01/04/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland


Andrew Neil and Isabel Fraser present. Including an interview with health secretary Andrew Lansley about his proposed reforms to the NHS and what they would mean for patients.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/04/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



George Galloway conjured up a Sten -- an astonishing by-election


victory. Has he knocked the stuffing out of Labour?


The Health and Social dead -- Care Bill gets through Parliament at


last. But what does it mean for Andrew Lansley? And here:


Sccusations that the Scottish Government's referendum


consultation is rigged as the Westminster one shows support for


an early vote. The gas leak that keeps leaking in


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1799 seconds


the North Sea. Are the risks of Deal care if the private sector


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1799 seconds


We are seeing productivity increase in the NHS where it did not


increase under Labour. So NHS hospitals will be in a strong a


place to provide the services patients need. If you are re-


elected in 2015, can you give a guarantee that there will be no


further reorganisation? legislation is very clear...


can't? Can you give a pledge that there will be no a major


reorganisation from 2015? For my point of view and I am sure it will


be the same for David, the legislation was to deal with all of


the issues required and the reforms, in order to sustain the NHS in the


21st century, so to that extent, absolutely, it should give


sustainability for a long period of time. And you won't enforce some of


the changes asked by the Lib Dems and the Lords? No. You talked about


amendments but in the Lords, we made amendments through a process


of constructive debate and agreement. There were 32 votes in


the Lords and we actually only lost two, one of which we accepted, and


another where Lord Patel of Bradford put forward another


suggestion which we are unhappy with. It has a great degree of


sustainability. Do you have any regrets? Yes. A year ago, we had to


stop the legislation to have a full engagement with NHS staff. Although


we consulted on the white paper more than 18 months ago, many of


the organisations that responded did not get to grips with what was


in the legislation, said to have had that kind of engagement with


the NHS Future Forum would have been better earlier. Given your


unpopularity among swathes of health professionals, would it not


be better to let somebody else come in and implement these reforms?


Your damaged goods in the eyes of health professionals? That is very


kind of you to say so! Others say different things. That comes from


the trade unions. What they are all now is that for eight-and-a-half


years as my party spokesman, I have been an advocate and supporter of


the NHS. We have increased resources for the NHS in real terms


each year. Has it destroyed your political career? No, it hasn't.


you still have one? I have a passion for ensuring the NHS is in


a stronger place in the future to give greater service and benefits


to patients. All right. We have run out of time. Delivering quality for


patients in the future will absolutely be my aim. Thank you. We


will talk to you in the future if you are still Secretary of State


for Health. You are watching Sunday Politics. Still coming up...


Good afternoon and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up


on the programme, a new war of words on the independence


referendum. It could take six months to resolve


the gas leak at the Total platform near Elgin. Is the price of deep


sea drilling too great? Should the drink-drive limit be


lowered in Scotland? We hear from a campaigner who says a lower limit


would save lives. I feel like an episode of Casualty. When I stood


up, I thought they should shout, cut, and then I realised it was


real. I was lying down. But first, Westminster and Holyrood


are at loggerheads once more over the independence referendum. This


time it's over whose consultation process is more valid. The UK


Government says its consultation shows that there is a clear


majority in favour of an early ballot. Meanwhile, opposition


parties are challenging the validity of the Scottish


Government's referendum consultation after it emerged


people could respond anonymously and multiple times. Our reporter


Laura Bicker has more. So, there were two consultations on


both side of the border. 3,000 people replied to Westminster. They


included individuals and business representatives. 70% of people said


they would like a referendum earlier than in the autumn of 2014.


22% supported the Scottish government timescale. The UK


Government said none of the replies were anonymous and they did not


accept multiple replies in the same name. But it has emerged north of


the border, that was allowed. The Scottish government's consultation


does accept anonymous contributions and multiple submissions. We have


got a First Minister voting about how many responses -- boasting


about how many responses he has received but people are sitting at


home sending in the same answers. We need confidence in this


consultation because we are talking about the future of our country.


need to be able to rely on having no leaks. They have to publish


every submission they receive. We can then get some idea as to how


many responses were anonymous and therefore how much suspicion we


might have. The Scottish government said they had more than 10,000


replies. The consultation will run until 11th May.


