scotland campaign has been going on forever. What has


been the impact on the campaign to date?


Alex Salmond says Scotland would remain part of the European Union


with sterling as its currency in a monetary union with the rest of the


UK, but he has also promised more public spending, increased child


care provision and free personal care for the elderly. The SNP claims


it would leave people better off by ?1000 though that partly depends on


the price of oil. With the Better Together arguing against


independence, it has naturally been attacking the SNP on all fronts.


attacking the SNP on all fronts George Osborne says there will be no


monetary union. President Barroso told the BBC it would be extremely


difficult for Scotland to join the EU after a yes vote. His successor


this week said he agreed. Unions claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by


being part of the UK. A poll this morning shows a significant lead of


57% for the no campaign, leaving the SNP to claim it will go their way in


the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister of


Scotland, joins me now. You want an independent Scotland to keep the


pound, stay in NATO, stay in the EU, Scotland already has all of that


but you cannot guarantee it would have any of it in an independent


Scotland, why take the risk? All of these things should be the case


because they are in the best interests of Scotland and the rest


of the UK but we want the powers to enable us to grow our economy


faster, to be productive, and overtime increased the prosperity of


people living in Scotland. We also want powers over our social security


system so that we can create a system that meets our needs, one


that also has a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our


society. Independence is about letting us decide our own


priorities. You didn't answer my question, you cannot guarantee you


would be able to keep the pound within a monetary union, stay in


NATO and the EU, you cannot guarantee you could produce any of


these things, correct? I would argue that we can because these things are


also in the interest of the rest of the UK. No country can be prevented


from using the pound, I suggest we use that within a formal monetary


union. We have had the UK minister quoted in the Guardian saying the


position of the UK Government right now is one based on campaign


rhetoric and following a yes vote, of course there would be a currency


union. Who is that minister? The Minister is unnamed, but


nevertheless that story in the Guardian was a solid one and not


substantially denied. So you are basing your monetary policy on one


on named minister in one story? Basing it on Common sense because


monetary union would be in the best interests for Scotland but also


overwhelmingly in the interests of the rest of the UK, given their


trading relationship with Scotland and the contribution Scotland's


exports make. We are having a very good debate and the UK Government


and the no campaign, and this is not a criticism, want to talk up in --


uncertainty to make people feel scared, but after independence there


will be constructed process of negotiation. Let's stick with the


monetary union because most economists agree it would be very


good for an independent Scotland to have a monetary union but George


Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander are unequivocal, they say you won't


get it. You claim they are bluffing but again you cannot guarantee that


so why the risk? I would say the benefits of independence are


substantial but I would also say to George Osborne and his counterparts


in the other parties that it would be a very brave Chancellor that says


to businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary


additional transaction costs of half a very brave Chancellor that says to


businesses in the rest of the UK that they have to incur unnecessary


additional transaction costs of half. What we are doing is making a


case that is based on common sense and voters in Scotland will listen


to that case being put forward by the other side as well, and they


will come to a judgement of the common-sense position. Let's look at


EU membership because you haven't been able to guarantee the monetary


union. When President Barroso said that a seamless transition to EU


membership for an independent Scotland was anything but certain,


and one said it could even be impossible, you dismissed him


because he was standing down, but been -- venue EU president says the


same, do you dismissed him? What we are doing... I should say at the


outset of this, we have said repeatedly to the UK Government,


let's go jointly and ask for a formal opinion on the EU


commission. The EU commission have said they will only do that at this


stage if the UK Government ask for it, they are point blank refusing to


do that, you have to ask why? It is in their interests to talk up


uncertainty. Scotland is an integral part of the European Union, we have


been for 40 years, we comply with the rules and regulations... Mr


Juncker knows all of that but he still says it will be anything but a


seamless transition. He said you could not join the European Union by


sending a letter, that is not our proposal. We set down a robust


proposal and the timescale we think is reasonable under these


circumstances. There are many nationals of other states living in


Scotland right now, if we were to be outside of the European Union for


any period of time, something the current treaty doesn't even provide


for, they would lose their right to stay here. The interests of Scotland


and the interests of European Union are in favour of a seamless


transition. It comes down to common sense and people in Scotland will


make sense and people in Scotland will


their own judgement on who is talking the common-sense. What about


NATO, two years ago you told Newsnight the SNP's position is that


we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a democratic debate, we looked at


whether it would be in the interests of an independent Scotland, which


forms a significant part of the territory of the North Atlantic and


the party changed its mind. It did so in a thoroughly democratic way.


