11/10/2012 This Week

As the Great British Bake Off rises to a climax, This Week licks its

fingers and scrapes the political bowl.

The Prime Minister brings the conference season to an end and

celebrates his birthday with a chocolate caterpillar. Our Mary,

commentator and journalist Mary Ann Sieghart, judges the Cameron recipe

for success. David Cameron gave a speech to rival Ed Miliband, but

with so many mixed messages from the Conservative Party, what are

voters to make of it? Is welfare taking too big a slice

of the action? With an extra �10 billion of cuts added to the mix,

comedian Ava Vidal thinks the plans are half-baked. The idea that

George Osborne and David Cameron understand what it is like to be

poor is laughable. They might as well say, let them eat cake.

And is there anyone who likes apple pie quite as much as actor Jason

Biggs? The star of American Pie swaps a love of baked goods, for

grassroots politics. I thought this was behind me, but there is

something about being here with you, No soggy bottoms on This Week.

Evenin' all. Welcome to This Week, the Victorian workhouse of BBC

current affairs, where the undeserving poor - that would be

you, dear impoverished viewer - is served a thin gruel of political

insight, and isn't interested enough to ask for more. It seems

Victorian values are particularly close to the heart of our

Chancellor, Gideon Osborne - boo! - who delighted the mob at his party

conference this week by revealing a growth plan that harked back to a

simpler, more innocent, less bureaucratic age, when pawn shops

were all you needed to lighten the economic gloom. Good old Gidders

has come up with a spiffing wheeze straight from the Old Curiosity

Shop. If people in Hard Times are willing to trade cash for gold,

then maybe they're desperate enough to give away their basic employment

rights for shares, and sacrifice workplace security for 30 pieces of

silver and a long-term stake in a company looking for a short-term

way to fire them. Rumours he's about to offer a free TV licence to

any parent willing to send their child up a chimney have yet to be

confirmed. But it's only a matter of time. Speaking of those who know

the price of everything and the value of absolutely nothing, I'm

joined on our dark satanic sofa tonight by two characters sure to

bring a sentimental tear to any Victorian eye, the Artful Dodger

and Little Nell of late night political chat. I speak, of course,

of #manontheleft, Alan Johnson, and #sadmanonatrain, Michael "choo

choo" Portillo. Your moment of the week, Michael?

The deal between the UK and Scottish governments over a

referendum. I had not seen this coming but it has been settled

there will be only one question, either yes or No to independence.

This seems to shoot Alex Salmond's Fox, because I think he wanted a

three-part referendum in which probably most would have gone for

devolution Max, which would have given him a marvellous solution, to

go on blaming the English for all of the woes of Scotland, but with a

lot of government authority and still have all the money. Now he is

going to have a referendum in which, I suspect, he can only lose, in the

sense that if the Scots vote No, this is contrary to his

recommendation, and if they vote Yes, and Scotland its independence,

that is when his problems begin, because Scotland severed from

English money would be a difficult country to run. He is going for the

popular vote north of the border. Allen, your moment. Of the letter

that nine energy and energy infrastructure companies cent on

Monday, including Siemens, the biggest electronics manufacturer in

the world. They're worried about the Government's long-term policy.

Given this is so important to the government's push to rebalance the

economy, and important to my constituency, because Siemens plant

to build there, this is worrying. The this is subsidies in taxpayers'

money. They have their snouts in the trough, haven't they? What they

are looking for his policy based on facts and evidence, and the huge

amounts of money they are willing to invest are based on the fact

that this policy will not change. That letter is a serious message.

We are talking corporate wealth here, which brings me to the next

subject, a different kind of welfare for different people.

