19/05/2013 Sunday Politics London

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Downing Street is at war with Fleet Street this morning. The co-

chairman of the Tory party denies describing activists as mad,

swivel-eyed loons, as reported by the Times and Telegraph. That's our

Top Story. A large part of the Conservative

party would give the EU 'nil point'. But exactly where do the Lib Dems

stand on Europe these days? Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny

Alexander, joins us for the Sunday Interview.

Could we have joint Conservative- UKIP candidates at the next

election? Downing Street has rejected the idea. But some of the

party's backbenchers favour a deal. Two MPs with opposing views go

head-to-head. In London, a panel in the capital

said the Government should raise And with me, Sunday's finest

political panel - Miranda Green, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt. They'll

be tweeting like blood-crazed ferrets throughout the programme.

Let's start with "loongate" or "swivelgate" or "it-wasn't-me-

gate". The Conservative party has denied that anyone in Downing

Street used the phrase "mad, swivel-eyed loons" to describe

Conservative activists who are euro-sceptic and opposed to gay

marriage. The claims appeared in the Times and the Telegraph, who

ascribed the words anonymously but sourced them to a senior Tory who

was in the PM's social circle. That sparked a Twitter storm which

forced Andrew Feldman, a Cameron mate from his Oxford days whom he

made co-chair of his party, to deny he'd said anything of the sort.

This morning there's a stand-off between Downing and Fleet Street.

Health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, was asked about the claims on the Marr

Show this morning. The person who is alleged to have

said that has denied it. I know the individual and trust him, he is a

man of great honour. He don't think he said it? I don't, No. He don't

think anybody else said it? Last year we were told the Prime

Minister was saying it? It you look at his Prime Minister, so much of

what he has done has been informed by the views and the opinions of

hard-working, grassroots Conservative campaigners, whose

views incidentally, are very much in tune with the vast majority of

the British people. I would suggest this is toxic for

Mr Cameron, because regardless of who said it, or if it was said at

all, a lot of Tory backbenchers believe that is what Mr Cameron

believes about his own people? was going to say, how we would

Jeremy Irons know what Andrew Feldman said. It is toxic. It feels

like the Andrew Mitchell a fair, where Andrew Mitchell denied

calling the police plebs, but the perception was he had. Andrew

Feldman denies these remarks. But the perception is, that is what the

camera and elite think about the party. It is interesting what's

Jeremy Hunt says. Nadine Dorries does not believe his denials. We

now have a stand-off between two journalists who did hear these

remarks, and Andrew Feldman, he says he did not say them. There is

only three people who heard that conversation, those two journalists

and Andrew Feldman, it is there a word against his. It is not a

question of, if Andrew Feldman did not say this, somebody else said it.

It is either he said it, or he didn't. There is nobody else

involved which makes it a Downing Street, Leeds street battle? It is

an inconvenient time for David Cameron. It is a simultaneous

battle with the Conservative associations and with the press. It

is quite interesting it is parachuted into the central

functioning of the Government, who may have got them in this trouble.

Peers and the Government don't have to face the electorate. They don't

have local associations to do with, they don't have the machinery of

the party. Their relationship with a electoral politics is absent.

They often lack insight. As I'm not surprised. We will learn this

morning, the Financial Times have done a profile of Mr Cameron a

while back. Roughly the same sort of phrase appeared in that profile.