That is the nature of democracy. Would you accept the protection of


the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is no doubt the SNP's position is that


we do not want nuclear weapons in Scotland. That is not what I asked.


The world rid themselves of nuclear weapons. One of the interesting


point is of the 28 member countries of Natal 25 do not have nuclear


weapons. An independent Scotland... I asked if you would accept the


nuclear umbrella. The key feature of NATO's military dog train is now


clear shrike. We would accept the basis of which NATO is founded but


we would argue two things. We want Trident removed from Scotland rather


than have a situation where might we are spending ?100 billion over the


next generation replacing Trident and we would argue within the


international community that the world should move much more quickly


to rid itself of nuclear weapons. That is the principal position and


won the SNP has held consistently for many years. You would get rid of


one of the key parts of the NATO deterrent based in Scotland. You


would kick that out. You would not accept all of the club rules because


you do not like the idea of nuclear. Why would they like a member like


you in? Because Scotland is a significant part of the territory of


the North Atlantic. You do not subscribe to the rules. 25 of the


member states of NATO are non-nuclear members. You are saying


you do not follow the doctrine. NATO has said it wants to move away from


reliance on nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland would be


entering the majority mainstream of NATO as a country that did not have


nuclear weapons. By leading by example our moral authority and


encouraging others to do likewise would be increased. Money and oil,


the finance minister has said that an independent Scotland would


increase public spending by 3% a year. He would pay for that by


borrowing. Your First Minister says he is going to stash money in an oil


fund. You're going to borrow and save. How does that work? There are


two points. Firstly in terms of the outlook for finances and what is one


of the central debates of this referendum campaign, austerity that


we know will continue if we stay as part of the Westminster system


versus prosperity. The economy can afford a higher level of increase in


public spending while we continue to have deficit levels at a sustainable


level. What is the point of borrowing and saving at the same


time? People who have a mortgage and the savings account would not


themselves what the wisdom of that is. This is based on recommendations


of our expert fiscal Commission that as borrowing reduces to sustainable


levels it makes sense to start saving a proportion of our oil


wealth. In Norway, which has many similarities to Scotland, they have


an oil fund worth ?500 billion. Scotland is part of the Westminster


system is sitting on a share of UK debt. We can continue to allow our


oil wealth, our vast oil wealth, to be mismanaged or we can decide we


are going to manage that resource better in the years to come. Your


figures do not add up unless you are about oil prices and revenue and you


have been consistently wrong in your predictions. Last year you forecast


that revenues would be the .7 billion more than they actually work


-- 3.7 billion. The cost of the Scottish school system gone. There


were particular reasons for that in terms of interruption to production


and bigger levels of investment. and bigger levels of investment


Used ill have to find the money. Let me explain. They are based on robust


assumptions, firstly a production estimates that is in line with the


estimates of the oil and gas industry. Use of figures that are


based on production of 10 billion barrels of oil. Oil and gas has been


wrong as well. It is 24 billion left to be recovered. That is what is in


the UK Government's oil and gas strategy so production in line with


industry estimates and an oil price of $110 per barrel which is flat in


cash terms would be a real terms reduction. The Department of energy


is estimating $128 per barrel so our estimate compared to that is


cautious. These are robust estimates based on robust assumptions. Except


they have been wrong. Finally, we hear a lot from you and your fellow


nationalists, you want a Scandinavian style social democracy,


you know how to spend the money but you never tell us about social


democratic levels of taxation. Also should grizzlies have higher levels


of tax in Scotland does at the moment -- all social grizzlies. I


want a Scottish style of social democracy. Free education, free


medicines and balancing the books every single year. We want to get


more people into work in Scotland, raise the level of distribution in


the Labour market and make the economy more productive so we are


raising the overall tax revenue. Over the last 33 years we have


generated more taxpayer head of population than is the case and the


rest of the UK. Those last 33 years, some of those years oil prices would


have been high and in others they would have been law but we take


different decisions. A report showed that if we go as part of the


Westminster system down the plate -- route of replacing Trident then the


cost will be as high as ?4 billion every year. Our share of that is the


hundred million pounds a year. Let us get access to our own resources


so we can make different and better decisions about how to spend the


resources we have. You are promising Scandinavian style social democratic


levels of public spending but you say you will not need a top rate of


tax of 56% which is what Scandinavia has, that all 25%, which is what


Scandinavia has and VAT of 15%. You are going to have the spending but


none of the taxes that make it possible in Scandinavia. For


mischievous reasons you are met -- misrepresenting what I am saying.


The Scottish economy can afford it and we want to generate more wealth


in our economy. We want to use the existing resources Scotland has. We


are the 14th richest country in the world in terms of what we produce.