Now, the Tory faithful drooled with delight in Birmingham this week, as

one unknown Government minister after another took to the stage and

told them just how they were putting the country back on track,

though clearly not the West Coast Main Line track. But the one

announcement that really had them licking their lips was news

there'll be a further �10 billion cut to the welfare budget. But

outside on the streets, not everyone is as thrilled. And we've

asked one critic, comedian Ava Vidal, to give us her Take Of The

Nothing seems to excite the Tories so much as cutting benefits. This

week in Birmingham, the loudest cheers were reserved when it was

announced that 10 billion will be slashed from the welfare bill. They

will be targeting people on housing benefit and poorer people with

large families. Nice! To listen to Conservative MPs, you would be

forgiven for thinking that everybody on benefits is a no-good

shirker. They spend all day at home in bed with the curtains drawn,

watching television, playing video games. And it is all being funded

by the taxpayer. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact,

93% of new housing benefit claimants are employed. To portray

them as undeserving of support, and pit them against first-time buyers,

is intellectually dishonest. As a teenage mother, I had to rely on

benefits for a short period of time, and I can tell you this, the whole

process is humiliating. You are already made to feel like a

scrounger, a drain on society, and whilst there are some people that

take the Mick and take advantage of the system, the vast majority of

benefit claimants were like me, people who needed a little bit of

help to get back on their feet. Cutting help for the poor is

madness. I have been working on this estate and in the surrounding

area ever since last year's riots. Many of these young people want

nothing more than a job and their independence. Housing benefit is

not a lifestyle option. It is a necessity. Many of these kids are

fleeing unsafe situations. They cannot just move back home that

mummy and Daddy, like their middle class counterparts. Why won't the

Government acknowledge that this is not their fault? What sort of

people think that cutting the life support of the very poor is going

to help anybody on an estate like this? It should not be the poorest

who are bearing the burden of cutting the deficit, especially

since it was those in the well-paid financial sector who caused all the

problems in the first place. I am one of the lucky ones. I was able

to carve out a career for myself, enabling me to pay back into the

system. But that is only because I got hold when I needed it. This

Government are pitting so-called Sherpas, those without work,

against so-called strivers, those lucky enough to have a job. People

do not choose to live a life on benefit, they have it thrust upon

them, something that George and Dave would not know the first thing

about. Ava Vidal joins us from that estate

in south London. Welcome to the programme. Thank you. What do you

make of the argument, Michael? is what a lot of people say and it

is fairly easy to say, but I think the welfare state in this country

is vastly too big. I think it is making the country uncompetitive.

We spend 47% of our national income through the Government, whereas it

was 38% in 1999 under Gordon Brown. We will go down as a country,

declining year on year, losing competitive ness, particularly

against emerging nations. Britain is in the lead about doing

something about it. When you are spending over 100 billion on

welfare, I do not think it is unreasonable to say you can cut 10%

from it. And I do not agree with your basic point that welfare does

not influence behaviour. I think it has fundamental influences on

behaviour, and some of the examples that the Government was giving, for

example, if you are in work you do not get housing benefit, but if you

decide to leave your parents' house and put yourself out of work, you

get housing benefit. That is a clear incentive to people to be out

of work. It would be if it was true. It is not true. One in eight people

on housing benefit are unemployed. The vast majority actually have a

working adult in the house. It is fair enough to say it is an easy

argument to make. This is an easy argument because it is the truth. I

understand that people are concerned and want to cut the

welfare bill, but I also do not see the same people attacking the

bankers in the same way. In fact, they are the biggest welfare

claimants of all, because they got bailed out. Do you think nothing

has gone wrong with the welfare system? We have had since the end

of the Second World War. It has grown under every government. It

began as what was meant to be a hand up. My parents told me it was

a hand up in tough times. People now think that for too many folk it

is just a handout. A handout that never stops. That is the argument

made on the other side. Does that not happen? Very rarely. You keep

hearing about people making fraudulent claims. It is a very

small minority. Not fraudulent claims. I was thinking more of

people who simply get trapped into poverty because their lifestyles

become welfare lifestyles. The people who cheat, I am not talking

about them. Everybody must be against people who cheat. Obviously,

that is a concern. People get trapped on benefits because they

cannot afford to work. So why is the Government attacking people who

have got no choice? They are taking away the benefits altogether, which

will make things worse, as opposed to arguing for a living wage.

