07/07/2013 Sunday Politics London

Politics. Farewell Abu Qatada. It's only taken

us eight years to send you packing. The extremist Muslim cleric has

already arrived in Jordan this morning. We'll be talking to Justice

Secretary Chris Grayling. We know what Nigel Farage thinks -

he's never off the telly. But what about the rest of UKIP? Stay tuned

for the biggest survey yet of UKIP councillors. We'll be putting our

results to the party leader. As Ed Milliband and Union baron Len

McLuskey come to blows, we'll be asking political bruiser John Reid

who's in charge of Labour? In London: Disruption and confusion

in town halls as the Government encourages councils to allow

And with me - on our centre court in W1, three big hitters - Miranda

Green, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt who'll be tweeting throughout the

programme. So after a lot of money and eight

years of legal wrangling, the extremist Muslim cleric, Abu Qatada,

has finally been deported to Jordan. The Home Secretary hadn't quite put

out the bunting to see him off, but the TV cameras were on hand to

follow every step of his journey by police convoy from Belmarsh Prison

in South London to RAF Northolt in West London, where he boarded a

private jet in the early hours of this morning. We haven't seen so

many cameras sent to follow one car journey since the Royal Wedding.

He's already landed in Jordan where he'll be tried on terrorism charges

after Britain signed a treaty meant to guarantee that evidence obtained

through torture won't be used against him. It's been a long battle

for the Government and the Labour one before it, so it's not a

surprise the Prime Minister was keen to get up early on a Sunday to give

his reaction. I was absolutely delighted. I mean, this is something

this Government said it would get done and we have got it done. It's

an issue that, like the rest of the country, has made my blood boil that

this man who has no right to be in our country, who is a threat to our

country and that it took so long and was so difficult to deport him but

we have done it. He is back in Jordan. That's excellent news.

And we're joined now by John Reid who, when a Labour Home Secretary,

also tried to deport Mr Qatada. You all did. It's it's quite a success

for Theresa May, though. Full credit to Theresa May. This has been a

long-running saga and it's a difficulty in a democracy that

politicians must act within the law. I am sure if we were acting on a

whim or frustrations he would have been on a plane long ago. But legal

process is layer upon layer of appeal. And the resolution of

Theresa May and indeed every other Home Secretary who sustained this

throughout has meant that the British people are now safer than

yesterday. They're also poorer, more than 1. .7 million and a lot of

years, a lot of lawyers I expect made a few bob out of this. It's

largely because you were constantly thawarted by the Human Rights Act

you interviewed, is that still right for purpose? It isn't largely

because of that. Long before we signed up to the Act the

international treaties against torture, for instance, were

deployed. There was all sorts - we were always a member of the

Convention of European Human Rights. Why has it never happened before?

What has never happened? It's taken eight years to get rid of someone

regarded as a serious threat to this country? You are underestimating the

number who are delayed for time after time and at the end of the day

people can say well, we have been here so long that you are disrupting

our family life, including convicted terrorists. So, there is a

frustration, if you are asking were we frustrated? Yes, of course we

were. Nothing that we would have liked better than to be in Theresa

May's position this morning. What's the one thing you would like to see

which means we haven't to spend another �2 million on eight years on

another case? I revise the immigration rules so the misuse of

some of the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights,

particularly the right to family life, is no longer an excuse for

people to - who have no respect for family life, who would blow up

families, can use that as an excuse to stay in this country. I am

delighted this morning, not least for the British people because while

everybody has rights, and Abu Qatada had rights, as well, once he settled

here, everybody has rights. The 65 million other British people had

rights, as well. The basic right is the right to life. Because without

life no other right can actually be enjoyed. It's good news. We need to

move on. We are going to talk about the Labour Party, that will surprise

you! Ed Milliband and his union backer

and bankroller, Len McCluskey, are having relationship issues at the

moment. Mr McCluskey is leader of Unite and has accused Labour of

smearing his union over allegations that it tried to hijack the

selection of a party candidate in Falkirk. There are claims Unite has

been throwing its weight around in other constituencies, too. Here are

the two men in action on Friday afternoon.

I am not going to let any individual, including men McCluskey

get in the way of upholding the integrity of this party. I am not

going to allow machine politics, bad practice, malpractice, even corrupt

practice, to besmish the integrity of Labour Party members up and down

this country. I am angry about this, incredibly angry by what's happened,

certain people have let down this party. I am not going to let it

happen. It's depressing that Labour Party leaders seem to want to have a

clause four moment, they've got to have a situation where they front up

union leaders. Ed doesn't need to front up me. I am his friend. I

support him. Yes, we have differences of opinion. Police

inquiry fine, we will investigate, I am sure the police have a lot better

things to do than this. Of course we will co-operate with that.

Ed Miliband, Len McCluskey, is this a defining moment for the Labour

leader? It's an important moment for the whole party. Because the

question here is not only the misuse of the rules and regulations which

has already been verying theed, Ed Miliband has referred to the police

-- investigated. It's a battle, a political battle between those who

want to take Labour back to the 70s and 80s as Len McCluskey does where

we represented the section sectional voice, and those like Ed Miliband

who want to see us move increasingly towards an open party which reaches

across class, across geography, gender, in which ordinary trade

unionists can play their part with many others. Make no mistake, this

is not an argument about trade unionists. There are millions of

decent people who are members of trade unions. The trade unions

themselves give them a voice, give them protection. It's about the

misuse of power allegedly of trade union bosses and only one or two

trade union bosses and Ed Miliband as he said in his article this

morning, has pointed out the direction in which the Labour Party

should move. You are in no doubt then that Unite's involved in a

long-term strategy for a left-wing takeover of the Labour Party?

no doubt that the leader of Unite wants to impose an idea logical

direction on the Labour Party that would lead us into political

oblivion. As it did in the 1970s and 1980s and that's why at heart this

is a political struggle. But it is not a struggle against trade

unionists or trade union unions. Like the Co-operative Society and

many not in any group, we want them in the party. I understand that.

MrMiliband has acted in Falkirk, whether Unite activities have been

the most coninterest version. Should he act to -- con troversial. You are

right he has acted. He's acted pretty quickly actually over six

weeks the Labour Party has frozen the selection process. It's

suspended members. What about the others? As regards the idealogical

battle what you have to do is read the article in The Observer today

where he makes it clear that the type of Labour Party for which we

are looking is modern, open, reaching out. I understand that. We

know from Unite's own words they're involved in trying to impose their

candidates all from the left on to 40 other constituencies. What should

he do about that? Well, I can't give you a detailed solution here but I

can give you a general approach to it. The key is to try and make sure

that trade unions like others who join the party do so directly,

rather than through the vehicle of trade union bosses. Because when you

do that you place them in the position that many very rich people

are placed in the Conservative Party where they are paying lots of money

and then trying to determine what the policies of that party will be.