He was one of the main briefers of a profile of the record, was Andrew

Feldman? One of the damaging things about the story, whether Andrew

Feldman has said it, whether David Cameron has said it, you can

imagine both of them saying it's which reflects him and his friends'

attitudes towards the grass roots, which is dismissive and it is

reciprocated by the grassroots. We have known there is this

disparaging view from Number Ten towards the party, and that view is

more than returned. All we have learned over the past 48 hours is

there is someone in Number Ten who is unprofessional enough to give

expression to those private thoughts at a dinner, although it

is private, things always get out. He was at a dinner of Conservative

friends of Pakistan. It is important to remember it was not

said at the dinner. He came out of the dinner, bumped into these

journalists. One of the journalist said, that the vote went a very

well, didn't it? He made the argument that it is not the MPs who

are the problem, it is the pressure from their association. He made

that argument and then the journalist said he made that toxic

remark. Downing Street seems to be suggesting he made that remark at

the dinner. No he didn't. Downing Street are suggesting someone else

made the remarks. No there isn't. The press secretary did not hear

the remarks and neither did the other two journalists at the dinner.

So it is the two journalists who heard it, and Lord Andrew Feldman.

This has appeared in the Times, the Telegraph and the Mirror. The Times

and the Telegraph on great rivals and the Mirror has not colluded

recently with either the Telegraph or the times. Either this was made

up, they colluded, or something along these lines was said. What

other possible alternative could there be? It does smack of

extraordinary lack of self discipline by somebody at the heart

of the David Cameron operation. Although some of the incredible

outrage has been overblown. can't even blame having a drink,

because he was at a dinner for the friends of Pakistan.

We shall see what the papers come up with.

Last night millions voted on one of the most important issues facing

Europe - and result? Denmark won the Eurovision Song Contest with

Only Teardrops sung by Emmelie de Forest. Back in Blighty it's

sometimes hard to see the wood from the trees when it comes having a

vote on our membership European Union. It's a question which can

cause a lot of tears between Conservatives and their Lib Dem

coalition partners. Under the coalition agreement,

Liberal Democrats supported a law which would mean holding a

referendum before any further powers could be transferred to

Brussels. In January, David Cameron went further, promising a

referendum in 2017 on whether to leave the EU if he wins a majority

at the next General Election. Conservative MPs want that

commitment enshrined in law, and on Wednesday over 100 of them said it

should have been in the Queen's Speech. That is something the Lib

Dems ones countenance. Another PM as ordered the drafting of a random

bill that has been picked up by one of his backbenchers. Lib Dems are

furious the Tory leadership is aiding and abetting its MPs in what

they claim is undermining the coalition agreement. But the Prime

Minister -- PMQs this week when Nick Clegg was standing in for Mr

Carman, Tories accused him of going back on his own commitment to hold

an in-out referendum. Was that man an impostor or just a hypocrite?

Chief Secretary to the Treasury and senior Lib Dem, Danny Alexander,

joins me now for the Sunday Interview.

Have a look at this leaflet. It is a Lib Dem leaflet from 2008, and in

its base smiling picture of a younger looking Nick Clegg. In this

your party promised an in-out referendum. At the bottom you are

urging people to sign a your position calling for an in-out

referendum. It was just Lib Dem hot air? In the election and that

leaflets, what we said on Wednesday, we said there should be a

referendum the next time there is a major change in the European treaty.

The next time that there is an attempted handover of power. He

showed in your introduction, the European Union Act we passed last

year. 100 days of Parliamentary time. It puts in place a referendum

mock, so the next time there is a major treaty change at a European

level, the British people have a vote. But that leaflet does not say

that. The referendum pledge was not based on a major treaty change. In

that leaflet it specifically dismisses the need for a referendum

on a treaty change on the Lisbon. Mr Clegg attacks the Tories for

only offering a limited referendum. He said only the Lib Dems will

offer an in-out referendum. What we said in our manifesto was, the next

time there was a major change in the European treaties, there should

be a referendum. At a point, there would have been a discussion. That

is what we said to the British people. And that is what we have

legislated to make happen through the coalition Government. In 2010,

by then you were linking a referendum to treaty changes. But

that is not what the 2008 leaflet did. We did the opposite. Let's

listen to Mr Clegg in 2008. three parties supported a

referendum on the EU constitution at the last election. That promise

must now be as be fulfilled. It should be fulfilled by asking the

British people the real question - the question that matters to them.