We do not want to be wasting resources. We want to be spending


resources on the things that other priority for the people of Scotland.


These are the benefits and the opportunities really get if we take


the opportunity of voting yes and becoming independent.


Hello unwelcome to the last Sunday Politics before the summer break.


After accidents in dark alldyways are blamed on Essex's streetlight


switch off, concerns that pdople are paying too high a price to cut the


council's energy bill. I went doctors yesterday. I've got to go


for an extra, she probably broken or fractured. And


our offshore industry independence referendum. New


investment has stalled whild the outcome is awaited.


Here with me this week, Bernard Jenkin, MP for the Conservatives,


the chair of the Public Administration Select Committee,


Administration Select Committee and labour's Gavin Shuker, Shadow


international development mhnister. international development minister.


I want to start by talking about the local growth fund. More than ?400


million will come 175 million in the next year with


more money will help complete a number of


new relief roads, the along with other projects. So, Gavin


Shuker, airport, that is a good thing, isn't


it? Yes, and it shows you how RDA and put in the LDP. We think


that is the wrong agencies? The last time thex gave


out money,, this time before. These are led by business


people, assisted area status in Harwich and


Clacton, industry and things like th`t. So it


is a very different picture. in a much more dynamic way there.


Now, staying designed to cut Essex's eligibility.


Installing the system years time. Opposition to the


blackout is growing. There telling them to be careful where


they are walking because anyway. I don't drive and mx husband


and my son were having switch off but crime. The thieves


Kalex three separate times whilst stroke of 12... This happens,


leaving everyone different ages from all walks of


life that literally voluntary sector. I have to lock up


in the charges, the net saving over a ten


year here it is ?3 million. sum of ?6.5 million on a central


management system. suggest people are not feelhng safe


when the lights are off. It was introduction of this scheme. We,


unlike some the concern of the restaurant. The


important thing safety. If it were me, I wotldn t


want are far less likely to cont`ct their


MP and said I am 21 and I have of pounds of investment are on hold.


In the East, for that sector, a yes Clyde, but we do have deep water


ports. Looking at SLP, a local British government can to gdt


companies in, particularly politics is packed on Westmhnster


and people everywhere that we stay


together. We know conservatives in South Suffolk chose


a local will keep a bit safer. That is all


the time we have. So, plenty happening in Parliament


this coming week, including a controversial bill to make


so-called assisted dying legal and Lord Carey has intervened in the


assisted dying debate. Will it make a difference? It will make a


difference because we have established in the House of Lords, I


am not sure who they speak for and why they should have a privileged


position, but he was a big opponent and has made a change of heart. The


fact that the Daily Mail has printed this shows this is a big


intervention. The Bill being pushed through, is it now on the agenda? I


think it is. There are international examples of assisted dying


elsewhere. The state of Oregon passed a Bill similar to this in the


1990s and things have not got out of control. That has not been an


expansion or abuse. It has settled down and become part of the


furniture. That makes it easier for this Bill, to make the case for it.


Religious people may still have a principled objection but most other


people have a practical objection, which is how to put in place


safeguards to deal with unscrupulous relatives or anyone else who wants


to abuse this right? Once a controversial issue is only being


opposed for practical reasons it is on its way to getting its way. What


is the division, is it the Church against everybody else? Is it a


right and left division? What is stopping it? It is a very difficult


moral issue and there are people who can have genuinely held Christian


beliefs or non-Christian beliefs who can be on both sides. I think that


the Lord Carey intervention is potentially a game changer not just


because he is a former Archbishop of Canterbury but because he was on the


Evan Jellicoe side of the Church of England. That is quite a big move.


The response was to say, please withdraw your bell and let us have a


royal Commission. The Supreme Court kicked the ball back to Parliament


when they rejected the cases of three people who had been taking the


case and said, we could say that banning the right to life is against


the European Court of Human Rights, but it is a moral issue and an issue


for Parliament. Parliament needs to decide. The data act that is going


to be pushed through Parliament. decide. The data act that is going


to be pushed through Parliament In record time. To comply with a


European court judgement. Tom Watson and David Davis, some dissent. Are


you so prized with how united the establishment, left, right and


centre is? No. There is a great quote saying this has been enacted


under the something must be done act and that captures it exactly. Even


Cameron says he does not want to look people in the eye and say that


he did not do everything he could. There is no end to the power of


surveillance. It is all was about drawing a distinction. I am always


suspicious when politicians look something up and said, we have all


agreed. Are there at the centre is right or is the political


establishment right? I think the establishment is right. I think it


is stronger than other issues. We are in a unique position where all


three political parties have relatively recent experience of


government so they now that security threats are not made up by


unscrupulous people. The legislation being proposed is not dramatic, it


is to fill a gap that was created. I do not see the political


controversy. All three political parties support it. David Davis and


Liberty are against that, and always are. Would you not have expected...