This is a problem actually for all parties which is why I think Ed

Miliband's suggestion that you should have a cap, say �50,000

across parties of any contributions. People just don't think he's got it

in him to take on the likes of McCluskey. 22% of Labour voters

think he is a strong leader. Every challenge is also an opportunity. Ed

Miliband didn't particularly go looking for this fight. This fight

came to him. But I think he understands, as everyone else in the

Labour Party does, that a struggle of this nature which is in essence

politically is a determining struggle about the direction of the

Labour Party and I have no doubt in my mind that the direction in which

Ed Miliband wants to move, which is an open, modern, relevant party...

Is he tough enough to step up to the crease and take on Unite and Mr

McCluskey? The evidence of the last few days in his own words suggests

he is. This is not about personalities and shouldn't be, and

I read in some newspapers it's a replay of six or seven years ago,

this is too important for old skoerts to come into this. -- scores

to come into this. This is about the future of the Labour Party and this

country, my God, desperately needs a Labour Party to provide an

alternative Government. You have been writing about this, what do you

make of this? You are saying - it's not about old scores. Isn't the

political problem is that the Labour leadership are denouncing Unite for

their tactics in Falkirk, but on the political point is that for Unite,

for Len McCluskey the words Tony Blair are dirty words and a lot of

people around Ed Miliband who share that view and Tom Watson was the

general election co-ordinator, he shares that view. Until the Labour

Party doesn't regard the words Tony Blair as dirty words, are they not

going to struggle to connect? He was of course the Labour Party's most

successful leader. I dispute the Labour Party does regard Tony Blair

in that way. Secondly, if you are asking me if there was struggle

between two factions in the Labour Party years ago, the answer is yes,

I bear the scars on my back. I resigned the day Gordon Brown came

in, you remember, partly for this reason. The point I am making is

that today it is too costly to allow whatever divisions previously

existed to divide those forces which include most of what's called the

Blairites, most of what are called the Brownites, they should be united

together on what is a major struggle coming about the direction of the

Labour Party and we are on the same side on that. As far as I am

concerned it's far too important to allow those old things to interfere

with making sure the Labour Party survives and moves in the right

direction. What do you make of it, Miranda? There are people on Twitter

and elsewhere within the Labour Party trying to say this is an early

silly season story and the voter doesn't possibly even understand the

intricacies of the selection. As Dr Reid has said this is an important

moment for the Labour Party. I am intrigued by this article today. We

want to amend, not end, the union link. It's not really a link. It

looks to the public like ownership. Where do you end up to defuse that?

John Reid has given us an idea of where you think we should go. What

is your thought? This is the first time this week I have seen the real

essence being addressed, it's not The Unite's tackics. Ed Miliband has

been tenacious so far in going after the specific case of Falkirk. It's

the ultimate objective which they're candid about in their strategy

document and that's to move Labour Party to the left. If they succeed

it doesn't matter if they go about in the most blameless textbook

fashion, observe every rule, every protocol, it will be a probable for

the Labour Party. This is a party which has already struggled with

public opinion on issues like welfare and immigration and the

economy. Unite would have them move further away. The question is not is

Ed Miliband tough enough to deal with them and tactics, does he

believe Unite are wrong in their long-term vision for the party?

is the mid-term. This is a time when the Government's meant to be in the

doldrums and the opposition is meant to have a spring in its step and

instead we have Ed Miliband on the rack and David Cameron flipping

hamburgers. First of all, thank you for what I take was a compliment in

your opening remarks. I agree entirely with you. Profoundly. This

is a political struggle. When people look back at the successes of the

Labour Party over the dozen years we were in power, people tend to think

that power was just handed to us. It wasn't. It was derived out of a real

struggle inside the Labour Party to modernise us and we had to take on

militant, we had to take on Scargill and Bennites at various stages. That

was, unfortunately, a necessity in order to create what was the modern

forward looking Labour Party. Ed Miliband is now on the verge of that

struggle. It has been brought to him because as you said, there are one

or two trade union lieders, by no means them all by the way --

time. That's the struggle we are now engaged. I think Ed Miliband is up

for that. Do you listen to Drenge?I don't. But I understand Tom Watson

recommends them. The United Kingdom Independence

Party, UKIP is rapidly coming in from the fringes of politics to chal

enthe main parties. But how much do we know about their foot soldiers

and what they think? Well, with the help of a specially-commissioned

Sunday politics survey, Giles Dilnot UKIP are blooming. Once branded can

cranks and gladflies, even clowns. Their significant success in this

May's local elections in places like here in Buckingham and widespread

expectations that they'll do well in next year's European elections,

means owe Pope Benedict vents to take them seriously. -- means

opponents. For those who may not have

considered UKIP, there is a big question - once famously asked by

UKIP's leader himself. The question I want it ask - that we are all

going to ask, is - who are you? for the first time we really have a

chance to answer that question, thanks to a survey commissioned by

the Sunday politics and conducted by ComRes of 101 UKIP councillors

across England and Wales. Not only does it give us a clear view of who

they are, but what their political background is and what they really

think. Essentially it is the first survey

of UKIP councillors. We have a great response rate. #r50 % of UKIP

councillors from England and Wales responded to this within a week. --

50%. They are keen to share their views. Www. We caught up with three

to ask what they made of our survey. -- we caught up.

The first thing is, like most of their colleagues, they share a

political starting point. Cheers. I have been a Conservative voter for

years and years but not actually been a Conservative member. I think

I directed Chris away from Conservatives because he said - I

ought to go with the Liberal Democrats. I said - don't go there!