is a difficult one for Labour. I remember Tony Blair, before

becoming Prime Minister, talking about the welfare bill being a bill

for failure. He criticised the Tories, up to 97. But under Labour,

the welfare bill rose, even for working-age people, it rose. And

yet you had 10 years of growth. Let's be clear, welfare reform

started under Labour. I was Work and Pensions Secretary when we had

seen incapacity benefit rise between 79 and 97 p from 700,000 up

to 2.6 million. We had to stop the flow on to that, which was enormous,

and would have taken us up to something like 4 million incapacity

benefit, and then do something about the stopper. When you do

something about people who have been on incapacity benefit for some

time, they knock your door down to get some help. We changed the law,

so if they put their toe in the water, these are people with

illnesses, serious illness sometimes, but they want to get

into work. If it went wrong, they would not have to go to the back of

the queue and come through the incapacity benefit system again.

these reforms are a continuation of what you started? Yes. But there is

the introduction of time-limited benefits, which I would not agree

to. Secondly, the point being made is the representation of these

people as if they are all in string vests, looking out the window. How

do we know they are not? Because we live with them. I was brought up in

that situation. Because we see them in our constituency. You say that

you live with them. How come all of the focus groups and opinion polls

show that these reforms that the Tories are talking about are even

more popular with Labour voters than with Tory voters? What you

want to talk about, what is popular with voters, which is why they

return to this over and over again this week? Do you want to talk

about that, or about the real problem, how to get people back

into work? But the population is not just about pursuing popular

politics. There has been a change in public opinion. Why? Precisely

the point you made a moment ago, that people are living with this

and seeing it, and their observation of what they are seeing

has led to a change in public opinion, because they think lots of

people are either cheating, or they are being brought down by welfare.

I would say public opinion is changing because of the deem

onisation of people on benefits. He was speaking of people under 25

living in council flats. Do you think it's fair that someone who

has never worked can have a flat or a house paid for by the rest of us

when someone who does work can't afford to rent a similar property?

What I think is not fair is that somebody who has never worked would

never have the chance to go to university because the fee have

been hiked so far, they won't get EMA or anything to help improve

their lives. If you remove the benefits... But people who work

can't afford to go to university either and they can't afford to buy

a house. 40% of the benefits bill goes to pensioners. We are talking

about the �80 billion that goes to people of working age. Michael made

the point that taking 10% off that doesn't seem to be fair. The other

point is the number of people receiving housing benefit who are

in work. In if a young kid decides to get on their week, to quote

Norman Tebbit, and they get work, but the pay is so poor that they

have to claim housing benefit, putting them into a position of

removing that. There is quite a large percentage in this situation

of new claimants, it is the caricature. It is Cameron's

caricature. It is not fact. Where Iain Duncan Smith is in this

argument, who used to have a good bit of credibility on this, did IDS,

because he was away from the old Peter Lilley, "I've got a little

list" stuff and helping people to get people back into work, the vast

majority of whom would accept that help. The bits I heard were rather

specific. They were about age limiting the age at which you can

start claiming housing benefit. I do think if you are helping young

people into the welfare system very early, that's a bad thing to do.

One of the secure barriers you have is people's age. One thing you

can't adapt so to is your age, so that seem as good thing. And if you

are on benefit and you decide to increase the size of your family,

that is not something necessarily that the state should have to fund.

If you were in work you would have to make that decision, can I afford

to add to my family. These seem specific and non-generalised.

want to say by using age, that's assuming that every person in this

country in a certain age is in the same position, and that isn't right.

Most of the kids who live on the estate don't come from the

background that Mr Cameron and George Osborne come from. They have

no parents. But Bill Clinton did welfare reforms in America and he

comes from the same background as people on the estate. He also went

to Oxford University. He ma made his opportunities. He had the

opportunity to do that. He made the opportunity. The kids on that

estate won't have an EMA. But will they make opportunities if they can

live indeaf lit on welfare? believe that some people will.

