10/10/2013 This Week

Tonight on This Week, it's Politics Under The Hammer. With the launch of

the Prime Minister's Help to Buy scheme, will it buy him more votes

come the next election? Homes Under The Hammer presenter, Martin

Roberts, checks out the policy particulars.

Is the government's new Help to Buy scheme a bargain buy, a doer-upper,

or one to avoid? I'll be putting it under the hammer.

Just like properties, the value of political careers can go down as

well as up. As all the main parties reshuffle their teams, the

Spectator's Isabel Hardman assesses the political bricks and mortar.

Ministers and MPs' jobs came under the hammer this week. I will look at

who got the best deals and who was the hammer this week. I will look at

sacked to the bargain basement. Footballers love their multi-million

pound houses, but young England footballer Jack Wilshire is under

fire for saying only English people should play for the national side.

England's women's football captain, Casey Stoney, and former Liverpool

and England superstar John Barnes are in the This Week house. I was

born in Jamaica, but winning my first cap for this week means

everything. Join us for some political

gazumping. Evenin' all. Welcome to This Week,

the show with lower viewing figures than Channel 4's Sex Box, and even

lower standards. We begin tonight with a public service warning to

those of you at the Home Office. If you see somebody rifling through

your wastepaper basket, worry ye not. It's unlikely to be a spy and

much more likely to be your new minister, Lib Dem Norman Baker,

looking for evidence to corroborate his latest conspiracy theory. He

believes, for example, that weapons inspector David Kelly did not commit

suicide but was murdered by an Iraqi hit squad. That the X-Files is a

documentary series. And that the royal family are actually lizards

from planet Zog. He's definitely wrong about Dr Kelly and the

X-Files. Anyway, now he's in the Home Office. And people said Nick

Clegg didn't have a sense of humour. Sticking with the ridiculous,

someone called Diane Abbott believes she can go straight from the total

of obscurity that is the shadow public health portfolio, from which

she managed to get sacked, to the full-on limelight of being Labour's

next candidate for Mayor of London. And they say Norman Baker has a

screw loose! Finally, there's Environment Minister Owen "Badger

Cull" Paterson. When the little blighters wouldn't just lay down and

die, he accused the badgers of "moving the goalposts". Badgers

moving goalposts? Norman Baker will soon be on to that one. Speaking of

pests, I'm joined on the sofa joined tonightby two little furry creatures

who couldn't find the goalposts in a floodlit park. Think of them as the

blind leading the blind of late night political chat. I speak, of

course, of #manontheleft Alan "AJ" Johnson, and #sadmanonatrain Michael

"Choo Choo" Portillo. Your moment of the week? President cars I of

Afghanistan gave an interview to the BBC in which he alleged that the

Allied mission in Afghanistan had been a waste of time because his

country did not enjoy security. At my moment is the response from a

former secretary-general of NATO, my moment is the response from a

and General Lord Damm, both of whom said this was unfair and insulting

to British troops who had lost their lives and limbs in Afghanistan. Of

course, it was not unfair to them, it was a question about the

leadership of the mission, the political leadership and the

military leadership of the mission. And I thought it was self serving of

these gentlemen to dismiss the president of Afghanistan's

criticism. It would have been better to meet the point of the criticism,

to explain if it has not been a waste of time and effort why it has

not been, because he is saying that his country is not secure. If we

want to avoid men losing lives and limbs unnecessarily, we need an

honest debate about that. You surprise me by the line you have

taken, but I like to be surprised. My political moment of the week will

not surprise you. It was the car-boot sale otherwise known as the

disposal of shares in Royal Mail. Did you buy any? I certainly did

not. I believe it was a mistake, compounded by selling it off on the

cheap. If they had put another 70p on the shares, the Treasury would

have had another £400 million. And I will be very interested to see what

the National Audit Office say about this first stage. It is not the

first time they have under priced a privatisation. His lot did it all

the time. Always in the interests of giving it away. But he knows

precisely that the market would have gone another 70p? It is not me, but

the stockbrokers are saying it was well under priced. Still a good

point. Thank you. I am in an evenhanded mood but it will not

last. Now, who do you trust more,

politicians or estate agents? Tough call. So when politicians interfere

with the housing market, we should really start to worry. With the new

phase of the Help to Buy scheme launched this week, the Government

wants to make it easier for people who can afford the mortgage payments

but not the deposit to buy a home. But it brings with it risks of

increased household debt and yet another housing bubble. We turned to

Homes Under The Hammer presenter and property expert Martin Roberts. This

is his take of the week. Well, I spend my life checking out

properties, but for this week I have come to Chesterfield in Derbyshire,

to put the government's Help to Buy scheme under the microscope.