The Lib Dems are in government, but a bit more rebellion on the Labour


backbenches? There is no political controversy put outside parliament


there's quite a lot of controversy about this. My paper has taken an


interest in this. It is interesting, it does not feel, it is not a


1950s, three public school boys setting, let us have this deal. The


Liberal Democrats and Labour have serious questions. There's going to


be a sunset clause that will run out in 2016. The Liberal Democrats, who


asked pretty tough questions, have said there are assurances. Ed


Miliband did not go to public school.


For many English football fans, tonight's World Cup final presents


How do you pick between two traditional foes


Well, if you're a political obsessive, like these


three, you could always back the nation according to how it votes.


The website LabourList has produced a political guide to the tournament.


At the beginning of the tournament, it was a fairly balanced playing


field politically with 15 left wing and 17 right-wing countries. England


found themselves isolated in a group with three left-wing countries. That


was the least of their problems. was the least of their problems


There was a clear domination of democratic regimes over


authoritarian with only six of oratory and countries making it


through to the finals and the only all authoritarian tie was dubbed the


worst match of the World Cup. By the second round 16 teams remained. The


left had a clear advantage with nine, seven from the right and


authoritarian countries all but wiped out. Two representatives


remained. Both were beaten by European democracies. By the


semi-finals, all was even Stephen. A right-wing Protestant Europe taking


on Catholics South America. With one victory apiece, Germany knocking out


Brazil and Argentina beating the Dutch, tonight's final repeats that


pattern. Who will win? Angela Merkel's Germany or Argentina?


We're joined now by Britain's only Labour adviser


Should we read political significance in to the fact that the


only time England has won the World Cup was under a Labour government?


Of course. The problem is we did not qualify for Euro 2008 when it was a


Labour government. We have had some pretty shoddy results under a Labour


government. As someone under the left, are you backing Argentina?


left, are you backing Argentina Absolutely not. I do not think it


has anything to do with politics. It is a bit of fun. People should


choose it is Don Hoop plays the best football and the Germans have been


fantastic. They were great in 2 10 fantastic. They were great in 2010


as well. They started this model in 2008 and that is the sort of thing


people should be supporting. Who should a Eurosceptic support? I


would not say Argentina because that is the country that has tried to


seize British sovereign territory within my lifetime. You were not


around for the Blitz. Believe it or not, I was not. There is a strong


political case to support Germany. They are probably going to win the


World Cup with a clear of -- with players of Polish origin. That sort


of cultural change they have forced themselves to go through... You talk


about them being right wing, but in fact the way that the German league


is structured, and I am an expert, is based on ownership. It is very


different from the Premier League. It is about football as a usual


good. The ticket prices are lower. The fans are involved in running the


club. It is a model that all English football clubs should emulate.


Germany had a strong football team under centre right governments and


centre left governments and a coalition. A strong football team


and a strong economy. The Conservative MP who is the arch


Eurosceptic wanted to get us out of the European Union and was for a few


weeks ago when people were making jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker, he


was outraged and said you should not do that, so he could happily support


Germany. What was interesting about the authoritarian and democratic


regimes, what is great is that the World Cup is run by this open and


democratic organisation Fifa. It is similar to the EU in many regards.


Two countries led by women. Maybe gender is the thing. We did not win


under Margaret Thatcher. There's one big difference with the EU, you


cannot flog six Dom Acta gets to go to a European summit. Did you know


that Italy won two world cups under Mussolini? Can we draw any


conclusions between a political system and the performance of the


football team? You can draw certain parallels between maybe national


cliches, so the Germans are efficient and effective, which might


reflect and the English are very polite so we let everyone score


first and go into the second round. We put ourselves at the back of the


queue. Is England going to qualify for the European? We are going to


win the European Championship. The first country Scotland have to play


is Germany. What could possibly go wrong? Who is going to win? Germany.


Germany. I am going to put a few bob on Argentina. Are you going to be


watching? Absolutely. Thank you. This is the last Sunday Politics


for the summer. But we'll be back in early autumn


and our first programme will be live from Scotland,


the weekend before the referendum The Daily Politics is back tomorrow


at noon and we'll bring you the last PMQs before the summer


on Wednesday morning from 11:30am. Remember, if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics, unless You have been selected to take part


in an antiques TV programme.


Download Subtitles