Should we stay in the European Union, or should we leave? Are we

in, or are we out? It's the Conservatives were honest, they

would ask that same question, too. There Opportunities and is

breathtaking. Couldn't have been clearer. He said in 2008, the

people deserve an in-out referendum, not linked to a treaty change. Why

did he change your mind? One he said at the start of that, all

parties promised a referendum link to a treaty change that have not

been delivered. And the words are quite clear in the leaflet, they

are quite clear in what he is saying. He attacks the Tories for

linking it to treaty change. Why did you change your view we should

have a simple in-out referendum to one when we only have one month to

treaty change? That policy was brought forward at a time in 2008

when there was a debate on whether there should be a referendum on the

treaty. It was the same treaty other parties had promised a

referendum and not delivered. But that is why we said it we had a

chance to legislate. You are rewriting history. In 2008, Lib

Dems stormed out of the Commons because you were denied a vote, not

on treaty change, but you were denied a vote on holding an in out

referendum. Your party said it was an outrageous affront to democracy.

Now the Conservatives are offering an in out referendum, you say you

won't support it. That is Opportunities and. That debate in

2008 was about whether there should be a referendum or not. Your party

moved an amendment to what the Conservatives were trying to do

saying, let's have been in out referendum regardless of treaty

change. Ed Davey got kicked out of the Commons, you felt so strongly.

We put forward a promised there should be a referendum the next

thing there is a major change in the European treaties. Why did you

change your mind? The reason we don't think it is right to pursue

in-and-out referendum at the moment, is firstly, it is the wrong

priority for the country. We have spent in the last 18 months, 100

days of Parliamentary time... was it the right priority in 2008?

Just at a time when the economy showing more momentum. The

Parliament and Government should be focused on jobs, growth and

reforming public services. The idea we should drag ourselves through a

debate on the European referendum now is wrong. I understand that as

a point of view, but why didn't you have that point of view in 2008

when you call for a referendum on the Net for any treaty change.

2008 it was a specific response on the debate on should there be a

referendum. In our manifesto, that treaty having been passed, we

thought the right thing to do was to say... He dropped the idea of an

in-out referendum. The next time there is a treaty that there should

be a referendum. You changed your mind! Under any future Government

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 846 seconds

there would have to be a referendum Jacob Rees-Mogg is a Conservative

MP who thinks a deal can be done with UKIP. He's in Somerset, and

Jackie Doyle-Price thinks it would be a mistake, and she's here in the

Jacob, you are a Conservative MP, a party member. It you wanted to

support UKIP, why don't you just join it? I want to see a coalition

between the Conservative Party and UKIP. We have a coalition with a

party be broadly do not agree with, I would like a coalition with a

party we broadly do agree with. You'd like the right to have a

coalition with a party you broadly agree with? I want to see a

majority Conservative Government. Having a coalition with anyone is

not obtain in that objective. I find it quite lily-livered to talk

it about pacts at this stage. first-past-the-post system all

parties end up being coalitions. In the Conservative Party you have

been light wing and a right wing. We have done deals in the past as

the Conservative Party in the 19th century, and in the early part of

the 20th century, to unite those who have a similar view on how the

country should be governed. As long as we maintain a first-past-the-

post system, which I support, we need to maximise our side of the

political spectrum that will vote for you. If you don't do a deal

with UKIP, don't you risk splitting the right of centre vote and

letting Labour in? It Prix judges the fact that it is a right of

centre vote. I don't think it is. They have taken votes from the

Conservative Party. We are seeing UKIP bowling 20% of Poles in local

elections and they are taking votes from more than just the

Conservative Party. We need to be very confident about our own

platform and go about selling it and not say, if you like, UKIP, you

can vote for us anyway. If you don't have his arrangements with

UKIP that you like, it late -- makes victory for your party in

2015 less likely? The lesson of the 1980s, it you split one wing of

politics, the other wing wins would be majorities. UKIP voters in

opinion polls say 70% of them otherwise would have been

conservative. 70% of the UKIP voters are identify a bleak

otherwise conservative. UKIP is reaching out to some Thatcherite

Conservatives that the party has not been able to reach recently.