What about you, Paul? I was brought up in the '80s, in the time of

Margaret Thatcher. I remember her being such a strong leader. When I

could vote, I was a Tory voter but got disenchanted with the Tory Party

over European issues and two years ago, I joined UKIP. These are Tory

voters. 70% used to vote Conservative. One-third were active

members and have stood for the Tory Party in the past. Very few are

coming from other parties. 21% have previously been elected as

Conservative councillors and 33% have been Conservative Party

members. In terms of policy, immigration is the top issue for

UKIP councillors. More important than Europe. 76% of UKIP councillors

believe immigration has had a negative impact on Britain, over the

last 30 years. Immigration is a huge problem to people, even in leafy

Buckinghamshire. What you have got there is Labour obviously started

with the influx, 500,000 people coming in, and, of course, what they

see in Cameron and Clegg is just a free for all, open doors, come and

help yourself. The general public, they have recognised that there is

stress on every social service. Education, housing, NHS, the queues

are getting bigger. And we can't address it. I think it affects

everybody. If you think it doesn't affect you, then you are crazy. It

affects everyone. Absolutely everyone. An interesting result was

on the environment. 81% believed climate change is either not

happening, or human activity is not mainly responsible. I think I was

veering on that it has no affect, then I thought about it, that maybe

there was possibly an affect. But when we have got our policy man, Mr

Roger Helmer who has given papers with conferences and what have you,

it is all backed up that there is no truth that climate change is causing

all these problems. These are cyclic things that are happening. It is not

climate change. The majority of UKIP councillors support the death

penalty. 69% for the murder of a police officer. 70% for murders

committed by terrorists and 65% for child killers. I can see people are

generally fed up and they are saying - a lot of people these days across

the board - saying an eye for an eye, a tooth for a'. Also -- a' -- a

tooth for a tooth. There is no deterrent. People are

not frightened of prison. In some prisons it can be a comfortable

lifestyle. Your policy agenda, from the survey, is fairly right-wing.

Does that mean it'll be difficult to attract Labour voters to you?

challenge people and I knock on the people who have got Labour posters

in their windows. After about three or four minutes, I can tell you,

there is a good number that actually say, Mm, I agree with your policy.

Well, Labour supporters are the same as everybody else. They are normal

people, going on in normal days. They are not stupid. They want to

vote for someone who they can believe in. I think we are the party

to believe in. They believe that for so much, in the end, UKIP is a party

here to stay. If circumstances changed, would you go back to the

Conservatives? No, I don't. I'm a firm believer that UKIP now stands

on its own as oar party. Two years ago -- as a party. Two years ago I

might have said yes. Now I so believe what we stand for and what

we are doing, I think we now have a right to carry on as a party.

I'm sorry, I wouldn't go back to a party that has basically u-turned on

virtually everything and gone against traditional Conservative

vote voters... The damage has been done. Yeah, the damage is done.

Nigel Farage joins me now from Kent. This survey shows what people have

long-suspected. UKIP is a party dominated by Conservatives.

Disgruntled Conservatives. What it shows is that our elected

councillors are successes came predominantly in the south-east of

England and east of England. Where we broke through this year, were in

predominantly Conservative areas. These from shire elections taking

place on May 2nd. It is no surprise to me that 70% of that particular

survey had previously been Conservative supporters. You know,

had you gone to Barnsley or Rotherham or Middlesbrough, or any

of those by-elections which UKIP - or South Shields - in which UKIP has

been coming second in safe Labour seats, in by-elections, you would

have found there the vast majority of our voters had actually come from

the Labour Party. It does depend a bit what part of the country you go

to. But the area where the survey was done is not entirely a

Labour-free area. You have said you caused "an up-Welling of support

from people across the political spectrum." That's wrong. You draw

your support overwhelmingly from disgruntled Tories. Well if you go

to South Shields a constituency in which we had never stood before, a

place which has been solid Labour, where they have weighed the vote for

100 years n a very short by-election, we went from 0 to 25%.

Most votes coming from Labour voters. If you look at the European

elections in 2009, the areas in which we came first, places like

Hull, where UKIP was topping the poll, and places like wroth am ham

where we recently won -- Rotherham. You will see in those Labour areas

we are making progress. I think Mr Miliband's decision this week, not

at this stage anyway, to back a referendum on EU membership, means

that, you know, we will be attacking the Labour vote more and more over

the course of the next few months. If you look at the views of your

councillors, robust right-wing views on immigration, capital punishment,

climate change. Your party has clearly hoovered up Tories from the

right of the Conservative Party? Well clearly if we go to East Anglia

or the south-east of England you will find many traditional

Conservatives who look at David Cameron, who seems to be pryer

advertising gay marriage, climate change and keeping the foreign aid

budget as high as possible. -- pryer advertising.

They look at that and say they can't vote Conservative. We look at the

European manifesto and say at least there there are things we can agree

with. Yes, it is true that most UKIPers have views on immigration

but they are sincible views. We used to have 30,000 to 50,000 people a

year coming to live, work and settle in this country. Over the last ten

years it is 500,000. We are saying the time has come to get a grip and

get control. Actually that appeals right across the political spectrum

to people because it is plain, common sense. It looks like the main

function the UKIP will be to deprive the Tories of votes and seats. How

does it feel to be Ed Miliband's best hope of getting to Number Ten?

You have your briefing. You will stick to it. Nothing I will say will

change your mind. I will have one last try. When we had the Eastleigh

by-election in the late winter this year, the headlines the next day

were - UKIP deprived Tories of the seat. After that Lord Ashcroft spent

a considerable sum of money finding out who were the UKIP voters, where

had they come from and what were the key issues and reasons why they

voted UKIP. I'm thankful to Lord Ashcroft to save us from having to

do it. We saw one-third of the vote in Eastleigh came from the Tories,

one-third came from the Liberal Democrats. 20% came from old Labour

and 10% came from people who had not voted for anybody for 20 years but

felt with UKIP they could reengage for the process. The answer to your

question is simple: Of course we are picking up Tory votes and there is

huge disenchantment in Cameron. Many people believe the guy is not a

Conservative at all. But overall, the majority of our votes come to us

from parties other than the Conservative Party. This is not a

splinter group on the right of the Conservative Party. This is a new,

national party, not hide-bound by political correctness, prepared to

stand up and say things everybody else has tried to brush under the

carpet for decades. We are here and here to stay. If you are a threat to

all the parties, including Labour, why do you think it is that Stewart

Wood, a key figure in Ed Miliband's inner circle, he says you should be

allowed to join the preelection debates. We think we can discount it

because he is a fan of yours. It is because he knows you you will split

the Tory vote and let Labour in. Again you are sticking to the

script. It is fine if you want to do it. I keep repeatedly telling you,

we pick up more votes across the spectrum than we do just from the

Conservative Party. It is a fact, it is well-documented. Yet nobody

inside the London Metropolitan media mindset wants to accept it. We seem

to think that believing in Britain, it should govern itself, we should

have a trade relationship with Europe W we seem to believe it is

right-wing. Remember, it was the Labour Party, the left of the Labour

Party in the '70s and '80s even Neil Kinnock at one time, who believed in

that view. As for the TV debates. They are a long way away. I know

everybody is talking about the general election and what may or may

not happen. I would like to remind viewers on May 22 bed next year, we

have a magsal election and European election. -- May 22nd. Every one of

us is entitled to vote. On that day we have over 5,000 council seats up

for grabs. If UKIP is able, on May 22nd, to win the European elections,

I think keeping us out of the pre--election debates in '15 would

like slightly ridiculous. Would you agree with your councillors in our

survey that Britain today is a worse place because of immigration? ?

