05/11/2015 This Week

Tonight on This Week, we put politics under surveillance.

The Government takes action and suspends flights from Sharm

el-Sheikh in Egypt, after "intelligence sources"

suggests a terrorist bomb brought down the Russian passenger plane

Journalist and broadcaster, Jane Moore, is spying for This Week.

The Prime Minister doesn't just ground airlines on a whim. The

spooks must really have spooked him. New powers to snoop

into our private lives - but do they Keeping an eye on those watching us,

human rights campaigner Sweeping new powers to access,

monitor and hack our private information. Have the innocent

really nothing to fear? And Margaret Thatcher may not have

kept any state secrets in her famous handbag, but should

the Iron Lady's bags and dresses be Star of stage and screen, Maureen

Lipman, gets into character. Let me make one thing absolutely

clear. This programme is not for turning off.

Unscrew the Blue Nun Royale - and get ready for a bit of

Welcome to This Week, the over-ripe avocado on your BBC toast.

If the British government is right and the Russian passenger jet was

brought down over the Sinai desert by a terrorist attack, then it makes

it the worst Islamist attack since 9/ 11, 14 years ago, which is such a

depressing thought that we couldn't think of anything funny with which

to begin this programme. Let's go straight to moments of the week with

Alan Johnson and a couple to low. We are going to talk about the

Investigatory Powers Bill, but my moment of the week was the statement

in the Commons yesterday. I can't think of a serious issue that has

been treated so facetiously over the last few years, Snoopers' Charter

and all this. I thought Theresa May was excellent in the way she dealt

with it, and I was also watching Andy Burnham. It was his first

outing as Shadow Home Secretary, and the fact that he said that this is

neither mass surveillance nor a Snoopers' Charter pleased me

considerably, because I thought that was exactly the right tone about a

serious issue, even more serious in the light of what you have just said

. We are going to have a good discussion if that is your view.

Michael, your moment? Something completely different, which might

otherwise have been missed. Nasa has been taking photographs of

Antarctica and has been analysing the results. It turns out that

although it may be that some glaciers have been melting during

the recent years, it seems that the increase in ice in Antarctica easily

offset the reduction of glaciers. Between 1992 and 2003, the net

increase each year in Antarctica's ice was 112 billion tonnes of ice

per year. And between 2003 and 2008, the rate of increase slowed a bit to

a mere 83 billion tonnes of increase per year. I found this buried in the

pages of the Daily Telegraph. Had these increases actually been

decreases in ice, it would have led every news broadcast on the BBC for

days. But because this does not support the global warming theory,

you have to hunt around in the inner pages of newspapers to find it. And

you have done it. We will get more on that in the run-up to the Paris

conference at the beginning of December on global warming.

Now, yesterday the Home Secretary announced plans to give

the police and security services greater powers to monitor all

our digital lives - in the name of keeping us safe from harm.

Theresa May says the innocent have nothing to hide

Indeed, if you were to snoop down the back

of the This Week sofa, you'd find nothing more incriminating than one

of Diane's old lipsticks, and she's only a danger to herself.

But human rights campaigner and director of Liberty,

Shami Chakrabarti, thinks we should all be concerned about the creeping

And soon, I'll have something much more concerning than a few glass

eyes to worry about after the Home Secretary's breathtaking attack

Our every move is already tracked by CCTV cameras,

but if the draft Investigatory Powers Bill becomes law,

we won't be safe from the prying eyes of Government and the police,

"I keep myself to myself, I'm an honest citizen", I hear you cry.

But surely, this level of Government intrusion simply isn't acceptable

Companies would be forced to keep a record of every website you visit

They say it's the same as an itemised phone bill.

Would you feel comfortable with a stranger standing

behind you while you looked online for medical advice or signed

This is a chilling invasion of personal privacy, all in the name

But no amount of fear of terrorist or cyber attack can

justify turning us all into suspects, and that's what this Bill

In fact, this legislation will leave us at risk of being watched online

by malevolent forces, not just benign ones.

We should all be scared of measures that leave us more

permanently vulnerable to hacking from fraudsters and terrorists.