Joining me now art Stewart Hosie and Anas Sarwar. Stewart Hosie,


let's start with the SNP government consultation of. What kind of


confidence can the public have had a consultation process that allows


a anonymous responses and modelled for responses from the same


address? They can have a great deal of confidence because it will be


independently verified. Let's get to the fact. The Scottish


government's consultation uses exactly the same rules used in 2004


by Labour on the smoking ban consultation. And the same that we


used in 2006 in the tourism bill consultation in the name of


Patricia Ferguson. And even the Calman Commission and utterly


accepted but published anonymous entries. The information into the


Scottish government's consultation was far larger than the UK one. It


will be independently verified and published, I am sure, as was said.


Do you accept people can make multiple anonymous comments and


submissions to this consultation? Are you saying there is some way in


which this can be just rolled out later on in the process? -- called


out. Well, during the process, it is made clear when there is a


number of the duplicates. The rules being used are exactly the same as


being used in every single other consultation. Given the importance


of this referendum and given that, for example, even pro-independence


supporters might question the credibility of this consultation,


why did you not put in roles like Westminster did, saying, no


multiple submissions and no multiple ones? Because there was


used are exactly the same as used in a Labour bill and the Calman


Commission. I understand you are saying there is a degree of


hypocrisy, but as somebody now who is commenting on the Scottish


government and its proposals, do you think the public, the wider


public, can have confidence in this? I think they can. We


understand from the rumours that half the consultation responses to


the UK Government's very small consultation came through a website


poor tour run by the Labour body. I think if there is any question over


the efficacy, it should be over the UK one. It was so self-selecting


that half the submissions came from members of one political party.


What are you saying when this consultation closes in May? Who


will verify what was a legitimate vote and what was not? These are


not votes, these are submissions. Yes, I understand. Who will verify


they are from one single person and who they are from? It will probably


be verified and the findings will be published as normal in house.


if that is the case, there will be no problem. Surely it is the same


process as consultations in the past? Firstly, it is not, because


you don't even have to submit any form of identity to put in an


anonymous response. And you can put in an -- multiple responses. They


also go on about how many responses they have received and putting that


to the figure to the UK response, where Bobby did have to put in an


email address and proof of identity. On the Labour party's own website,


you have to put in your name. It is not anonymous. But you could put in


multiple response is? -- Malta poor responses? You can see who has put


in a response would their name and email address. And then the


validity of the process itself, it is clear having a consultation


process where you can put in multiple responses and anonymous


without any email address or name is not only open to abuse, it is


designed for abuse. That is a very significant accusation here,


Stewart Hosie, that you have to sign this for abuse. You are


actually saying that the SNP are trying to rig this? Is that how you


read it? The responses through the Labour Party website are being


monitored but that is worrying if Labour are able to monitor


responses through the website to a public consultation. That is


extremely concerning. If what I said was that individual email


addresses and names that will go in our inner responses. I am making


that accusation... This is more about Alex Salmond's legacy for


Scotland. What we need is a robust process that the people of Scotland


We have had exactly the same at roles in any other consultation. We


did not just take the enormous admissions. I find it disgusting


that the good people of Scotland entering this consultation honestly


and openly are being talked down and having entries minimised


crassly by the Labour Party. What about the idea that we have got a


predetermined intention to break this referendum? Clearly, that is


absolutely false. This is a public consultation. People can submit any


response they want and quite rightly. It will be considered by


the Scottish government as part of the process of the referendum in


2014 and the idea it has been at rate is an appalling accusation by


the Labour Party. What will be processed be to ensure that we have


not got multiple responses by SNP members? He said it would be buried


for -- unverified. By whom? -- and verified. We have to move on to the


consultation that is talking about an early timescale as opposed to be


preferred 2014 timescale. What do you think? They clearly fear the


verdict of the Scottish people. What do you think would be


appropriate? It should be as quick and clear as possible. What about


the legal process. I think we should be open to having a


referendum earlier rather than later because it is undermining


confidence. You support 2013? soon as possible. What is your


response to be 70 % in favour of an earlier time scale? We might well


have people keen to see Scotland Independent and they want the


referendum sooner rather than later but I think 2014 makes sense. The


consultation will tell us what people think about that. It is a


big decision and it is important we get it right and consider issues


properly be. We should not rush this port narrow party advantage.