think that what has happened to Britain since 1997, with totally,

frankly unprestricted, excessive immigration has had a negative

effect on society. We have a million of our youngsters out of work, we

are prepared to open up the doors next January to the whole of

Bulgaria and Romania. So immigrants have made Britain a worse place?

think Britain is -- I think British market towns and cities have become

far more divided communities over the course of the last 15 years than

they were before and I'm sorry about that. Do you listen to Drenge?

that. Do you listen to Drenge? Sorry? Do you listen to Drenge? Um,

OK. I didn't hear that, I apologise. It is a group that Mr Tom Watson

listened to and recommended that Mr Ed Miliband listened to. I wonder if

you Z clearly from the look of your face, you didn't, you don't.

From a rather puzzled Kent we are joined by the Justice Secretary,

Chris Grayling. You say that voters shouldn't be tempted by that nice Mr

Farage. Why isn't he to be trusted? We have got an opposition that is

ahead in the opinion polls, that is showing all the signs of entryism

from the left that we saw in the 1980s. What we are hearing from

Falkirk and elsewhere is what we heard from parts of this country in

the 1980s when the militant tendency was looking to take over parts of

the Labour Party. We have a left-wing trade union leader,

overtly trying to take over the Labour Party and imposing a laeft---

left-wing agenda I asked you about MrFarage, why isn't he to be

trusted? Well, the issue - it's not about Mr Farage. It's actually about

who is going to form a Government after 2015. The article I wrote was

basically saying to people who are Conservative-minded look at what's

happening in the Labour Party, look at the challenge this country faces.

It would be disastrous for Britain if we ended up with Ed Miliband as

Prime Minister after the next election. If you you are lured by

other temptations, the smooth Patter of MrFarage you will end up with Ed

Miliband as Prime Minister and by looks of it you will end up with Len

McCluskey since we know selections that have already taken place have

imposed left-wing candidates into parliament who will have immaterial

impact on this country. We cannot afford as politicians on the right

to allow Ed Miliband and Len McCluskey and his team into Downing

Street. Why don't you take Muir -- make sure you stop that by doing a

deal with UKIP? It's not about deals with anyone. The issues of concern

in the survey, immigration is down by a third. We have capped welfare

to make sure that we limit the amounts of money that go to people

who are dependent upon benefits. We are delivering real changes to our

state schools system of the kind that Conservative supporters have

always wanted to see. I am delivering changes in the justice

arena. I announced today a review with changes ahead to the way we

look after young people, the perks available in youth offenders

institutions, already made changes to regimes in adult prisons. These

are things Conservative supporters have wanted to see for a long time.

They're happening today even though we are in coalition. Look at the

alternative. Take one issues people are concerned about, which is human

rights. We have seen in the last week my shadow, the person who would

be Justice Secretary and responsible for human rights in a Labour

Government, stand up and make a speech saying the current human

rights laws in this country are fine. I profoundly disagree with

that. In Government, in a majority we would change our human rights

laws but if people go and vote for someone else or stay at home we end

up with a Labour Government. Back to this point you seem reluctant to

talk about and instead bash Labour which is not what I am asking about

at all. We have seen that many people who might have voted for you,

who voted Conservative in the past, will now vote for MrFar and --

MrFarage. Maybe in enough numbers to give MrMiliband the keys to Downing

Street which you say would be a disaster and MrMcCluskey and the

rest of them. I ask again why don't you do a deal to stop that

happening? Well, you don't do deals. You fight for your principles, you

fight for what you believe is right. The Conservative Party isn't going

to go to a general election having done a deal with someone else. We

are going to a general election and fight on the principles we believe

in. If you take the issue of Europe, the one on which a number of people

have expressed concerns in the last few years. On Friday the entire

Conservative Party went to the House of Commons and voted for a

referendum on the European Union. We face opposition to that from Labour

and the Lib Dems. Not from UKIP. Why can't you do a deal with a party

that's already full of people who used to be Conservatives? Look, we

have to get legislation through the House of Commons. The reality of the

House of Commons is that it's Labour and the Lib Dems who have more votes

than us in the House of Commons. So therefore if we are going to win the

argument the only way we will be able to change these things, the way

we can deliver a referendum, a renegotiation first because that's

crucial, we have to have a renegotiation so there is a genuine

deal to offer, we have to get a majority Conservative Government.

understand that. But you are only trailing Labour by 6-10% in the

polls, it's not a huge amount Labour is ahead at the moment. A deal with

UKIP would make it much more likely that you form a Government after the

next election. You have seen the election projections, no deal with

UKIP, MrMiliband could win an overall majority with less than 35%

of the vote. Well, the deal I want to do is not with another party.

It's with voters. It's with voters who might be tempted to vote for

UKIP, voters who might be tempted to vote for the Labour Party or Lib

Dems. We have to say to them if you want a referendum on Europe, if you

want new human rights laws, to carry on with welfare reform, if you want

more education changes of the kind you believe in, if you want a

tougher criminal justice system you need a majority Conservative

Government. All right. Abu Qatada back in Jordan today. The Home

Secretary said in the aftermath of this we need to look at the European

Court of Human Rights and nothing should be off the table, quote. But

nothing off the table, does that include the possibility that we

would leave the European Convention on Human Rights? Yes, it does. We

have been very clear. We are currently doing detailed work on

options. I have personal responsibility within the

Ministerial team for human rights issues. We are currently looking at

what the options are for us. I have been very clear indeed, we are not

ruling anything in, we are not ruling anything out. I have said

clearly at a minimum there will be a replacement for the Human Rights

Act. We will have a fundamental change to our realise with the

European Court of Human Rights. We cannot go on with a situation where

we have people who want to do real damage to this country able to stay

here, when they represent a threat to us A future Conservative

Government with a majority, one of the options would be to leave the

convention altogether? One of the options, I have ruled nothing in and

out. A future Conservative Government with a majority will make

wholesale changes to human rights laws. The problem is not the

original convention written by Conservatives and is a sensible

document. It's the way in which the European Courts interpret it and

re-interpret it You can't change the convention yourself. You can't

change it. Well, that's why we are working through detailed options and

we will come up later this year with a clear plan. We will go to the next

election in our manifesto with a clear plan for change that will set

out exactly what we will do, when we will do it, how we will do it, what

the legal basis will be. We will have that in good time for the

election but I am absolutely clear there will be wholesale changes to

the way that human rights laws operate in this country. I am sure

UKIP will agree with you, but I understand there will be no deal,

you have made that clear. Thank you for joining us. Coming up in 20

minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead with our panel. Until