And can Government really be trusted to keep hold of all

We may be a long way from the trevails of Winston Smith

but we are too far down the slippery slope that I, for one,

So the "ayes" might end up having us in the House of Commons,

but I'm standing against this dangerous intrusion

And from the museum of the College of Optometrists to our own

collection of dusty old artefacts, Shami Chakrabarti joins us now.

Welcome back. Alan, I take it from the remarks you have made that you

do not agree with Shami that this is a "chilly intrusion into our

rivers"? No, I don't. The government has the power and the agencies and

the police have the power to track telephone calls. In 1969, they

steamed open 250,000 letters. There was a whole room in Post Office

headquarters where MI5 did that. They have always had these powers.

The issue is that now there is new technology. The powers do not relate

to those. We are stuck in the past. When I was Home Secretary, we had

won the 2010 general election. Our priority was to plug these gaps.

Theresa May, partly because of the work of Shami and others, there was

a draft bill in 2012 under the Coalition Government. It didn't go

any further. She commissioned three independent reports. All of those

said that the powers the agencies have at the moment are correct. But

they fall short. But they made a number of other points, including

the important point of judicial oversight. Which is judges that

agree to the warrants. It is a draft bill, and it is therefore

pre-legislative scrutiny. I am no cheerleader for Theresa May, but I

thought she bought these things together in a measured way. I saw

Liberty's 8-point plan, and I think Theresa May has tried. Shami will

say she has not addressed them, but she has tried and she has certainly

addressed the concerns of the independent reviewer of terrorism

legislation. What is your view, Michael? I thought Shami's film

failed to address what needs to be done to tackle terrorism. They were

strong on why we might need to fear this, but what about the counter

fear of what will happen if we don't have sufficient powers to find out

what would-be terrorists are going to do? I agree with Shami less than

I used to. I think the situation has deteriorated. I think Edward

Snowden's activities have either pushed us further in this direction

because they have compromised methodologies so that terrorists

know more about what we can do, or at the very least, they have given

people the excuse to claim that. I am not saying this is without risk.

Many of these powers fall to the police, and unfortunately, we know

that some policemen have sold secrets to newspapers for money

regarding celebrities and so on. I can see that that sort of thing is

possible. I will come onto the powers of the police in a minute.

That is an area lots of people are worried about. Shami, why are they

wrong? For a start, if it is accepted, and there is a growing

consensus that there should be a greater role for judges in deciding

whether it is warranted to intrude on somebody's Prevacid, I'm afraid

there has been a huge PR exercise in advance of the publication of this

bill. Having looked at the draft legislative and not just the

newspaper reports that preceded it and the spin, there is no judicial

warrant free in this bill. There is a very limited judicial review of

warrants that are still signed by politicians and not judges. A lot of

the understandable response, perhaps from Alan and others, that Theresa

May has moved in this direction, that has been written about. I don't

think it has delivered in the detail of this legislation, and that really

concerns me. It is all very well to say Edward Snowden is a villain and

he has, most national-security, but we wouldn't even be having this

debate about the need for new powers and where the balance should lie,

but for his revelations. You and I have had these discussions for

years. But he revealed, notwithstanding the debates we have

been having for years and notwithstanding legislation that

fell under the last Labour government because it didn't have

popular support, a lot of blanket surveillance, bulk surveillance. The

word bulk appears in the draft legislation itself. Mr Byrne may say

there is no mass surveillance, but the word bulk surveillance is used.

That is because you don't know who is going to commit these crimes. If

you don't ask the telecom companies to keep all of this information, you

have to have the haystack to look for the needle. And the security

services could not operate on the basis of only keeping the data of

bad people or people likely to commit crimes. It is meta data. You

need a warrant to look at. Shami, why do you think there's judicial

oversight? I was surprised that Theresa May had gone as far as she

did, because there was an argument about it being elected politicians

who are accountable who should be signing this. She said the Secretary

of State should sign it, and then a judge should sign it before the

warrant comes in. The answer to that is clause 92 of the bill. I don't

know if you have read it. I have. There has been all this spin about

double locks. The reality is that the politician makes the judgment,

and a judge is allowed to review the judgment and can only intervene on

very limited grounds. In other words, if the politician is bonkers

or has been completely improper in the way he has looked at the

decision. A proper judicial warrant, as they have in the United

States and all over the free world, allows a judge to actually make the

decision about whether there is sufficient suspicion or evidence to

warrant this intrusion. There is a judicial review of every warrant

before they become effective. But the warrant cannot be used until the

judge has approved it? But he can't make a different decision, he can

only interfere with the politician's decision on very

limited grounds. You are not understanding my point. Is there

sufficient suspicion? This is a draft bill, and Mrs May in a sense

is in negotiating position. She didn't particularly want judicial

review anyway. That is something she will be under pressure to tighten. I

hope so. Most people probably wouldn't agree

with Shami, they would think the Security Services should have access

to the data and be able to get to see browsing history that was

required. Why should the police get to see anybody's web browser history

simply on the say-so of a middle ranking officer?