This is what the public say they want. You are not convinced?


winners are half of the people wanting this are Labour Party


members. It is not really a public vote, is it? Thank you for coming


in today. As gas leaks from the Elgin Platform, Total is


considering pumping marred to plug it. It has got rigs available to


draw off the gas and allow be well to be sealed. It is an expensive


option and could take six months. Total have asked companies involved


in the Deep Water Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to help.


Professor Martin Preston is a pollution expert from the


University of Liverpool. How dangerous do you think this


situation remains, even though the flair has gone out? Now declare has


gone out, that has taken out one significant risk. But we have got a


big gas leak at risk because it is coming out on the platform and it


will be difficult to seal it off. It will take a long time to fix.


Can people be put back on that timetable in the foreseeable


future? The decision will not be easy. You are putting people into


dangerous situations and it will be a hazardous environment with Gas


meeting. You need to get to a stage where the area of greatest risk has


been sorted out. A small event like a static discharge from a piece of


clothing or a dropped to all causing a spark, that could cause a


calamity and that is what everybody wants to avoid. A great deal of


thought will have to go into putting people back on the platform


and I am sure Total will be exploring the options without


having to put people at risk. what happens has to be digging out


double Wells, that could take six months. Possibly, yes. If they have


to do that, this particular area is not in deep water but be well


itself is buried deep. -- buried deep. The League has come from an


unexpected pocket of gas. -- extremely deep. It is leaking gas


coming from a subsidiary. Technically, it is going to be a


difficult fix and when that you are drilling you have got to be sure


where to drill before you get started. We understand it is deep-


water drilling. Is that more dangerous? Is what happening in


Elgin telling us about technology and safety? As easy reserves are


getting used up, obviously people are looking more and more at remote


options. These are inherently more dangerous. Deep water and remote


locations and hostile environments or increase risk. I think


everybody's concern is that the technology allowing drilling is not


being matched by the technology for dealing with accidents when they


happen. We saw that in the Gulf of Mexico at. The technology for


drilling was obviously dead but people seemed to be making it up as


they went along when they tried to fix the problem and that is the


main concern. Technology is not keeping up. Our commercial


considerations driving all this? -- is it that. That would appear to be


the case. You get money by taking gas and oil out of the ground and


you do what you can to make reasonable preparations to deal


with problems when they happened. But when something major and


unexpected happens like in the Gulf of Mexico and like what has


happened here with a secondary gas supply, these are things which can


catch people out and you might not have the technology and expertise


and even the basic procedures to get going quickly. Thank you very


much indeed. The Scottish Environment Secretary is in


Inverness. If we just pick up that final point, do you have concerns


about this problem between what technology can deliver and the


safety procedures that we have got in place? If that were the case I


would certainly be concerned. The problem we have discussed today, we


will have to have a full inquiry to discover what happened. The problem


last summer as well. It is important to find out what has


caused the problem and make sure appropriate action is taken. We


have got a safety procedure in place at the moment and this time


last week, the platform was evacuated and that is why we have


not had risk to life since then. We are looking at the potential


environmental risk. What sort of independent advice do you get on


the sort of solutions that Total have come up with? They are looking


at putting in a massive amount of mud. Do you have advised that said


that it might not be best for the Environment? We have got a


procedure in place at the moment. We have got people attached to the


UK Government for climate change and energy and they are giving


advice at the moment to baize in Aberdeen. If they thought they had


a threat to the environment, a response team would be called and


that would be a side from Total. We have got a mechanism. What would


you think was an appropriate regime? Do you think you have to


take the company's were freed on their assessment or should we have


a rigorous assessment of what is happening independently? We have


got lessons to learn from this episode. Particularly at the end of


last summer. Transparency is very important. We have perhaps got off


to a slow start in terms of putting information in the public domain.


That was the view of the company last summer as well. They have got


to have a contingency plan in place. They have to focus on the job in


hand, to make people safe and prevent more damage to the


environment. That is the focus for the next couple of days. They have


to rely on information coming from the company offshore because we


cannot get it ourselves. It has to be as transparent as possible.