then, the Sunday Politics across the Sleer Hello. Welcome from us. Coming

up later, the row over new Government guidelines that allow the

public to film council meetings. Joining me andy Slaughter, Labour MP

for Hammersmith and neighbour neighbouring MP Conservative, Angie

Bray. Can we start with a local issue to you both, but you more so,

Andy. This Earl's Court redevelopment. Controversial plan.

It's been approved by the mayor just this week. The scheme involves

demolishing two estates and the Earl's Court exhibition centre to be

replaced with four so-called villages, a high street and

estimated 7,500 homes. There has been a lot of opposition,

campaigners argue the loss of Earl's Court would damage trade and that

the centre should be listed. There's been a lot of opposition from you.

Here we are, all the legal challenges have come to nothing. You

have to go with this now, haven't you? Where to start. 7,500 homes in

villages, well, these are villages 30-storeys high. They'll all be sold

off plan for a millionsold off plan for a million plus to foreign

investors or city investors and to do that, to make a development two

or three things are happening. Councils are selling their land at

huge undervalues. Secondly, they're knocking down good quality newly

modernised affordable homes, houses with gardens to do that. They're not

bll --... Local residents campaign, one quoted this week saying this is

exciting. A new home. They found that resident, did they? She wasn't

alone. I can talk about 90% of the 2,000 people living currently in

those homes who want to enjoy homes, who are against this, who have

petitioned to say they don't want their homes demolished and have been

ignored by Boris Johnson, by the councils. This is developers riding

roughshopped with the collision of Tory politicians -- roughshod.

exhibition centre, the trade point, it brings a lot of trade, a lot of

activity to that area. It's been long-established. You are happy to

see a yuppification of this area, social cleansing again? I think that

it's less political in fact than Andrew is making out. Over in Newham

the Labour council there is having precisely the same debate with

residents about wanting to do major refurbishment work, regeneration

work on an estate. This isn't about Tory politicians trying to bring

innupies, it's about -- yuppies. I was the GLA member for the area that

includes this part of London for eight years. I know it well. It is a

tired area. It's an isolated get owe. -- ghetto. Every person who

lives in the area are going to be given a new home complete with new

fittings, money as compensation for the inconvenience of having to move.

They will be included in the development. What's not to like?

Well, I am afraid is you describing my residents as living in a ghetto.

These are actually - this is a mixed community. About half the

properties, near to half, have been sold under right to buy.

Professional people live there, low income people as well, they have a

right to live in London. They shouldn't be forced out of London.

This is both Jerry mannedering and social engineering. They've been

given homes. 10% - against guidelines of 40% of all housing,

there is 10%... Affordable housing on top of all the houses that are

going to be built for the people who are going to be given a replacement

home. The 10% comes on top of that. I do think that people deserve to be

given an updated home. Why should they be forced to live in an area

that's running down? Surely this is an opportunity to really uplift the

area and everyone will benefit. Anybody who thinks the Tories are

demolishing working people's homes in order to help them when 990%

don't want is -- 90% don't want... We could spend the next 20 minutes

talking about this, but we will return to it. Let's move on. The

department forever he had -- for education released a list of new

free schools. They can be set up by parents, charities and businesses

and so on. One of these proposed schools came as a shock to a London

council which had been making other plans for the earmarked site.

Jennifer Conway has more. Once upon a time this was the home

of Ashmount Primary School, the building was old and according to

the council unsuitable for a school. They moved to a new site last year

and planned to sell this land to developers to build over 100 homes.

But here in Islington they've had to go back to the drawing board as a

few weeks ago when the list of proposed free schools to open next

year was published they discovered one was already earmarked for that

site. Islington Free Primary is the school in question. It's to move to

the old Ashmount site and is one of the schools in London that's been

given a tentative green light. Half the Government's new free schools

are in London. This one is backed by the private education company

Bellview and they're aiming to open doors next year. The first we heard

is when we saw the name of the Borough on the list. We had no input

and were never consulted. We are probably the one Borough in London

who don't need a new school. We have enough places for parents and

pupils. We don't have a problem, certainly not in that part of the

Borough. These concerns were echoed in Westminster. Can he explain to

parents in areas where they're struggling to get children into

primary schools where why is he spend spending money building

schools when there are plenty of places? He asks about new schools.

That is code for Labour's opposition to free schools. We want more new,

good schools. The Department for Education told us that no final

decision had yet been taken. We have identified the former site as a

possible site for an approved Free School and are in contact with the

Islington say they'll be doing all they can to stop the planned school

in the meantime. Do you think this is right, that

point here that the first a local authority knows about a building it

owns, it has had a school in is when a list is published saying it's a

free school to go in there? I don't know the process by which this was

done. I don't know who knew what. Does that sound right in terms...

Sounds messy. The principle is they're still discussing it and no

decision has been made. Clearly this is a not a definite site and by what

the report says that's something that's going to be sorted between

them Isn't the interesting thing they don't need a school for primary

pupils there and not particularly in this area and this is a building

they've been able to make a decision about and they want it to be used

for something else, in fact, for housing? If the point you are make

something that this particular borough doesn't vb a shortage of

free school places, you shouldn't be putting free schools in there, I

disagree. You need to look at this as a shortage of good quality school

as a shortage of good quality school places. The fact there are school

places, doesn't mean the parents want to take them up. The principle

of the free schools in the first place. Well, they had planned around

this land and created a new school and someone comes along and stops

that. Speaking from my borough, there is a shortage of housing and

also school places. We have a borough looking to provide both. I

must say it is doing a good job. have two free schools. We have a

free school which will be up and running later this year. The key

issue from you I want to hear about, I know that Ealing has a particular

need for places, do you think any new school in Ealing should be a

free school? Yes. No more community schools? Why not? What is wrong with

the local schools? We have some good local schools but we need

alternatives. The great thing is providing parents about greater

choice. Parents wouldn't be agitating for free schools if it

wasn't for the fact that they feel they are not being given what they

want in what the schools provide. This is an assessment made by the

parents t.s not for me to argue with them. I think we reflect that by

providing wider choice. Andrew talks about agitation and parents

speaking. No better example for that than the first set up in your

constituency, Toby Young's free school. People wanted it. I don't

have a problem with free schools, any giving children a good

education. The problem I have is where it is topdown from Whitehall,

when we were told it was about localism. When you are displacing

activities. Those 100 homes in Islington were going to be

affordable homes for local people. This isn't Hammersmith where they

are for the super rich. Islington has a brilliant record in building

affordable homes. We are going to have seven free schools in

Hammersmith. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem that

every penny the council can get out of the Government, or the Government

gives directly into education, will go into free schools or academies.