Well, police are crucial in this. This is not just about terrorism.

This is about organised crime. Yes. It's about paedophilia. If you

listen to the experts who plot and track Child Exploitation. Shouldn't

you need a warrant? If they have suspicion... They need a warrant to

search your home. Under this, only a middle ranking police officer could

do this. Think of the circumstances that you could see there, the police

have arrested somebody and they think he's guilty or she's guilty,

but they can't quite get them to confess. So, the middle rankers say,

let's have a lack at your browsing history. They may find something

totally unrelated to the case but it could be highly embarrassing. It's a

fair point, Andrew. The police need to have access to the data, maybe

there ought to be a higher authority. Judges should sign

warrants but one final question - hacking. What hasn't been talked

about enough yet, the new power in this Bill will allow hacking of

entire networks. You mean the Security Services going on to

people's phones? Devices, networks. Would you need a warrant for that?

The same warrant as I described, a politician's warrant that a judge

can only interfere with on very limited grounds. And here is my

concern on that... I don't think it's a knockout argument to say it's

a politician's warrant. You took it seriously, I did, we take it

seriously when we sign the warrants. David Anderson and his predecessor

pointed out that it was something that hasn't gone wrong. There's in

cases of politicians not taking it seriously. But the danger with

hacking which is graver than just listening, is that when the

authorities effectively damage the security of a network, granted for

laudable reasons because they want to listen, their investigation is

over, that network is potentially permanently undermined. You've

interfew feared with the network and then subsequently all sorts of other

people -- interfered... We learnted from Mrs May yesterday that they

have been doing that already. How has the network been damaged? What

makes hacking different from intercepting is you are actually

interfering with the infrastructure to a point where you leave that

network vulnerable to hacking by other people subsequently and you

don't even know. The malevolent forces you were talking about? Yes.

The first point is that the Security Services have to be able to chase

these communications into this dark area. If Shami's point is, this

leaves it open to malevolent forces, of course we need to close it, but

Shami, you accept there are areas where terrorists and others are

moving because they believe that Security Forces can't follow them?

So people should be told when they have been hacked so that they can

fix their security afterwards surely. Can I just offer a really

basic political point. As we have seen this week over Sharm El-Sheikh

when politicians believe that people may be killed by terrorists, they

are going to take immense steps to prevent that from occurring because

the political price is so huge. There is a built-in asymmetry, I

understand that, but that's politics because people are charged with

security and safety. We have run out of time, you are going to be

business write in the weeks and months with the draft bill.

Now, it's late, internet browsing history late.

But don't let the Home Secretary ruin all your late-night fun -

just google This Week instead, because waiting in the wings,

star of stage and screen, Maureen Lipman is here to talk about the

And for those who GCHQ consider political subversives,

remember, you can exchange suspicious messages about tonight's

show on the Twitter, The Fleecebook,

and Gordon Brown's World Wide Web Sphere.

Now, David Cameron said today it was increasingly likely a "terrorist

bomb" caused the Russian passenger jet to crash in Egypt on Saturday,

And last night the Government took the dramatic

step of cancelling all UK flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh,

leaving thousands of Brits stranded and provoking the wrath

You can certainly think of a better time for a planned visit to Downing

But with the importance of secret intelligence being debated

in Parliament this week, we sent Jane Moore undercover,

and underground, and this is her roundup of the political week.

Welcome, James. It's been a long time. It's Jane actually. And

finally, here we are. . Spies, intelligence and deadly

weapons. Not just the new Bond film, it's been a dramatic week in

Westminster too. The week got off to a tragic start

when a Russian jet crashed in Egypt, killing all on board.