For those struggling to get on the property ladder or looking to

upgrade, it is hard to say that the scheme is anything but a good thing.

It is for those people who can't afford mortgage repayments -- who

can afford mortgage repayments but cannot raise a deposit. Under the

Help to Buy scheme, you only need to find 5%, with the lender coming up

with the other 95%. Happy days! So it is all looking pretty rosy. But

are there any hidden horrors, or cracks in the plan? Well, it will

get more people on the housing ladder, that is for sure. But the

interest rate will be higher than if ladder, that is for sure. But the

you had a bigger deposit to put down. So you will end up paying a

lot more money. I guess it is a case of, you win some, you lose some.

This scheme will drive up the prices upwards. Anyone who thinks otherwise

is not thinking clearly. At that is not necessarily a bad thing. The

market being boosted will help the economy and also stimulate the

building industry. Nice bathroom. And if you already own your own

house, you can sit at dinner parties and be smug about the fact that the

rise in the value of your house is probably more on a weekly basis then

you earn from going out to work. Of course, if you have not yet bought a

you earn from going out to work. Of house, then rising prices means it

is going to cost you more to buy your home. However, getting the

all-important mortgage is going to be easier. So think of it as a gift

horse, but one that needs feeding. Owning your own home is something we

all aspire to. It is part of the British psyche. So any government

scheme which helps people with this right of passage is bound to be

popular. The Prime Minister will be hoping that his Help to Buy scheme

helps to buy him votes, as people move up the property ladder.

And from a home under the hammer in Derbyshire to our own little home

under the hammer here in the heart of Westminster, Martin Roberts joins

us now. Let me go to these two. Michael, is this ad economics but

good politics? Yes. -- bad economics. Although whether it is ad

economics, even that is finely balanced. The government is arguing

there is a kind of market failure and the banks are not willing to

make 95% mortgages available, which they did historically. So the

government is intervening to make that good. But that will drive up

property prices. You help someone to the property ladder but drive up

property prices, meaning other people are even further from getting

onto the ladder than they were before. It may well be good politics

but it is ad economics. He has brought this forwards. -- bad

economics. I can understand stage one. It seems to me if this works we

will get economic growth based on debt. And we will get the banks

subsidised to lend to housing. As an industry, that takes us back to how

the bubble was blown up in the first place. There is a back to the future

element. You make a good point. This is designed to pump more money into

housing by government guarantees, even by the government putting some

in in the first place, but house prices were already rising before

Help To Buy. Many people say it is not housing that needs credit, but

small and medium-sized businesses, and they are not getting it, and

small and medium-sized businesses, this will attract even more of this

credit into housing. Do you think it is one or the other? As I understand

it, this will bring in government funds. All that they are doing is

offering insurance policies to banks and building societies which

basically say, it's somebody defaults on the loan, we will cover

the loss but there is a charge which defaults on the loan, we will cover

medium-sized as Mrs. -- businesses. Whatever it is, you could do the

equivalent for small business. That would be great and I'm not against

that, but at least it is a positive step to get the market moving. Put

aside the economics, I would not underestimate the popularity of

this. If a lot of people get a foot on the housing market because of

this extra guarantee, it will be the Tory equivalent of Mr Miliband's

energy price freeze, which is very popular. May be. That is why it

could be good politics and bad economics. We were trying not to go

to business as usual. George Osborne was telling us he wants to

reposition the economy, and I think he is right, towards industry and

exports and away from debt. And it seems this is going to blow up that

housing bubble again, and you are going to have this fixation with

high house prices. I was talking about this earlier. I was with a

German film crew and they cannot understand the obsession with owning

houses, not renting them. But is Labour opposed to this? I am sure.

Don't ask me, I am not on the front bench. We have a new Shadow Housing

Minister this week. The big thing we would focus on is to deal with

demand by building more houses, and this does nothing for that. I think

Alan is out of date. There is no obsession with house ownership in

Britain that is visible in the statistics any more. The proportion

of home ownership is falling very fast. Because they can't afford it.

Many European countries have higher levels of homeownership than we do.