Are the Conservatives who want to do a deal with UKIP, on vague the

swivel-eyed, loons, Mr Cameron's allies has supposedly been talking

about? I am not abusing my colleagues. We are colleagues and

Brad Conservatives. Do you see any swivel-eyed, loons among your party

activists at times? When we fall out, we do use personal attacks

against each other, but we are all Conservatives and we should all be

out there working for Conservative Government. Are you one of the

swivel-eyed, loons? I am close to Conservative associations. I have

addressed over 50 of them and I am often in agreement with them. The

reason I am in Parliament, is because I believe in it. I believe

in Conservative principles which the wonderful activists and members

of our party do. They have stuck with us through difficult times and

deserve the greatest respect, admiration and support. You will

know from the east the by-election and local elections, many people

who had previously voted Conservative on now voting UKIP. It

you want them back, you have to do something along the lines... Many

people we want to vote Conservative of voting UKIP. UKIP are able to

take votes from other parties, because the political debate is not

about the issues regarding people who determined elections. We need

to get out there and tell people we are dealing with immigration, we

are dealing with welfare and then people have a positive reason to

vote for us. Is it not a risk that if you go down the road that you

would like to go down, you detoxified the conservative brand?

You have become a backward looking, a right-wing party again? I always

thought the idea of a toxic Tory party was nonsense. It showed a

lack of confidence in our basic principles. What is exciting about

the possibility of reuniting the right, in local elections, on a

national level, 48% would have voted for two right wing parties.

In South Shields Riggott between two right wing parties, 35% of the

vote. That is up on the levels Margaret Thatcher was getting.

Gay marriage coming up in the Commons next week. How will you

vote? I had not decided. I had never been so conflicted about a

piece of legislation. I have always been in favour of equality.

have got to make up your mind. conflicted because I am in favour

of a quality, but that bill is a mess. How are you going to vote?

am a Roman Catholic and I believe it is the right of the Church to

define marriage, not the right of the state. I shall vote in

accordance with the Roman Catholic Whip. Are you taking your whip from

the Pope? On this matter, I am forced up isn't that treason, a

reparation it has not been treason since 1989. I did not realise that

Act covered you. Thanks to both of useful stop

You're watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes.

I'll be looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until

then, the Sunday Politics across Welcome from us. We will be

clarifying with a top City Hall official, how far the mayor is

prepared to go to give London local authorities, including his own,

more freedom to tax and spend. Joining us is Andrew Rossendale,

and Stephen Reid, the Labour MP for Croydon North. John Tali, chairman

of the Metropolitan Police Federation. We want to talk about

water cannon and the Met indicating it would like to have water cannon

and the Home Secretary saying, we will look at that idea. Would you

support that question mark in principle, yes. They are used in

Northern Ireland and the Continent. The circumstances of when they are

used need to be looked at. My concern is how much it will cost.

We are losing a lot of officers and money is tight. Would it have been

good if it was available for the rioting in Croydon? Croydon was one

of the areas that was it the worst. A lot of people living in areas

that were hit, would have liked to have seen a water cannon used if it

could have been helpful. I don't want water cannon introduced as an

alternative to the police officers Lee Mead on the streets. Andrew,

Time for it? Absolutely, we need to show we do not tolerate that

behaviour on ostrich. Water cannon should be used when necessary and

when it is effective in helping the police tackle those situations.

you happy it is safe? That is not for me to decide. The police can

make that decision. But it should be an option should the need arise.

Recent changes by the Crown Prosecution Service, mean there is

a presumption against prosecution police involved in accidents on

their way to an emergency. But the cost of compensating others

involved unfixed in vehicles is running into hundreds of million

pounds a year. Road safety campaigners are concerned.