Based on intelligence briefings, David Cameron says it's increasingly

likely that a bomb may have caused the crash. So, the Prime Minister's

suspended all flights to and from Sharm El-Sheikh.

Thousands of Brits have been left stranded. If that Russian airliner

was brought down by a terrorist bomb, that does have very real

implications and it penals it's absolutely essential that we see

that improvement of security at Sharm El-Sheikh airport. All of this

comes as the controversial Egyptian President is visiting the UK. It's

hard to think of a more awkward time for him to be here and he didn't

exactly get a warm reception outside Downing Street.

Islamic state affiliates claim they were behind the crash and David

Cameron still wants permission from Parliament to bomb IS targets in

Syria. But the Government was dealt a blow this week when the Foreign

Affairs Committee urged not to press ahead with a vote on UK air strikes.

We take the fight to Isis, wherever we can, British pilots are doing

that in the skies above Iraq. If we were to do that in the skies above

Syria, we'd need a vote in the House of Commons, but we are not going to

go to the House of Commons unless we'd be clear that we'd win that

vote and there would be a consensus for that action. There is a

consensus in wanting support for the victims of this war. I don't think

there's a consensus around taking further military action.

You've got a secret. Something you can't tell anyone. Don't worry,

James, we've all got secrets we'd rather forget.

But it's going to be harder to actually keep secrets from the state

under potential Bond and Theresa May's extended new powers which are

being proposed. This new legislation will underpin

the work of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies

for years to come. It's their licence to operate.

Meanwhile, it's licence to confuse when it comes the Labour's position

on Trident. Scottish Labour voted overwhelmingly to scrap the nuclear

missile system. But the UK party policy remains to support it, even

though leader Jeremy Corbyn is dead against.

The policy seems to be, live and let die.

You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond.

Former 00 agent Neil Kinnock came out of the shadows to warn that

British voters will not back a party in favour of unilateral disarmament.

You could say the writing's on the wall.

Junior doctors were shaken and stirred this week. So much so that

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt wrote to them in a bid to prevent

industrial action over pay and conditions.

Thank you. We know from the coalition years just how quickly the

NHS can become a toxic problem for the Government. They certainly don't

want a repeat prescription. We have actually been wanting to

negotiate with the BMA since June but they have refused to sit around

the table with us. Instead, they have proceeded to ballot for

industrial action. All this speculation about this

possibly being Daniel Craig's last outing as Bond has set me thinking -

I think the world is ready for a female 007.

The name's Bond, Jane Bond! And from the vaults under Waterloo

to our own little vaults here in the heart of Westminster,

M for Miranda joins us. It will be interesting as a former

Home Secretary to get your take on this. For the British Government,

for the Prime Minister unilaterally to decide to stop the flights, the

intelligence must have been pretty strong? I would have thought so. I

would have thought so. I mean, you know, they have to bring anywhere

between 12,000 and 20,000 Brits home, so they have to go through the

very difficult logistics of getting planes out there to bring them back.

You don't take a decision like that lightly. Indeed, even at the height

of the problems in Egypt back in 2011, it didn't affect any of the

tourist trade. I think they also must have had a mind on the tourism

impact on Egypt which will be profound. I would have thought they

had some very clear intelligence. Looking at some of those photographs

of the wreckage, it looks like shrapnel and a bomb, but they

wouldn't have just done it sitting around COBRA looking at photographs.

They would have had intelligence. Do you agree, Michael? Certainly, I

agree, because it's dealt a blow to our relations with Egypt. It's a

dramatic action to take. It's been unilateral. It's exposed us to

questions of ridicule, so it must be very strong evidence and I read in

newspapers that the US is also of the view that it was a bomb.

Obviously, it's a further leap of logic to say that OK, it was a bomb

and therefore we must doubt the security at Sharm El-Sheikh. I

suppose we would have been rather angry if after Lockerbie other

countries said none of their planes could fly to London, so, you know,

diplomatically, it's a very, very powerful thing indeed. If a

Government believes that it might lose British lives because it

neglected to take action, you just can't take that risk. Some

commentators were saying it was terribly embarrassing because the

President of Egypt was on the plane on the way here while this decision

was taken, but actually, I think that's quite juvenile, there is no

better time for the British Prime Minister and the Egyptian President

to talk than now when these things are going on. It's also brought into

the public limelight that there is a major Islamist insurgency going on

in the Sinai desert, a really major one with total close links with the

Islamists in Syria and Iraq. We should be talking now? Absolutely.