Some? A small minority of people do take the Mickey and bleed the

system, but the vast majority of people do not want to go on

benefits. Going on benefits is not an easy thing to do. It is a

humiliating process. Thank you for being with us. Thank you.

Now, if the Tory conference can greet a picture of Louise Mensch

with a chorus of boos, which they did, and even scoff at a picture of

Andrew Mitchell, whose jaikit, as they say in Glasgow, is hingin by a

shooglie peg, then surely we can welcome our next guest with our own

This Week "tumbler of booze". So top up the Blue Nun and raise it

aloft, because coming up: the man who made us all think twice about

ordering a second helping of apple pie, actor Jason Biggs, who will be

talking grassroots action and American politics. And for those of

you happy to pontificate rather than agitate, there's plenty of

opportunity on the Twitter, the Fleecebook, and the Interweb.

Now, whether it's Tarzan Heseltine, King of the Jungle, or Michael

Portillo, King of the Swingers, political parties have always had

their conference darlings. This year Boris Johnson sent the Tory

faithful into raptures, while Andrew Mitchell turned them into a

lynch mob. But unlike Mr Mitchell, we thought we should actually

bother turning up to take our punishment, and so sent journalist

Mary Ann Sieghart to Birmingham for I'm in Birmingham for a big annual

event that gets every Politico's mouth watering. People have come

from all over the country to page part. No, it is not the Tory Party

conference. It's national chocolate Putting together the perfect box of

chocolates is a delicate matter. It is tempting to go for a mix, so

you've got something that appeals to the palate of traditionalist who

is want the purest Tory cocoa solids. And also something that

appeals to the public who prefer good old Dairy Milk.

That's what David Cameron's been doing this week. He gave a speech

of the electricliest soft centre, while the hard nuts in his cabinet

were talking about beating up burglars. No wonder only 10% of

voters say they are very clear about what the Prime Minister

stands for. The economy isn't helping. This week the IMF produced

the most downbeat report on Britain's prospects. The Chancellor

dressed like an undertaker and sounded like one too. He added the

barest stinkling of sugar: economy is healing. That healing is

taking longer than we hoped, because the damage was greater than

we feared. But let the message from this conference be clear. We will

finish the job that we have started. APPLAUSE

Tory MPs and activist it is are feeling restless and discontented.

They want their taste buds tickled with Tory treats. That's what the

Justice Secretary gave them. None of us really know how frightening

it would be if confronted bay burglar in the middle of the night.

Even if a householder faced with that situation uses noors in the

cold light of day might seem over the top, unless their response is

grossly disproportionate, the law will be on their side.

APPLAUSE There were so many flavours on

offer this week that it was hard to get a cohernt sense of what was

going on. I left not sure what party this is these days. There was

Michael Gove, the Milky Bar Kid, gaving a spaech on education that

any Blairite Labour reformer could have given. In England, if you are

born poor, you are overwhelmingly likely to go to a poor school and

to stay poor. It is a scandal. It's a reproach to all our consciences

that there are so many young people who are never given the chance to

go to university. And I'm pledged to end it.