think it is all right, in fact that is not a fair way of putting it,


but you have to accept what the company tells you? I am saying


perhaps we do have to look at this independently. I want to discuss


this and make sure we have got transparency from the first few


seconds onwards. Because he would be uncomfortable with how this has


developed? We have always got lessons to learn and transparency


is very important. The obvious question is that if we have a post


independent Scotland, what confidence can the public had that


a UK government with economic strategy is looking at drilling


revenues in the teacher? What confidence can they have that he


would prioritise safety in the environment before that economic


interest? -- future? We will look at the environment and grow the


economy at the same time. We are looking at Natural Resources and


oil and gas has got a long way to go. We have not looked at all of


that so far. We do want to see development but of course we have


to have a robust safety system in place to protect life, given the


hundreds of thousands of people working in the North Sea and


protect the environment. We want the best and safest regime anywhere


in the world. What is your understanding of when this problem


might be contained and switched off, as it were? Now the flame has


extinguished, one of the bigger risk factors has been removed. We


have got decisions which will be taken by the company. First,


personnel will have to be put on the platform with a view to


blocking the leakage. Then the relief well which could take up to


six months. It has got to be done MSPs have endorsed the Scotland


Bill, giving Holyrood the power to set the drinking and driving


regulations. Northern Ireland are already reducing it and the


Scottish government are keen to go the same way but it was rejected by


Westminster last year. How low should it go? It happen very


quickly. One minute I am standing on the pavement and then I am lying


on the ground and I heard my daughter screaming. Her five-year


old son was knocked down and killed along with two others by a driver


high on drink and drugs eight years ago. It was like an episode of


Casualty. I thought, who is going to shout cut? I realised it was


real. My son was dying. Figures indicate that in 2009, more than


900 casualties on the roads, 7% reported were down to drink drivers.


14 % of deaths that year were fatalities. -- these types of this


fallacies. -- fatalities. A review commissioned by the UK Government


last year recommended reducing the test to 50 milligrams but this was


rejected by ministers say no more money should be spent on


enforcement. But the Scottish government wants to lower the limit.


This bill could give them the opportunity to do just that.


want to bring it down to 50. That sends out a clear message that


drinking and driving is not acceptable and it will reduce the


number of people seriously injured every year because of the problems.


What does it mean in practice? It is difficult to say. With a 50


milligram limit you might be able to drink a small glass of wine and


a male could drink a larger glass but it depends on the individual


and some campaigners say it should be 20 milligrams, almost a total


One problem is that people don't know where they stand. It is


impossible to know, without being tested, how much alcohol is in your


blood. It depends on your sex, your weight and the rate of metabolism.


Police agree it is better not to drink and drive atoll but this


would be difficult to enforce. They support the 50 milligram limit but


also want more powers to stop and test motorists. There are other


measures we would support. There are measures in other countries and


it is a piece of armoury that puts the fear into people being caught,


and at the end of the day, that is what will deter people. There


appears to be growing support for a 50 milligram limit in Scotland. The


SNP party, the Lib Dems and Labour are in favour. But there is also


concern that different laws across the UK could be confusing. If you


have different limits across borders, people will have mixed


messages about how much they can drink. There is already confusion


about how much you can drink and this will only add to it.


Michelle believes it could make a difference. I hope it would work


and get further towards people being safer on the roads. And


hopefully not drink-driving. little earlier, I spoke to Alex


Johnstone. I asked why the Tories would not support a lower limit.


could put in a lower limit and get prosecutions and have it enforced.


But I believe people who are already two, three, four times


above the limit are not being caught. The difference between the


current limit and the proposed new limit is not where we will make the


most to gain. Why cannot do both? We could do, but additional


resources would be necessary for that. Would you support random


breath testing? That issue is something we have not yet discussed


at great length, but it is something we have to be aware of in


the future and it is something which would be developed as a civil


liberties argument by some political people. Would you be in


favour or not? It is fair to say that random breath-testing is


something which could only be exploited if it was acceptable to


the broader community. Let's just clarify what your position is. You


would prefer another approach to this but were the Scottish


Government to come forward with an idea to get it to 50 comedy would


support it? We would take the argument very seriously. What about


reducing it to 20? And think the priority when you set a limit is to


make sure you have a limit that can be properly policed and convictions


can be obtained. If we set very low limits, we set the priority in a


different area. For example, you might find the most productive use


of the play's's time enforcing that limit would be to spend time in a


supermarket car-park on a Sunday morning. -- the police's time. The


significant reduction in drink- driving could mean we take our eye


of the ball. And you wouldn't see some difficulty in differences


between the borders? It is not impossible that under the new


devolved powers, we might see a different limit in Scotland, though


I agree it could be tricky. Just on to the comments by Peter Cruddas,


extremely embarrassing for the Tory government, when he makes it clear


many are not in favour of the union and would be delighted if Scotland


were independent? I think the SNP's hysteria is driving his home and we


need to see Alex Salmond spend less of his time in London arguing with


London politicians. What other possible message could you take


from what he said? I think he was making comments that were of his


own mind and they don't reflect the arguments taking place in Scotland


today. But you have to concede it is very embarrassing for you?