Joseph is a successful singer. Last year when cycling across this

bridge in Hackney he was knocked off his bike by a British Transport

Police vehicle travelling up to 60 mph. He was injured and the police

officer found guilty of dangerous driving. The police in London are

involved in 12 collisions every day on our roads, once every two hours.

The police point out they are meted responsibility for half of those

collisions and a lot of them will be minor. When they are not, the

human cost is enormous and we have found out, the financial costs are

considerable. Police data obtained by this programme has found over

the last three years, three- quarters of all compensation

payouts by the Met has been a result of a police collision on the

roads. An average bill to the taxpayer of �1.7 million a year.

Although there has been a fall in compensation payouts in the last

two years, road-safety campaigners say it is too high. It is a huge

amount. �7 million goes into the road deaths investigation unit. It

invests all fatal crashes and life- changing injury accidents. This man

is trying to drive for the police emergency services. The police

driver training in this country is a widely recognised as the best in

the world. A lot of other police forces will come to the UK to learn

skills and training techniques. To start with, when a police officer

or ambulance driver for the first time is put into the driving seat

of that vehicle with an instructor, they will find it quite a challenge.

That instructor will probably knock their driving skills back to basics.

To understand the level of driving expected, it is my turn to learn

the way they do it. He's off the gas a little bit. It is hard and

that is driving beneath the speed limit. After about three weeks of

this testing and then an assessment, the police are given special rights

when they drive, so they can break the speed limit, and if they hit a

red light, they give way, rather than stock. Even with those powers,

if they drive carelessly and Dame Risley, it is a criminal offence.

The chances of that happening just got smaller. Two weeks ago, the CPS

changed their guidance on road traffic offences to be more lenient

According to some, that is a mistake. It is wrong, they should

look at the primary cause of the problem. Is it more dangerous? Is

it safe and his London better for those chases? I think probably not

at times. Although sentencing guidelines may have changed, I

think the debate about where to draw the line is going to go on.

Do you think some of your officers perhaps on not taking thicker they

should question mark I disagree with that. Police driver training

and continual assessment and the standards of the officers is very

strict. Only recently an officer in Hampshire was prosecuted for

dangerous driving following a pursuit where there were no

accidents. He was acquitted, and I am pleased for that. In pursuits,

it is often found the police officers on not to blame, but in

accidents more generally, the figures show about 50%, there are

big questions about the officers? When they are going to emergencies

generally, are they Reckless, haphazard? Absolutely not. There

would be a human cry if police officers to an emergency 10-15

minutes later than they would have done had they used their sirens and

blue lights. Because of the nature of that, there will be accidents.

It happens in every walk of life, including the other emergency

services. There will be cases when the driver is at fault. But in a

great majority of cases, there will be not. Do you think you needed a

change for the CPS to make this presumption to not take action,

protect emergency service drivers? Shouldn't they just based it on the

evidence? Section two of the Road Traffic Act, dangerous driving,

presumes everyone should be charged if the make-up of the offence is

committed. What the CPS had said is, it may not be in the public

interest to prosecute in every case. We are pleased for that and we have

asked the DPP to look at it, and the people of London would prefer

to see their officers arriving promptly and safely than not at all.

Would you agree with that? I agree entirely with what John has said.

The police are there to do a job. Emergency services had to rush to

end incidents if it is taking place. I would feel happier to allow them

the combatants to get on with their business, rather than be afraid to

go faster in order to be there on time. Otherwise we could be in more

trouble. If you are going to an emergency situation, you will have

to drive faster than the speed limit. That is more dangerous, so

there needs to be a change. The case of Sean Reeve, who died

after being restrained by police in Brixton five years ago, the

Federation's role has been questioned. An independent report

criticised the report of the IPCC and how it investigated the role of

the officers involved. Clear them and found there was no case. But

also criticisms of the federation during his inquiry, says he played

an inappropriate role. Your representatives sat in on

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 846 seconds

interviews, and answered questions. In a moment we'll look ahead to the

big stories that will dominate politics next week with our

political panel, but first the news at noon.