Actually, the context of this jet coming down puts those

conversations, which argue that the UK should cut off relations from

Egypt or sort of put Sisi in the deep freeze because he should be an

unwelcome character in London. Because his human rights record is

appalling? Yes, and Egypt is an important, significant country. The

border with Libya, it's very important to be talking to Egypt

right now for the reasons that are all too obvious with this plane

coming down. Jeremy Corbyn said that the Sisi visit "threatens our

national security". That can't be right, can it? No. I didn't know

he'd said that. No, I wouldn't have thought so. There were

demonstrations in Downing Street for and against. Which is fine and there

should be? It's democracy, yes. But as a country like Britain, France,

Germany, the US, bad as Mr Sisi's human rights record is, you have to

deal with Egypt, it's the most important country in the Arab world?

Of course you do and if we turned our back on Egypt because we felt

there was something wrong with Sisi's eventual action, there are

issues about the Muslim Brotherhood, that would be a catastrophic mistake

for British foreign policy. Well, we are picking up on a catastrophic

error of the past. We connived in the opposing of Mubarak, we opposed

the Muslim Brotherhood, so we acquiesced in the relationship of

the Muslim Brotherhood with Sisi, so our interventions in the area are

generally counterproductive and certainly against our own interests

so at least at the moment were dealing with Sisi.

What Sisi has been able to do, there was effectively a military coup

against the Muslim Brotherhood. He has put a lot of people in jail, we

were speaking to Tim Marshall on the Daily Politics today, a former

distinguished correspondent for Sky News, he was saying it's back to

Mubarak and Nasser, it's a restrictive regime once more, but of

course this insurgency in the Sinai gives him a good excuse to go and be

as tough as he wants? Yes, it does, but as with the conversations we

were having with the Chinese premier's visit, there is a big

question that used to be called ethnic foreign policy, does that

mean you shouldn't engauge with any regime with the question of human

rights. Actually, you know, there are

question marks about the UK's role in the world, have we just gone off

intervention for ever, or do we still have a role to play

diplomatically, and if we have any role to play, we have to engage.

Sisi represents an unpleasant regime that's successful at suppressing

terrorism. The Middle East was covered in such regimes and we have

connived in deposing quite a number of them. Alan, do awe agree with me

that the reason that we haven't had a vote on Syrian intervention in the

Commons is because Mr Cameron, or let me put it this way, we would

have had one if he thought he could secure a majority and he hasn't

because he's not sure? I am puzzled by this. The front page

of the Times said we did not have enough Labour MPs. I am a Labour MP,

no one spoke to me about this. But then Crispin Blunt, the Conservative

chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that was said to be the

reason, because of their report. They were hostile to extending the

bombing to Syria. So it seemed to me like a bit of a spin operation to

suggest that it was Labour MPs. Actually, Joe Cox, the new MP for

Batley, did a very good joint article with Andrew Mitchell a

couple of weeks ago, and the debate was going on within the Labour

Party. Hilary Benn has said we are not ruling it out. So I think he got

his fingers burnt back in August. Which everybody tells me still jars

with him. It was a pretty amateur hour operation. Now he can't afford

to lose a second time. That could be dangerous for his job prospects. And

humiliating. The Tory whips can tell him how many Tory rebels there would

be. They cannot say how many Labour people will counteract the Tory

rebels. It is a difficult place to be in. It is a very difficult place

to be in, but also, there is the question of both the mood of the

country, intervention is extremely out of fashion here now, and also,

frankly, every time we discuss this subject, the situation on the ground

in Syria changes. The Russian intervention was a surprise to

everyone. What would the motion be? Michael? The select committee report

is important, because it makes it much easier for Conservative rebels

to rubble and much harder for Labour's -- Labour rebels to rubble.