we have to see in future is the SNP bringing their arguments to


Scotland and arguing against the majority of Scottish people who


favour the continuation of the Union. So, on drink-driving, the


Scottish Conservatives say may be. What about Labour. Their


spokesperson joins me now. Thank you for coming in. Labour had been


reluctant to reduce the limit of 50. Where did you stand on that? There


is an opportunity here for us to take this forward in Scotland and


there is no need for this to be seen, in some way, as undermining


the relationship across the United Kingdom or the enforcement of


different limits on different sides of the border. Remember, it is


nearly seven years since Labour put through the legislation on smoking


in public places which did for legislation in place from the rest


of the United Kingdom, but not for long. It then went to the rest of


the UK, and I think if we took the lead in this area, the rest of the


country would follow. But was that not Labour's position in a Holyrood


and that is why you opposed it? position is... You have changed


opposition and you're being very positive about 50? Positive about


50 but also our position has not changed in that an opposition has


always been that we want to see progress towards 50 in Scotland and


across the UK. So it is not about being out of step or chain in


position. It is about saying, here is another opportunity for Scotland


to take the lead. But given that people metabolise alcohol at


different rates, why not by the bullet and take it down to 20?


think this would be hard for road safety in Scotland. The limit has


to be enforceable, realistic and remove the risk that people get


charged with drink-driving when, in fact, the amount of dual they have


consumed is a mute -- minute. -- the amount of alcohol. I think 50,


as we have seen from the example, 50 means people know they should


not drink before they drive but it also means people will not


intentionally find themselves breaking the law when they have


drunk alcohol on the previous day in a moderate quantity. In a word,


if this comes before Holyrood, at 50, due well supported? Correct.


Thank you. Now, what do Ian Rankin and JK Rowling have in common


besides being best selling Scottish all this. Well, it seems they have


access to a new source of creativity and enlightenment. We


have been arrested Reading. This has long had the reputation of


the Left Bank of the capital. The play's where writers rub shoulders


together. Ian Rankin used to write here. JK Rowling used to stay down


the road. It could be something in the water. According to this man,


there is. A connection has been discovered between the water being


P.H. 10 and this ancient Scottish spring. Looking at a map, I noticed


this tiny village have the spring of passes, the legendary Springbok.


If you follow the spring into the city, it goes all the way in and to


a specific part of the city's water supply. To put the theory to the


test, we went to Edinburgh's University. Sam Kelly teaches the


Masters in creative writing. She set her students a test. One group


would have a drink of PH10 tap water and the others, a well-known


French water. It is pretty extraordinary. These groups are


pretty mixed. On the one side there has been a massive leap in


technical sophistication and also the ideas seem to be better, more


complex, just better! Better writing. Overall, it is


inexplicable. Would it surprise you to know that that came purely from


drinking PH10 tap water? Yes! It would. We can now make it


compulsory in all classes. And if you can tell the difference in the


work of these novice riders, what about the professionals who have


been Downing PH10 for decades? makes perfect sense to me. I have


suspected it was some years and I am delighted the research has been


done to prove this. There is a certain taste in this water, the


P.H. 10 water, and it is difficult to describe. It is slightly papery,


a slight taste of paper. And perhaps sometimes you get a whiff


of something else as well. Rather different from the taste of water


in the West of Scotland, which is very much more towards the whisky


end of the spectrum. So there you are. If you want to be a best


seller here, your best get stuck into this.


And now here's the lunchtime news, with Graham Stewart.