Good afternoon. The former Foreign Secretary, Lord Geoffrey Howe has

Sir David Cameron appears to be losing control of the Conservative

Party, and running scared of his Euro-sceptic MPs. His comments had

been dismissed by Jeremy hands, he says David Cameron is tackling a

difficult issue and has already delivered much in chasing Britain's

relationship with the youthful stop this was Geoffrey Howe in 1990,

telling Parliament why he had quit the Government, because he

disagreed with the then Prime Minister over Europe.

That is why I have resigned. years later in an intervention, he

is attacking another Prime Minister from his party over the UK in the

EU. In an interview with the Observer, the veteran peer has

If the results of such a referendum was to suggest a detachment from

the European Union, it would be of grave effect. Because our presence

there has influenced to rock the world. It has been a week when the

Tories appear to have obsessed about Europe. Lord Lawson's said

the UK should leave now. Then more than 100 of his own MPs voted

against the Prime Minister over a lack of plans for a referendum law.

Everyone has said he is in meltdown. At the top, every senior Tory has

said they are in agreement. He is so been seen to do something with

our relationship with Europe difference. David Cameron has

promised to Rhigos did the UK's terms of Premiership -- membership.

What we want him to do now is get on with the negotiations. We think

the new relationship has to be based on trade, not uncommon

Government will stop the Prime Minister is caught between a rowing

gold cards and his own MPs. To some he is only the struggling to keep

it together. A former employee of the internet

giant, Google says he is providing evidence to the tax authorities

about how the company avoided paying corporation tax in Britain

by using its offices in Dublin to finalise deals. Barney Jones he

worked at Google until 2006, claims at that time, as some deals was

still completed in Britain. Google says it cannot comment on specific

allegations but maintains it complies fully with UK tax law.

The fuel is taking place of a politician in Imran Khan's Movement

for Justice Party he was shot dead yesterday. She was shot dead

outside her home on the evening of a partial re-run of the elections.

The police are investigating whether her death was politically-

motivated all the attempts of an attempted robbery.

They work together for four decades leaving their mark on British

comedy. Today, Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise are being cut memorised.

That's all the news for now, there will be more news on BBC One at

6.00pm. Now back to Andrew. Maxine, thank you. So more trouble

for David Cameron over same sex marriage. The fall-out from a Nigel

forage going to Edinburgh. And the evils of tax avoidance. All

questions for The Week Ahead. David Cameron has this game

marriage vote coming up again and this row over the swivel-eyed,

loons, it all plays into that? does. Several of the constituents

have written to high command in protest at the remark. But also its

equal marriage Bill is the thing that really irritated the

Conservative associations. That is what they say has resulted in a

haemorrhaging of membership a way to UKIP. It all plays into this

narrative, which is gaining speed in some self-serving quarters, that

Mr Cameron is losing control of his party? The compound effect of this

story and remarks allegedly made by an Number Ten insider is what

matters. Individually they are not too bad, but put them together it

smells like a leader losing control of his party. David Cameron is

advancing a controversial piece of legislation, so takes the political

damage coming with that. Because he is not putting a case for it, or

his face and voice, he is almost embarrassed by the bill. So you

have a situation, it is an esoteric issue for a lot of voters, but it

commands particular support from the voters the Tories need, namely

young people. It softens out the Tory message which is crime,

immigration and welfare. There is political utility eat -- to it, but

you only claim it it you put your face and voice to the campaign. He

hasn't. It is 2008, the period when he was chasing after my newspaper

and the Observer. We say he does not control his party, these are

votes are not rebellions, they are free votes. Yet free votes are

turning into trouble for David Cameron. Europe is trouble, because

the coalition is divided. Equal marriage next week, ministers can

vote as they once, but Philip Hammond and Question Time attacked

his Government for died -- devoting too much time. But also he could

probably have got away with this without too much of a row if the

economy was growing at 3% and the Tories were five points ahead in

the polls? And, they still harbour resentment against their leader for

not winning an outright majority. The irony is, at the more we have

these rebellions, that are not really rebellions, the less likely

it is they will win and out right majority at the next election.