It will not go to community schools even though they desperately need

investment and are very good schools. It is the bias and the -

and this focus on only having... is the responsiveness to parents or

people or organisations that want to set up the schools. I've never had a

letter from the a parent which said - I want my school to be turned into

a free school or I want a new school and I want it to be a free school.

Lots of letters about the conditions of schools. Some letters about the

standard of education. Mainly we have really, really good,

particularly primary schools, in west London. Let's be clear from

what you did. There is a certain amount of uncertainty about Labour's

position. Would you say no more free schools. I would say a level playing

field. No more free schools? When we get into power, I don't think we are

going to try and unravel any successful school that there is. And

I visit free schools in the exact same way as I visit community and

church schools and all of that, if they are providing good education,

good on them. What I want to see is children put before politics. At the

moment with Gove, you have politics, politics, politics. We have to move

on. OK. Should you be allowed to film, photograph or record your

local council meetings? Last month the Government issued new guidelines

for local authorities, including greater transpancy. The result?

Well, in some cases people have tried to seize their opportunity,

only to find some councils are not so receptive to the idea. Our first

report on this historic parliamentary day... Spending on

people who are sick and disabled has very nearly doubled... This was the

first debate for the House of Commons to be broadcast on TV. Now,

nearly 25 years on, ministers say they want local councils to be

opened up to modern technology in a similar way. People are blogging,

tweeting, social media and the use of YouTube is growing. We want

people to have access to see things and know what is going on in their

council. I think it is right that councils open up and work with

people. At the same time there has to be a balance. People shouldn't be

disrupting meetings. If they want to recall meetings, they ought to be

able to notify the council to make that practical. I am eeye lowed. --

I'm allowed. But disruption is being caused. My Government says I can do

this. My Government is filmed. The London Assembly is filmed. Two weeks

ago at this meeting of Tower Hamlets Council, a resident filming the

meeting was asked to stop but refused. OK, we will take a

five-minute adjournment. Government allows me, this is

England, we are democratic. Looking back at the footage, a week later,

the man doing the film told us it was the Government's new guidance

that sparked him into doing it. was inspired by his words. I thought

they were completely correct. We, the residents of Tower Hamlets know

nothing about what happens within Tower Hamlets Council. All we see

are these terrible, damning programmes on television about Tower

Hamlets Council and we need to know what is happening within the

council. Tower Hamlets declined to take part in the programme but told

us the Government rules only apply to Cabinet meetings rather than full

council which is where the incident took place. Nevertheless, "At the

outset of a council meeting on 26th June 2013, the Speaker confilmed she

is keen to move towards filming of proceed proceedings but in a planned

manner with proper protocols in place to support any new

arrangements." But across London this week in Hammersmith and Fulham,

members of the public were already given permission to film

proceedings. Does the council support the aims of the Save our

Hospital campaign? The council has supported the campaign to protect.

The local authority also welcomed in our cameras. Not because of the

Government, they say, but the spirit of openness. We are all for having

the cameras in to film what we do. We want it done properly, though.

Who decides what is proper? I think the rules have to reflect what the

policy is. And I'm aware our rules probably don't reflect the openness

that I'm now talking about and we are going to look into that and see

what we can do. But, for the moment the old rules are still in place.

Youp can't film at a council meeting, without permission of

whoever is running it. -- you can't. At the beginning of this, everyone

had to be a vote that the BBC would be allowed to film T but as a

procedural bell for the meeting rings, the opposition tell us, they

are not impressed. I'm a little bit surprised. The credit will rest with

you and the Sunday Politics. They have never done this before. We have

asked them to do it at least on one occasion form lane they have not. --

formally. If you look at the wider issues, there must be 150 people

outside protesting about hospital closures and they are being told

only 50 are allowed in. addressing the protesters outside,

local Labour MP, Andrew Slaughter. The Conservatives here were quick

ton point out to us that the filming restrictions were introduced by him

in 2003 when he was Leader of the Council. Instructions imposed

introduced by yourself, not letting cameras into meetings. I think they

heard the Labour Leader now saying it was something, you know they felt

should happen a lot and were complaining to the Conservatives

about it. It was a long time ago. 2003, I believe. Can I say, Tim, my

experience is slightly different. When you are actually in Government

or run the council, then we don't want them in, when you are the

opposition and there are lots of protesters outside, then you do.

What I certainly never did - which is what happened to me a few weeks

ago - I tried to take a photograph, knots to film, but take a photograph

of the planning decision. -- not to film. Of the planning decision to

not down 760 of my residents' homes when the planning committee was

voting to do that. Two burly security guards tried to confiscate

my phone and throw me out. The few you are getting from Hammersmith

council was probably pre-arranged for the day for the BBC to show you

how open they are. Normally they are more testy. They say they are going

to review the restrictions that were put in place by one Mr Slaughter. At

last, let transparency reign. answer is, in social media, we are

in a completely different world now. I think everybody is waking up to

the fact that the more you resist, the public knowing what is going on,

whether the public want to know what is going on, is another matter.

is very rude not to have introduced you, but bring you in, but Colin

Campbell has been listening, deputy leader of Bexley Council. Everyone

is waking up to social media. Recently you had someone recording a

meeting and disrupted the meeting, according to you, and you called the

police. An overreaction, isn't it? Not really, the people concerned

belonged to a small group of people locally that have a had Is triof

disrupting meetings and being abusive. -- have a history of. It

was only called after the meeting was stopped four or five times. The

chairman was called to get them to behave. They refused to do so. They

wouldn't leave the room. The minister gave us a statement saying

they thought it was a very interesting use of police resources

and said it was a real shame. Well, it was a use of police resources. It

took them an hour to get there. That shows you how police resources are

in London. He was saying it wasn't a great use. You might say it is not a

great use of police resources but when you have a group of people that

are being abusive, they are breaking up a meeting. Do you think the

filming is part of that, because they are playing to the cameras?

films was not the issue. It was obvious from the beginning they were

there to disrupt the meeting. They have a history of disrupting...