Good afternoon. The Scottish Government's consultation on the


independence referendum has been called into question after it


emerged that the public could submit multiple responses and keep


them anonymous. The SNP has had more than 10,000 replies to the


process, which ends in May. But opposition parties say it may now


not be valid. It is clear that having a consultation process where


you can put in Malta poor responses without any name or email address


is not only open to abuse, it is designed for abuse. -- put in


multi-sport response is. These have been considered by the Scottish


Government as a process to the referendum in 2014 and the idea


this has been rigged in any way it is an appalling accusation by the


Labour Party. Meanwhile, the UK Government says


the vast majority of responses to its consultation on how a


referendum could work favour holding the ballot sooner rather


than later. The Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, is urging SNP


ministers to speed up their proposed timetable of staging the


ballot in the autumn of 2014. Every young person aged 16 to 19 in


Scotland is guaranteed an offer of a place in education or training


from today. The Scottish Government say they want young people


struggling to find work to get the message that help is available. �30


million has been invested in the Most places will have a dry


afternoon but it turns increasingly cloudy, and by the middle of the


area -- of the afternoon, it is just dumb freeze getting some


brightness. The cloud will produce bits and pieces of rain. Tonbridge


us this afternoon ranging from a cool six degrees in the Shetlands


to 13 in the best of the sunshine in the East, with winds main


delight. That is it for now. Now back to


In a moment, we will be discussing big events in politics. First, the


Week in 60 seconds. A typical week for French and oil


company Total as Gas continued to leak from its Elgin platform in the


North Sea. Alex Salmond said the seriousness of the incident must


not be underestimated. We will continue to resist and everywhere


we can and they are also resisting in total -- on total transparency.


A second inquiry into the death of Alex you found that fire commanders


did not act quickly enough to savour.


The council election ballot is open. Elections are on 3rd May.


Two men have been accused of sending parcel bombs to the Celtic


manager Neil Lennon. They were also accused of sending them to a Labour


NS -- MSP. Experts at a number as soon tell


the world that next week is the 36 our window for the panders to mate


successfully. So, this coming week, Al Government


takes a recess and council elections begin. -- our government.


My guests now on Lorraine Davidson and a professor from Glasgow


University. What did you make of the referendum interaction? Did you


think the votes were rigged? The consultation? That is a big word


and I think one of the issues is, is this in keeping with previous


consultations? But beyond that is the case that these are constructed


leaks by UK and Scottish Governments. We are in the process


of the debate about Wendy referendum should be held and what


the consultation might say. -- when the referendum. It is playing


politics with the consultation process, which is drawing on people


who are not politicians to respond to it, so it is best to wait and


see what the consultation throws up. What do you think it would say


about public confidence in the prisons, whoever holds the


The consultations are held in different ways. Where does this


leave us, do you think? It does not help if people think Alex Salmond


can send in 3000 responses from his party and nobody will realise. That


cannot happen because it would be independently verified. We need to


look at that before the vote itself when the opposition is saying, is


the question fetch? Also, I have never met shy and retiring


nationalists. -- is the question reasonable? I am sure people would


be happy to response to the consultation. In my experience, the


Unionists are perhaps scared, that business people do not want to put


their name to things and put their head above the parapet. If the


Government said they would not take on board any anonymous admissions,


I think it would help politically as well. They are not anonymous


admissions. Would that tidy up things a bit? We have to look at


what the Government has done before. We can look at what Peter Cruddas


has said. What do we think the impact will be in terms of


discussions, if they win the referendum? If we have discussions


with the other team saying that we do not really want it anyway, what


have we got? That is quite a big question. I think the issue is is


Peter Cruddas right? To some extent, he is right. There are some people


in Westminster that would really like to be shot of Scotland. That


opinion certainly exists. But as to if it will impact on the process,


we will find out because if we get to that stage, we will have an


awful lot of noise in the London based media about how be


discussions should be going and we will probably have a split in the


coalition if it is still here at that time. This is one of the ways


in which the landscape is shifting ahead of the vote, like the


discussion about consultations. we'd look at it a little bit, it is


embarrassing for the Tories, isn't it? It undermines David Cameron


spending time in Scotland and saying that he really cares about


Scotland. But Peter Cruddas is a man that if we are honest, nobody


knew who he was. What we know about him now is that he is a bit of an


idiot. He is articulating a strand of opinion which does exist in the


Tory party in England but it is not an opinion reflected in any way by


David Cameron and mainstream Tories. It is embarrassing and he will


think it was the last thing he needed. But it is a two day wander


and nothing else. We are almost out of time. Which councils will you be


watching in the council elections with the greatest interest? Last


Tape. Can beat Labour Party hang on? And Edinburgh, where it the SNP


holds up it will still be damaged by the drop in the Liberal


Download Subtitles