I remember reading that. Seriously, they do. You have been reading the

Beano again. We have fallen. It is a really serious matter that under a

Conservative government the proportion of homeownership is

falling. And I understand why they make this intervention, but as I

said, it has two aspects. It helps certain people get on the housing

ladder, and they may be grateful. But people excluded by the higher

prices will not ease so aware that they have been prevented from

entering the housing ladder because general prices have gone up. Here is

the smoking gun. Many people will take out mortgages of 95% of value.

They will do so and have mortgage payments at a time when mortgages

are at historic lows. All it will take is for interest rates to go up

and house prices to fall by just five cent, and they will be in

negative equity with a debt they cannot service. You are completely

right. So why are we doing it? It goes back to the point of giving

people the chance to own their own home. We are a nation of people who

aspire to own their own homes. To give an opportunity for people who

saw that opportunity for that give an opportunity for people who

fantastic feeling, which I hope you have all had, the first night in

your own home when you think, this is mine. This is wonderful idea

listen. It is true! In the last few years, we have in so intent on

making sure people are not repossessed that we pursued a

low-interest policy, so very few people have been repossessed. There

has been no adjustment of house prices equivalent to that which

occurred in the United States or Ireland. Consequently, house prices

have remained out of reach for most people. Young people now are not

having the experience that we had. We were on the housing ladder in our

having the experience that we had. 20s and 30s. There are young people

in their 30s and 40s living in student type accommodation, with six

people in the house. The idea of a job for life has gone

now. People have to be more mobile. Should not more people be renting?

Yes it is the simple answer to that. Looking at the rental market and

some of the problems there is something the Government will have

to address. I think many people now have come to the conclusion that

they would rather rent. If we are still a nation obsessed with owning

our own homes, are you not part of that problem? Yes, it is all down

to meet. Homes Under The Hammer is not just about that. It is about

voyeurism. Location and location and houses here, the TV is packed

with them. It is all my fault, I am sorry. I started my career on an --

as an adviser on housing policy. It used to be at the centre of a

political debate and here we are with its still at the periphery of

the debate. If you look at the record of the coalition and the

last Labour Government, it is not good. We have spent a lot of money

on doing their houses up,, but you are right, it was a peripheral

issue. But now it is a central issue because it has become one of

those issues if it is the Labour Party, people say we failed when we

were in power, now people say it is impossible to get a house under the

Conservative Government. Good to see you. Michael and Alan may be

mid-table mediocrities, but that does not mean you should take your

ball away just yet. Stick with us because you have not seen any

action so far. England captain Casey Stoney and former England

superstar John Barnes are here to talk about representing your

country. And we move from national pride to your international shame,

with your sullen grumblings on the Twitter, the fleece would -- please

book and the internet. Now, sometimes even we lose the will to

live, usually when interviewing Tory chairman Grant Shapps. And he

didn't fail to disappoint this week with his soul-destroying

description of the government's mid-level musical chairs exercise

as a reshuffle for hard-working people. Dear God, where is a badger

culler with a telescopic rifle sight when you need one? Anyway,

despite the low drama of the week's events, we were still able to raise

our own game and turned to Isabel Hardman from the Spectator for how

round-up of the political week. In politics, as in netball, it is

tough booking a new team and I did not envy the party leaders as they

reached for their key players this week, packing old faces back to the

reached for their key players this backbenches and promoting new

talent. They are hoping it will put them in a new position for the

election. Many of those promoted this week must be about as famous

as the stars of the netball world, but team was poor and did very well.

Those coached by George, were put into Government for the first time.

This was hailed as the flat cap reshuffled with promotion for

northerners, women and ethnic minorities. There must be a general

election coming up. Labour MPs who had warned the Blairite strip back

in the day were not so popular with T Miller Band. Liam Byrne, Stephen

Twigg and Jim Murphy all took a hit. Diane Abbott was sent off as

Labour's Public Health Minister. Political journalists were Allsop -

- sacked by the sacking of Jeremy Browne. Back on court, after the

conference season, the first Prime Minister's Questions was an attack

and defence came over who has the best energy policy. Nobody wants.