Let'slike at the history. Are you going to allow cameras to film?

Let's look. We allow cameras, already. Similar to the clip you

have seen. If you want to film, you calls on the say saying you want to

film. You don't have to give a reason. Usually it is an

organisation. We have allowed filming that we know. In the case of

these individuals, they did not do that. Two seconds before the meeting

started they stuck a camera - sorry, an iPhone about six inches from the

face of the chairman and insisted... You saw that as specific

circumstances. Incidentally do your web cast your council meetings?

are looking at doing it? Why not?I will tell you why not. The building

we are in at the moment is 40 years old and falling to bits. We are

refurbishing a building nearby and putting into the cabling to do that.

There will be a meeting in September and they'll look at the guidance out

to the public and the existing guidance to enable... You would like

to screen most or all of these meetings. I can't speak for all the

councillors. Points well-made are how many peep want to see t we have

seen some councils spend �250,000 and have 17 people looking at it.

Transparency is important. It can cost a lot of money. It need not

cost money. The key point is when we have people to film, and I think it

is right they should - everything else is, and certainly it is right

that City Hall and Parliament gets filmed. And there were a debate

about that at the time you may recall but I think it is important

there is common sense. People should say in advance - I'm going to be

coming and I want to film. Prior permission. We have decided on that

You have to take account of people and children we have come to the

meetings. The answer is, most of the time it is dull. Worthy but dull.

Occasionally you have a Tory council supporting the closure of its local

hospitals and the public get excited. That might be dull. This

isn't. Colin Campbell, thank you very much. What else has been

happening this week? Here is what in infrastructuring in London. In a

letter to the Times he wrote -- if reserves are swhal can be exploited

in London we shall leave no stone in London we shall leave no stone

uninfrastructuringed. -- unfracked. Campaigners of closure to Lewisham

you hospital have taken their campaign to the High Court. Jeremy

Hunt told MPs in January that Accident & Emergency and maternity

services in the south-east London hospital would be downgraded.

The Government has announced the herbal stimulant khat should be

banned. It is a plant that's chewed used by Somali, Yemeni and Ethiopian

communities. The move comes after the Government's official drugs'

advisor concluded it should not be banned. The UK. 's widely-known

off-sure windfarm, London Array has opened this week. It is claimed its

1 # 65 turbines are capable of generating enough clean energy to

power nearly 500,000 homes. -- 165. Angie Bray, look at those, why on

earth do we want shale gas? We have discovered we have an awful lot of

shale in this country. Not under London probably. Well, there could

be. Let's have common sense. The I am the voice of common sense. You

will frack where it is easiest to access first and there are better

places in London but as technology gets better, it maybe that every

part of this country has to play its part. Wind or shale? Wind certainly.

I think the jury is out on fracking. Until we know more about the science

and effects, I think it would be foolish to rush into that. Often

these things are seen as a silver bullet to solve the energy crisis.

20 seconds to go on khat. Been criminalised, a lot of Somalis in

your constituency, do you agree? do. I have a lot of people come to

my surgery saying there are worried about khat and they think it is

quite demotivating for young people who tend to use it and they think it

should be made illegal, not least because we have all the supplies

coming through this country to go to other countries where it is banned.

Thank you very much. Andrew. Back to Thank you very much. Andrew. Back to

Thank you very much. Andrew. Back to you. In a moment we look ahead to

next week. First the news. Good afternoon. The radical Muslim

cleric, Abu Qatada, has arrived in Jordan after being deported from

Britain. He left on a plane from RAF Northolt overnight and has been

taken to a court in the capital Amman this morning. It brings to an

end eight years of legal wrangling. Our political correspondent Ross

Hawkins reports. Abu Qatada on his way out of

Britain. For years, Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers wanted to see

this sight, for years he frustrated them. A new treaty meant he could

finally be put on a plane to Jordan where he's twice been convicted in

his absence of supporting terror plots and where he will now face a

re-trial, happy news for the Prime Minister. I was absolutely

delighted. I mean, this is something this Government said it would get

done and we have got it done. It's an issue that, like the rest of the

country, has made my blood boil that this man, who has no right to be in

our country, who's a threat to our country and it took so long to

deport him but we have done it. He is back in Jordan. That's excellent

news. And now the Government wants to

change the rules that it says made Abu Qatada so difficult to deport.

They want fewer appeals in immigration cases, more published

plans in the autumn. Conservatives want what they say would be a

fundamental change in Britain's relationship with the European Court

of Human Rights, which they blame for delaying this case. One of the

options would be to have nothing more to do with this court. Lib Dems

in Government would oppose a change like that. And any plans would have

to wait until the next Conservative manifesto. What we need to do is

ensure that yes, of course we protect human rights and this

country has a fine record in relation to the protection of human

rights but we want to make sure that when there is somebody in this

country who is dangerous and somebody in this country who poses a

threat to this country that we are able to remove them. With Abu Qatada

finally landed on Jordanian soil, how best to achieve that balance

will be contested and the world will watch to see whether he gets the

fair trial here promised by Jordanian officials and expected by

British politicians. Police in Canada say they expect the

number of casualties to rise after a tanker train was derailed and

exploded in a small town in Quebec. One person is confirmed dead, but

dozens remain unaccounted for in the town of Lac-Megantic. More than

2,000 people have been evacuated. The train was carrying crude oil

when it apparently began to roll away after being parked by its

driver. Andy Murray will attempt to win his

second Grand Sslam title when he plays the World Number One Novak

Djokovic in the Wimbledon men's singles final this afternoon. All

15,000 tickets for Centre Court have been sold, but many queued overnight

in the hope of watching the game on the big screen inside the All

England Club. That's all the news for the moment.