Equal marriage is meant to appeal to the centre ground, Europe is

meant to appeal to the right. He cannot get a formula. It is the

formula Margaret Thatcher had. So we are looking at more minority

coalition administrations. Remember the famous movie, Mr Smith went to

Washington. Let's look what happened when the UK pleader went

to Edinburgh. Immigrants are welcome here, you are not welcome

here. He had to be protected by the police. Yes, the UKIP leader had to

be protected by police as he was jeered at by an angry crowd after

retreating to city centre pub for his own safety. This was a group of

hard-left activists and gave him a bad time. It was interesting they

were shouting, "racist scum, go home". What is that about? This was

not the SNP, it was people on the far left, on the extreme wing of

the independence movement. I spoke to Lord Forsyth, the last

Conservative Scottish Secretary. I spoke to a former Labour Scottish

minister and George Galloway, hardly a fellow traveller of

Conservative and Labour. They also have the same thing, this is quite

an ugly side to some elements of the national debate. They say these

people are on the periphery, they are not the SNP. So this

highlighted that. If that happens in Edinburgh, what would have

happened in Glasgow? I can imagine him leaving physically damaged.

Might take on it... Don't fall for this, Edinburgh is the soft city

and Glasgow is the hard one. Trainspotting was set in Edinburgh.

As awful as it was to see a Democratic politician intimidated,

he did not strike me as a Scottish thing. UKIP are playing in the big

league and will have to prepare better. You said he was protected

by the police, but not protected very well. They will have to

organise themselves better. dominated the media in Scotland on

Friday night. He played it to his advantage in the end. Now, is

avoiding tax evil? Here's what happened when Google appeared

before a Parliamentary committee on Thursday.

You are company that says you do no evil, but I think you do. Tax is

not a matter of choice, it is following the laws that other,

internationally. I think Ed Miliband will make a speech about

it this week. Outraged, but I don't see anybody coming up with a

solution to get them to pay their taxes? They made do evil, but they

don't do evasions. So it is not just avoidance, but aggressive tax

avoidance. The Prime Minister will be hosting de G8 Summit in Northern

Ireland next month and he is putting tax avoidance and

aggressive tax avoidance on the agenda. There has been a whistle

blower from Google saying he has evidence and e-mails which says

Google is generating billions of pounds of revenue in the United

Kingdom and running it through its Dublin office. It looks like it is

avoidance. But is it a gross of avoidance? If it is, then I think

they might find the authorities will be looking closely at them.

These companies shouldn't be surprised to be approached in this

spirit by the whole of the political class in this country.

People are paying their taxes and struggling to pay bills, they get

angry? Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had used the

language of morality in speeches about this issue. And the

newspapers such as the Times had gone through to expose them in

investigations. The executives should be more prepared. It used to

be the evils of big oil companies, the capitalist companies. He's

cuddly, New Age companies like Google and Starbucks have turned

out to be just the same? It is some of the morally pretentious

campaigns they used to run about 10 years ago. There is outraged on the

left on the right, but I means the left and the rights of both wrong.

If you are not breaking the law, then it is up to politicians to

change the law to take into account these loopholes. Would you want to

live and an economy where businesses pay the tax public

pressure wants them to pay. If you cannot predict what your revenues

are going to be, it is a precocious system. Until Google and Starbucks

are violate real laws, there is a limit as to how angry you can be.

We shall see if anything happens out of all of this outrage. That's

all for today. Parliament is going into recess next week, and so are