# Only the crumblyest, flakiest chocolate, tastes like chocolate

never tasted before. # Sorry, I got distracted. Some of

those flavours will have left a bitter taste in David Cameron's

mouth though. The pleb-hating walnut - Chief Whip, sorry, Andrew

Mitchell, didn't show his face this week. Though when a video image was

projected at the conference, the audience jeered him. And what about

Ann Widdecombe getting apoplectic about gay marriage. Let's stand up

to the bigots. Let's protect marriage, work for a free society,

because there was a time when no Conservative would ever have done

anything else. But the highlight of the week for

many was the delectable Boris Johnson, the Milk Tray of the

Conservative Party. He is the naughty indulgence that members and

I believe in miracles # Where you from, you sexy thing #

Boris was on his best behaviour this week, saying hardly anything

that could be construed as misloyal. While on the outside he was loyal

to his leader, everybody knew that that shrewd coating hides an

ambitious inner. I was please to do so see thaw have called me a blonde

haired mop. If I'm a mop, Dave, then you are a broom. A broom that

is cleaning up the mess left by the Labour Government, and a fantastic

job you are doing. And to the leader's speech. Cameron was at

pains to point out he was a serious man for serious times. But also

that he was determined not to relinquish the centre ground to Ed

Miliband's new one nation late. We've been led by the daughter of a

grosser, the son of a music hall perform per, bay Jew when Jews were

persecuted, bay woman when women were sidelined. We don't look at

the label on the tin. We look at what's in it. Let me put that

another way. We don't preach about one nation but practise class war,

we just get behind people who want to gets on in life. APPLAUSE

Let's get O'Brien on the rise, deficit paid down, tough decisions

taken, growth fired up, aspiration backed all the way. We know what it

takes to win, so let's get out there and do it.

David Cameron understands that the sweet spot of the electorate lies

right in the middle. But it is not enough just to say it once a year

at party conference. You've got to follow it through in Government and,

unlike this week in Birmingham, make sure that everybody around you

is saying the same thing too. Mary Ann Sieghart. I'm sure she

will bring the chocolates back to share with us.

There's been a development on the Andrew Mitchell story which seems

to be determined not to die. Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph, famous

right of centre newspaper, is calling on Mr Mitchell to resign

for the sake of his party. He should do the seent thick and stand

down. What's your reaction? -- do the decent thing and stand down.

What's your reaction? I find it quite unlikely he used the word

pleb. I notice the police reports were leaked to the press. That

having been said, what's very depressing for him and the Prime

Minister is that this story has run and run. Certain people have an

interest in this story running and running, the Labour Party and parts

of the press. It becomes a serious problem when the Chief Whip's

position is a running story. But at Birmingham, in the evening at the

various parties, Cabinet Ministers were openly talking about how he

could be encouraged to resign. That's not just the media. That's

not the police. That's the Tories. I said a number of people have kept

it running, including people in his own party. How do you see it Alan?

The problem is he didn't say, if he said he didn't use the word pleb,

he accepted there was an altercation, but he didn't tell us

what words he did use. That's his big problem. If he is going to make

statements, he needs to say what the words are were. It all looked

as if it was quiet, that he was out of the woods. And because of the

Conservative Party conference, where you would think, a Labour

Party conference might have put more pressure on him but the

Conservative Party conference, it is extraordinary. It does look as

if his goose is cooked. You thing so? I think so. The Cameron's

speech, what did you make of it? Thought it was exactly the speech

that was need. I wish he had been talking in those terms for the last

six months. The issues he addressed, the competitiveness of Britain, the

size of the state, the need to reduce the size of the state to

make us more competitive, I thought these were exactly the right issues.

To say that it was sink or swim. He has a real sense of the country

being in peril. It is not understood outside and which is

certainly ignored by Labour's idea that this is a moment, because we

are only having to pay 2% on Government borrowing, this is the

moment to borrow more. That's it not the way the Government sees it.