On Monday the Prime Minister said there is a certain amount you can

do freezing energy prices. The Chancellor said it was something,

and I quote out of Das Capital. Is fizzing energy prices a good idea

or a Communist plot? I will leave the Communist plots to him. What

this Government is doing is legislating to put people on to the

lowest energy tariffs. That is a real step forward. But I have to

say on the issue of promising a freeze, this is a classic case of

him saying one thing and doing another. Month after month he

produced policy after policy, it regulation after regulation, target

after target, all of which put prices up. Ed Balls is finding it

hard to handle the passing. Now that the IMF has handled his growth

forecast for the UK... Six months ago we were worried about growth in

the UK not coming back, but we have been pleasantly surprised. Ed Balls

got all sulky he was not in charge of the purse-strings when the good

results came through. After three years of flat Laughlin, finally we

are getting growth back, but for families whose living standards are

falling, this is no recovery at all. The IMF says, build their homes and

get people back to work and George Osborne should act. One man who is

not a team player is Adam Afriyie come at an ambitious Tory

backbencher, who has had his eyes on the job for a long time. But the

only thing is every time he shoots, he does not score. He wanted to

bring forward the date of the EU referendum to October, 2014,

thinking it would cause mayhem in Tory ranks. Sadly, no-one seemed

that bothered. Has he done the impossible and united the Tories on

Europe? We are having a referendum -- by having a referendum in 2014

it kick-starts the negotiations will stop the European Union would

need to accommodate, and make some changes, so they would persuade the

British public to stay if that is what they want. 12 months is ample

time for this kind of negotiating. The three teams have been working

together on press regulation, but like all teams, there is jostling

for position over who has got the best deal for the press. The

committee of the Privy Council is an able to recommend the press

proposal for a Royal Charter to be granted. Whilst there are areas

where it is acceptable, it is granted. Whilst there are areas

unable to comply with some important Leveson Inquiry

principles and Government policy, such as in the area of independence

and access to arbitration. Expect one hell of a scrum on this one.

The newspapers are just not moving. Meanwhile, back at base, the new

ministers are trying to work out their new portfolios and make sure

they do not drop any catches when it comes to their first time at the

dispatch box. Time for the team chant. Keeping it real! It is

exhausting watching that. Isabel Hardman on the court with popcorn

and netball. We are joined in our own top corner by the Lib Dem's

Miranda Green. This is a middle- ranking reshuffle. Matthew Hancock

Miranda Green. This is a middle- is a person we will all have heard

of quite sharply. I imagine he will be in the Cabinet quite soon.

Esther McVey is a lady I have known for many years, a former TV

presenter, very nice and down-to- earth and very sincere. I imagine

she will be in the Cabinet. The are moves that anticipate movement into

the Cabinet between now and the next election. It is clearly an

attempt to change the Brant from being too posh. Although Matthew

does not help. He only went to Eton. being too posh. Although Matthew

Overall the ones who have got the coverage, the ones who you will see

most on TV, does it matter that they her only in B division at the

moment? It is easier to register as a minister of state that a

parliament Secretary. Some ministers of state get quite a lot

of attention. They will be pushed forward even in their present

positions, but you cannot go into the Cabinet until you have been a

minister of state. The big question in all these reshuffles his why did

Nick Clegg replace Jeremy Browne with Norman Baker? That is the

overwhelming question looking at the reshuffle. She agrees with your

question. You cannot agree with a question that begins with why? You

have to answer the question. And I will. As the reshuffle unfolded I

was left open-mouthed by this reshuffle myself. Jeremy Browne is

a very talented individual. But what Nick Clegg was doing was about

positioning or 2015. The Lib Dems in the Home Office have let a few

things happen that have been embarrassing. He wanted to put

somebody in their and somebody in whom the party had faith. They have

faith in Norman Baker? Everybody thinks he has done very well as a

faith in Norman Baker? Everybody minister in transport. That is true,

but it is a dysfunctional department. They could not get the

cost benefits RT Hon H has to. Jeremy Hunt is the Health Secretary.

And he thinks homoeopathy is a great idea. Norman Baker is in good

company. The yardstick is Jeremy hands? Michael, you must have been

distraught when you learnt that Diane had been fired. I was

disappointed for her because obviously she had decided to leave

this great programme to do something else in politics. She

wanted to do something serious and she had taken what appeared to be

quite a lowly position as she took it seriously and was committed, so

I am disappointed for her. Why would Ed Miliband do such a thing?