Now back to Andrew. Thanks, Maxine. So will Andy Murray

beat Novak Djokovic later today? Will England thrash the Aussies at

Trent Bridge? Will MPs shout, hooray, we've been recommended a pay

rise? And what does John Prescott have in common with Chris Huhne,

John Stonehouse and Jonathan Aitken? All questions for the Week Ahead and

John Prescott is in our Hull studio ready to answer one of them. What do

you have in common with them is that you resigned from the Privy Council

this, in your case over lack of progress on Leveson. What do you

think that will achieve? Well, first of all, it's my choice, probably out

of all that group either removed from or involved in scandal, that's

not my case, but I am a member of the Privy Council which parliament

in dealing with the Leveson proposals came to a compromise to

use a Royal Charter and to use the Privy Council for that. I believe,

therefore - I accepted that there might be a way forward if they all

agree, I suspect now what the Government's doing is putting the

press post -- proposal opposite to what parliament agreed on the fast

track and that means the delay, that delay you talked about yourself,

Andrew, in the last 70 years, seven inquiries, all the recommendations

have been avoided about the abuse of the press. Simply because they

delayed it. If we go this way this Wednesday, as I am sure the Prime

Minister's now said, and they put the press alternative, which is a

divided one, not supported by all the press, put it on the fast-track,

that could take 15 months. That will take us to the bebeginning of the

2015 election by January. That's got all the signs of being, delay, delay

again. Successful for the press to protect itself but not good for the

victims or parliament itself. your claim that the Prime Minister

is complicit in kicking this into the long grass? He said the

alternative newspaper proposals had serious shortcomings. He is not

supporting them, are you saying he is complicit in kicking the official

version into touch? I believe it to be double talk. Let me tell you why,

when the Prime Minister said first of all in March after parliament had

passed it he would put parliament's proposal to the Privy Council in

May, he never did. Now we are getting to the July one and he says

I am going to put the press one first. That means it's November for

parliament's declared view of which the press alternative is against,

it's entirely different. It's not independent, it's not free, etc,

like the one proposed by parliament. I think what will happen here as a

politician using my judgment, that's all we can do, if he then finds that

the press one, which is the only one you can deal with to get before the

next election, by this process, and he then says those things that

annoyed me before, we have cleared them talking to them, let's go ahead

with the press one. You know, I think that's going to happen. If I

wait to find out until July, which is the latest time it can happen --

January, I will be annoyed about that. I am now saying to people,

look, two charters, very different to each other. One independent, one

controlled by the press. Under those circumstances, it's controversial

for the Privy Council to agree or disagree that process on Wednesday

will bring a conflict between the monarchy and indeed parliament's

declared view. All right. Moving on to one subject to take advantage of

you on the programme. John Reid, your former colleague said earlier

that Ed Miliband and Len McCluskey had two different version visions

have -- visions of what Labour should stand for. What side are you

on? I am on the side of the Labour Party. I think Ed Miliband is

carrying out as leader his obligation, whether a complaint by

members, to investigate them. I might say to Len, I know in the T

and G as it was, now Unite, they investigate complaints about vote

circumstances. Leaders have to do that. There is April inquiry. Let's

-- there is an inquiry. Ed is the leader, elected by members. He now

has to deal with change. When I was involved in a strike I was called

politically motivated, that's the nature of trade union activity.

Clause four and one member, one vote, highly controversial. That's

the nature of the party. Let's have more open debate on it. Less

accusations, less personal and then get on with the real problem which

is funding our political parties. The no longer right honourable John

Prescott, we will leave it there. Thank you for joining us. I still

feel the same! You look the same! You sound the same, as well. Let me

pick up on this Labour story. Where does this Miliband and McCluskey

standoff go now? Well, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party

has informed us Ed Miliband is leader of the Labour Party and that

feels like Jim Mortimer saying we have full confidence in Michael Foot

of the party. When you are using that language you think, oh, dear.

The problem with the Labour Party is it feels like an organisation that

really is nowhere near power. I think where we go with this is that

Ed Miliband as he said in The Observer wants to mend but not end

the Labour Party's relationship with unions and what he is going to want

to do is mould that in his image. They're saying you would change the

union Levy, at the moment you can opt out, you would opt in and it

would be individual union members saying that they're making the

donation. Your money would go to the Labour Party? Whatever it is you

sake, it would go there rather than MrMcIncludes yk I? The significance

-- McCluskey. And yes, with the unions, as well. Should the Tories

enjoy this moment? It may be brief, but it is remarkable at this stage

in the political cycle, we have Ed Miliband on the rack and MrCameron

flipping burgers? The Conservative Party is far more cheerful than it's

been for a long time and this has added to its feeling of exuberance

and confidence. I thought even in your interview with Chris Grayling

there is this sense they have the confidence to say, whether it's just

this little run of good luck they've had, including the Ed Miliband

affair, to say you know we are now on course for the general election.

Some of them are saying they could get an outright Conservative

majority and part of that is because the Labour Party's talking to

itself. Not to the country. MrCrosby has given them talking points now,

as MrGrayling illustrated they are determined to use. If I ask about

America he will tell me about India. If I ask about India, he will tell

me about China. I am not sure that's wise. Someone said don't interrupt

your opponent while he is making a mistake. I wonder whether the Tories

might be better advised to allow what's happening in the Labour Party

to continue happening. It should be said also if Ed Miliband becomes

Prime Minister he will have to deal with Vladimir Putin, with tougher

people than Len McCluskey. If you are a voter, it's rationale actually

to infer from this a broader impression of how tough he would be

on the international stage as Prime Minister. The point I made last week

was that ten years ago he would have had James Purnell, Steven Buyers on

his side, that Labour right has the last decade. MPs' pay coming up this

week and reports that an independent body is going to recommend a rise.

It's not going to happen, is it? I don't think there is any way it

can happen. You can't have a country being asked to tighten its belt

again and again and have parliament getting more expensive and MPs, who

the survey is interesting, behind their recommendation it shows most

people don't know what an MP does. When they understand what a GP does

who is paid now about �100,000 a year you can't argue an MP is

underpaid and if the public doesn't understand what this service

provides. Legally it has to happen. Parliament had a loss of confidence

and handed the process to them and it's a package. They looked at the

allowances and now they're looking at pay. They say the two are link

because the reason why you have the mess over allowances is because the

pay was too low. It's interesting. Ian Kennedy has a piece in the

Sunday Times today and in there he says overall, we are going to reduce

the cost of politics. When I spoke to David Cameron about this last

week on a trip with other journalists he didn't rule out the

pay rise. He did say is the overall costs have got to come down.

symbolism of the MPs getting a rise at the moment when everybody's

else's pay is frozen. The symbolism is toxic. It's an idea whose time

will never come. They can never win. It's the Tim Henman of the

political ideas. But not Andy Murray. On that point let's move on.

Be there to cheer on Andy Murray. I am sure he is going to win. Next