The speech was in a way a compliment to Ed Miliband, because

so many of the themes that Mr Cameron chose to address had been

raised the previous week by the Labour leader. In that way it was

curiously defensive. I do agree, you would wait a long time for a

bad speech from Cameron. It it was kind of speech he needed to make,

but he needed to make two it years in when none of what he said would

happen is even beginning to Han. His problem is borrowing's up. His

problem is that his gamble, a big Guam tbl I think, is not paying off

Those circumstances he made exactly the right speech for the right time

You have to understand that if you change the policies, things will

get a great deal worse. He took on the Business of being posh, the

privilege, he took it head-on. He has not done that before. He could

not bring himself to mention that he had gone to Eton, but he did say

he had gone to a posh school. Will that make a difference, have an

impact? Like the point about Andrew Mitchell, it would have been better

if he had said Eton. And it would have been better if instead of

saying he wanted to spread privilege, if he had said he wanted

to spread opportunity for success. I think he needs to go back over

the ground again. As we have discussed on the programme before,

the problem is not only that he comes from Eton, which ought not to

be a problem at all. It is the composition of the Cabinet which

looks too privileged. But this is a running sore. We have just heard

someone on the programme going on and on about how these people

cannot understand the working class. Coming back to Andrew Mitchell,

that is where it is a poignant narrative, because his story

reminds everybody of their problem. It does. He did not mention the

police in his speech, maybe because of that, but he should have

mentioned them. He was talking about the Olympics, the NHS, the

armed forces and all the rest, and the police made a huge contribution

to the Olympics. They have just had two people killed. The fact that he

did not mention them looked a bit spiteful. There is an altercation

between Cameron and the police at the moment. Boris went to

Birmingham, and he behaved. And, as one senior Tory said to me, he

behaved. That means he is really serious about being the next Tory

leader. If you took a two month period, I do not think you could

oche and he has behaved. He has attacked most elements of

Government policy and taken every populist Avenue that he could. He

is here to defend the middle classes, or whatever, it is a

disgrace that the Government has not made up its mind about airport

provision in London. He has had quite a few attacks. On the subject

of Boris, I might as well just walk off into the sunset. You have done

that a few times already. I cannot understand this obsession with

Boris. What did he do to you? Come on, you can tell us. It will not go

further. What did he do? You were not even in the same bunk at school.

What did he do? I think we are discussing a series Prime Minister

taking serious measures about serious issues. By contrast, Boris

is not dealing with anything serious. Something happened, didn't

it? Boris could not have made that speech. It was the Blonde ambition

tour. He is the closest thing to Silvio Berlusconi in British

politics. He makes people laugh and smile. I still reckon it is a long

shot that he will become Tory leader, but if he did, would Labour

be worried? He has an appeal that goes beyond normal politicians.

That is true. Would we be worried? No. I think for the reasons that

Michaels says. Michael was in parliament with him. From where I

was sitting, Boris did not seem to be that good in that situation. He

is a good fun character and all the rest of it. Cameron is safe.

Firstly, Boris does not have a seat, and if he stood down as London

mayor and tried to get a seat before 2015 that would be strange

and would damage them in London. After 2015, he might be the next

leader, but he is not going to depose Cameron. And if he is not,

nobody will. And the Lib Dems are completely written out of the

script by Mr Cameron. He did not mention his coalition partners.

is an extraordinary situation. Both Mary Ann Sieghart was talking about

confusion. There is a confusion. The strategy was to move the

Conservative Party to the centre ground. To have a Minister of

Justice saying, if you lay out a burglar on the floor and he is

unconscious that is all right, but if you stab him, that is not all

right. It is so beneath the dignity of a minister of the Crown. Lord

Chancellor, for goodness sake. Oh, no, he is not... Of

It's been a long three weeks. Conference season brings all sorts

of creatures out of the woodwork, not just the termites sitting on

our sofa. Here at This Week we've reacquainted ourselves with the

murky underworld of the party faithful and been extremely

impressed by their dedication. Of course there's no such enthusiasm

here. Alan and Michael have been trying to sneak out for a Balti all

evening. Ah, loves young dream! So in honour of those trodden

underfoot, we've decided to celebrate the unsung earthworms of

politics and put the grassroots Because its grassroots politics,

folks. A new film tells the true story of a political activist

fighting for a seat on Seattle City Council and inspiring everyone

around him. But after three weeks of party conferences, come the same

be said in the UK? Well, it did not take much for the Tory rank and

file to see the light. I honestly think it is the Messiah that

Britain needed. Cameron is the Messiah? The Messiah that Britain

needed. Stateside, the Obama campaign accused Romney of causing

a grassroots outcry with his pledge to cut the public broadcasting

budget. Big, yellow, a minister our economy. Mitt Romney knows that it

is not Wall Street you have to worry about, it is sesame Street.

Mitt Romney, taking on our enemies, no matter where they nest.

Grassroots anger can be a dangerous thing. The Greek protests against

Angela Merkel proved that when politics fails, things can easily

spin out of control. So, do the little people really matter when it

comes to the big decisions, or will the grass roots always lose the

battle against the giant political weeds.