You just mentioned about the London Mayor. I do not know if she was

You just mentioned about the London asked to step down. To somebody who

has been an eminent person in this programme, I do not know how Ed

Miliband could possibly do that. Can I talk about the Tory

reshuffle? My favourite minister is a guy called Greg Clarke. All these

young and I become -- up and coming 2010 intake, I hope Greg Clarke has

not been pushed down. He moved from Treasury into the Cabinet Office,

but still has responsibility for cities and he is one of their

success stories. You must have been distraught on this Blairite purge

of your old colleagues by Mr Ed Miliband. Stephen Twigg, Liam Byrne,

Jim Murphy. I do not think you could call it a Blairite perch with

Charlie Faulkner coming backing, Douglas Alexander picking up a

strategic role. Tristram Hunt. He is going to education. And dreary

dead hero. A great appointment. I do not think you could say this is

a Blairite purge. Did they approach you? No, they did not, sadly. So

they got rid of dire and they did but ask you. What is he thinking

of? That is a hole so that that was ignored. He is not making friends

in this programme. On a scale of 1- 10, how surprised would you be if

Diane was Labour's London Mayor candidate, 10 being gobsmacked?

Four. I think that should be six, if ten is gobsmacked. I think she would

be an outstanding candidate in the sense that everybody knows who she

is, which is the first and most important thing. That did help

Boris. Presumably the Labour Party would like to have somebody else,

but she will be fast out of the starting blocks because she is

known. As a Londoner, I always feel disappointed when I turn up to vote

in the mayoral elections, because I think all of the parties should do

better with their candidates. I am still hoping that Alan will change

his mind. As a Lib Dem candidate? She could be a Lib Dem candidate,

having become a household name from being on this programme. You could

stand, Alan. I could stand but I would have to stop being a member of

parliament and would have to leave the House of Commons. He is a

Londoner by birth. And authentic Londoner. Let me go on to the

economy, a serious manner -- matter. Labour is betting a lot on living

standards. But the polls show that voters blame Labour more for the

squeeze on living standards than they do the coalition. If the

economy gathers pace, living standards will be rising quite

strongly by the election, so it is a risky strategy. Risky, but the right

strongly by the election, so it is a thing to do, and it made the weather

for the Tory party conference that followed it. I am not going to leave

this point alone. If you want to tell me George Osborne has been a

successful Chancellor, I want to tell you... That was not what I was

saying. Why do you assume that living standards will rise between

now and the election? I am not saying they will. The IMF has

doubled its forecast for Britain's growth. The OECD says we are the

fastest-growing economy in the G-7. If this recovery turns out to be

strong, Labour's strategy is in trouble. That is why the switch

about squeeze on living standards was the right time to do that,

because you cannot bet everything on saying, we predicted this. It is all

perfectly valid, but it is like a cracked record after a while. Also,

I do not think you can assume that a turnaround in the economy

necessarily favours the government, actually. Because once people feel

more secure, they might go with this Labour agenda of who benefits.

Counterintuitively, I think the more people feel uneasy about the state

of the economy, the more it favours the status quo parties being in

power. One of the reasons I do not think living standards will rise is

that when you have massive EU immigration, you can have economic

growth taken up largely by immigrants taking the work at lower

wages. We shall see. Now, Home Secretary Theresa May, the woman who

once dubbed her party the "nasty party", now says she wants to

"create a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants", which begs

the question, has she never read the Daily Mail? But what about those

immigrants here perfectly legally and who would like to play sport for

the country in which they reside? A row has broken out over the issue,

and that's why we've decided to put representing your country in this

week's Spotlight. Arsenal and England for all are Jack

Wilshire kicked off a big ball of controversy this week, claiming that

only English people should be eligible to play for the national

side. Sports stars piled into question his remarks. Former

footballing greats came to his defence. Just because you have lived

in England for five years, I do not think it means you can play for the

national team. Forcing the FA chairman to call for extra time to

clarify who deserves to wear the three lions on their chest. It is an

issue the FA will look at, and we will look at what the rules say, and

then we will make some decisions. And with the government's

controversial vans given the boot I the Advertising Standards Authority,

Jack Wilshire's comments gave the Twitter comedians a gaping open

goal. So does it matter who represents a country, in sport or in

politics? If it knows, should home-grown talent always take

precedence over talented imports? That is quite frightening at that

time of night. John and Casey have joined us. Was Jack Wilshire right

to say only English people should play for England. It depends on your

interpretation of English. Alan Shearer has said you have to be born

in England to play, which I do not agree with. You were not. And nor

was Terry Butcher. I think what Jack meant was that if you are looking at

the case of Adnan Januzaj, I don't believe that a 16-year-old who plays

for Manchester United, five years after coming here he can play for

England. With others, we came here to live. After being here for a

period of time, we developed foot tall and played for England. So I

agree with him if that is what tall and played for England. So I

meant. -- foot tall. What do you tall and played for England. So I

make of his comments? I agree that they have been blown out of

proportion and taken out of context. We have a couple of players in the

squad who were not born in England but now play for England and are

passionate about it. If you are born here, you can play, but you do not

have to be. What should the criteria be that determine if you can play

for England Western Mark if you can get a British passport. The

interesting thing is great Dyke and the FA's take on this. They are

complaining that there are too many foreign players in the Premier

League, which is stifling the growth of England players. On the other

hand, they are saying, if we can exercise a law to get 16-year-olds

to be in the country and play, they want to be all things to all men.

For the FA to say that, when they have irresponsibility to the team

For the FA to say that, when they and to grassroots as well what

message are they sending two kids saying, you can grow up to play, but

when the best Italian 16-year-old comes here, he will play for

England. The FA are wrong to push that. Does it make a difference at

what age you come to the country? I that. Does it make a difference at

think so, and the reasons you come here make a difference. If you come

at 16 or 17, you have not grown up here, no one has invested any time

in you. He came here to play foot tall. That is not the right way to

look at it. I came when I was 12 and a half, but not to play. These

players who are coming here at 16 are already superstars in their own

country. Fabric gas was a superstar. Is it not the rule that you have to

be here five years after your 18th birthday? So I don't think that is

going to be an issue. If you come here at 12 and are not affiliated

with a club, but if you come as a 16, 17-year-old, already a

professional of a certain quality in Italy, Spain, Belgium, and then we

see you can play for us... Should they be allowed to play here if they

stay for a long while, or should they never be allowed to? I think

you are sending the wrong message. I think the FA has to say that we

believe we have to develop our own talent, whatever that talent is.

Players at 15, 16, we have not developed them. It is not just when

they come, but the stage of their football development. You may then

be in a difficult position if a player has acquired a British

passport and cannot play for the national team. The FA has to make

the rule from their perspective but cannot have it both ways. They

cannot complain about players in the Premier League and then say they

want to exercise this rule. Players from particular countries try to

retain their identity, so they say they will not do that. But in

England, it seems we are willing to give up our identity. In the

national team, it would be nice to have an antidote to what is

happening in the clubs. Many people are fed up that at their local club,

ten out of 11 players come from a foreign country. At least in the

national team, to see people who have grown up inside the system. The

temptation to bend the rules is pretty good. It is hard to say no to

getting Kevin Pietersen, or John Barnes. Everybody craves success. In

this country we crave success at an international level because we have

not had it for so long. But it is different to cricket and other

sports. We have 30% of players in the first teams who are English, 70%

foreign. In cricket, you do not have that problem. For Kevin Pietersen

and Mo Farah, they are not preventing an English kid from

having an opportunity. It is one of the interesting things that happens

to a country when it becomes an immigrant nation with a more diverse

population. When I was a kid, all of the players were white. They were

all British. I remember the Celtic team in 1968, every one of the team

that won the European cup had been born within 30 miles of the ground.

It is a different world now. If you get someone like Ibrahimovic, who is

an immigrant to Sweden, played for the national team, that is not the

issue. Who is to say that we are the only country that are patriotic?

There was no chance of the Arsenal midfielder playing for England. He

always wanted to play for Spain. This kid now, he might want to play

for Belgium. Why do we think they have not got a tied to their home

country? He has not said he wants to play for England. He may want to

play for Albania, more likely for Belgium. Has it happened in your

team? Not yet. There are more international players. In politics,

it does not happen often. I say that knowing that case of Peter Hain. But

they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Boris Johnson was born in

New York. Of Turkish origin. You can tell from his Brooklyn accent. -- in

politics, it is not 70% of politicians. In football, that is

the situation. It is a special case. People watching will think,

actually, as long as we win, as long as the English cricket team wins,

the English footballers. That will be the day! But the rugby team, the

cricket team, the Olympic stars. The Germans did not say that. They

decided to develop young players, and look how good they are now.

Thank you both. That is your lot. I have to prepare for interview with

Thank you both. That is your lot. I Diane Abbott.

That's your lot for tonight folks, but not for us, because it's Diane's

coming out party at Annabel's tonight, and we're off to join Her

Majesty in our regular booth. And after three long years in the shadow

public health team promoting sensible drinking whilst trying to

keep her face straight, she's certainly making up for lost time.

Save some for us, Diane! But we leave you tonight with exclusive

footage of the moments after Ed Miliband told her to pack her front

bench bags. Night night, don't let politics bite.