We are joined in the studio by Jason Biggs. Welcome to London and

welcome to our studio. You have done this movie about the grass

roots movement, people who were not involved in politics deciding to

run for office in Seattle. That is right. It is based on a true story,

the 2001 Seattle city council election. There was a guy who

decided to run against a long-time incumbent on pretty much a single

platform, at least initially, which was to extend the monorail. For

green reasons and sort of anti- corruption reasons. My character

reluctantly becomes his campaign manager. And do you learn in this

that you can come from nowhere and take on the big party machines?

What the Phil Mears, more than anything, it is a David versus

Goliath story. -- what the movie is. Nowadays, it is inspiring, to say

the least. It is interesting, too. To hear you talk about the goings-

on politically in the UK, and you alluded to the presidential

campaign in the States, this is what is in your face. This is big,

broad politics that are happening, and this is what we are fed all of

the time and what we talk about, understandably. But there is

another level of politics that, frankly, I think, affects people.

More of a direct impact. Exactly. So you think we are wasting our

time. Complete the. You get paid to be here? It is the BBC, so you

can't be getting paid much. Could you speak into the camera and say

that. You know a lot already. think even the US taxpayers are

paying you at this point! We will take money from anywhere. Are there

any lessons in the movie? Grassroots issues are often about

single issues, and his is often difficult to sustain a single issue

-- it is often difficult to sustain. With this story, they became so

enveloped by the process and excited and inspired by it, that it

became a bigger thing. They realised the magnitude of what they

were doing. Did they win? Do you want me to give it away? No, don't.

If they did not at least come close, it would not have been an

interesting story. Say no more, all we will get complaints. I would

suggest that the grass roots of American politics is a lot

healthier. There is no grass roots here. In America, eight on the

right you have the Tea Party, which has almost taken over the

Republican Party as a grassroots movement. And occupy wall Street

was a lot stronger on the left than whatever it was called here.

think you are right, broadly speaking. There are exceptions. In

the mayoral elections come we had a couple of people coming through who

were not on the party ticket. We were discussing outside that there

was an election in the constituency of Kidderminster 10 years ago, when

a doctor won it on the basis of saving the local hospital, Richard

Taylor. That was one individual. am saying there are very few

examples. What is such a pity is that we are just about to elect

police commissioners, a new thing in this country, and unfortunately

the parties have taken that over. On the whole, it does not look like

charismatic individuals thrown up by the grassroots are going to make

it. I doubt whether anyone could be elected as American President as a

grassroots on that kind of campaign, just as it very rarely happens in

Parliament. But it happens at local council level and Meryl the full.

Political parties have not taken over the police commissioners, they

have just put up their candidates. Some very important candidates have

stepped down because they have said they do not want to be political.

Give me a real grassroots movement in this country. The one that saved

the Carlisle railway 20 years ago. That is all that he can do! It is

interesting, because in America... Do not laugh, it only encourages

him! In America, you can make no political impact unless you only

have a ton of money. But in your movie, that is not true. Well, in

the story that we tell, it is not true. But in the broad political

spectrum in the States, it is very much true. I think in general,

still, it is true that you need a well financed campaign to make

anything happen. Obama had a bit of a grassroots movement going for him

in the last election. For a presidential candidate, if you look

at his resume, he leapfrogged a lot. He had things going on online.

does not have that this time. was the underdog. You have a lot

more going for you. We know that he won, but did he win again? Do not

say a word! You're giving the game away. Thank goodness we have come

to the end, or nobody would go to see the movie. Good luck. When is

it coming out? It is now at the London Film Festival and nationwide

on 9th November. Thank you for having the.

That's your lot for tonight, folks. But not for us, because it's

Batter-a-Burgler night at Annabel's. And Michael finally gets to show

everyone his grossly disproportionate cha-cha. But we

leave you tonight with our Prime Minister, who was accidentally-on-

purpose filmed this week, with his limo hiding round the corner and