What is the significance of Labour's position on Trident? The Labour

opposition is decided at the National party forum. We were the

government when the British nuclear weapon was introduced by the Attlee

government. We were in power when we began this process of renewing

Trident in 2007. It was an overwhelming vote of them as well as

two years ago, when we had the next stage. The policy of the Labour

Party is clear. You say it is clear, except that the Scottish Labour

Party is against Trident, but the leader of the Labour Party in

Scotland is in favour of it. And if I can call it the English Labour

Party, they are in favour of Trident, but your leader is against

it. You made that very clear(!). Well, we have conferences in

Scotland and Wales, and Scottish Labour in particular want a separate

identity, so they had to debate, whereas we didn't have it at

National conference. But they know that the decision in Scotland does

not override the National conference, which has decided in

favour of Trident. But it is not clear that Labour will go into the

next election backing Trident. That's right, and like almost

everything that happens in politics at the moment, it is another

advantage to the SNP. The Labour Party voted with the SNP in Holyrood

on this, and it allows the SNP to say that Labour are all over the

place. I am not sure the SNP want unilateral nuclear disarmament or

whether they just don't want nuclear weapons in Scotland. They have

signed up to Nato. They would be protected by French nuclear weapons.

But the SNP doesn't have the union problem that you have. Unite

abstained, otherwise we would have won the vote. We will have to

abstain from talking any more because we have run out of time.

Now, those who doubt the need for increased surveillance were

given pause for thought, after the Prime Minister was caught

insulting our armed forces on the internet this week.

Fortunately for the PM, the Poppy Police were monitoring all

of Dave's online activity and when they spotted his official Facebook

photograph lacked a certain something, they took swift and

immediate action and a poppy was duly photo-shopped,

by Downing Street, onto the Prime Minister's unpatriotic lapel.

Poppy crisis averted, poppy ridicule ensued.

And that's why we've decided to ask why appearance matters so much

and put the politics of style over substance in this week's Spotlight.

Was Margaret Thatcher out of vogue at the V this week?

The museum reportedly passed up the chance to exhibit her wardrobe.

That's a silk, in the navy section, that's in the black section...

But with her personal effects due to be auctioned off by her family,

does the campaign to save Mrs T's clothes and accessories for the

nation suggest politicians can have unlikely legacies, as fashion icons?

Dressing to impress, or couldn't care less?

When it comes to being on trend, Jeremy Corbyn's radical chic's

No, no, she didn't make the shirt, that came from the Co-op.

So does Jezza need to pull his socks up, or does his appearance

really matter as long as he wears his heart on his sleeve?

We certainly remember politicians for their wardrobe malfunctions,

and Michael Foot learned the hard way, critics claim a tad unfairly,

that he wore a donkey jacket to the Cenotaph in 1981, perhaps the most

infamous example of the opposition leader's new clothes,

There's still a little bit sticking up there.

So do clothes maketh the politician, or have we got too hot under

the collar about the importance of style over substance in politics?

Maureen Lipman, welcome back. Should the V and other museums take up an

offer to display Britain's first female Prime Minister's clothes? I

think they have been a bit short-sighted on this. I never was a

huge fan of the lady, but on this occasion, they have blown it. They

have shown themselves to be rather snobbish. I think she wasn't cool.

And yet she was a style icon. It happened to be the style of middle

England. But if you are going to talk about something having to be

aesthetically pleasing, there is nothing wrong with a Yager suit.

They last forever. And quite a lot of what they call high-fashion

doesn't even have a lining. It wouldn't pass my Jewish

grandmother. So you think there was an aesthetic and a historic reason

for a museum to take it? Absolutely. When she first came along, Maggie

Thatcher, she had a little blowsy dress and frizzy hair, and she knew

that in a man's world, she really had to get her act together. And she

found a carapace which was just as much a shield as Queen Elizabeth's

ruff. I am sure she didn't have a mother who guided her sartorially,

but I will bet you any money that her dad frequently said, the clothes

maketh the man. There is an interest in her being our first and so far

only female Prime Minister. The clothes of male politicians are

quite dull. There would be a fabulous exhibition of John Major's

suits! We know it is ridiculous to judge people by their clothes, but

actually, she got that decision out of the way. What is really

interesting is that they are dismissive of her as a fashion

icon, but if you go on any high street, if you go to any of these

high street shops, you will see giving fabrics are pussycat bows,

which are supposed to be ironic, and handbags. Ruddy handbags

everywhere. She started that. Before that, it was just a bid put your

Valium. But the point neither of you has made is that she used clothes as

an instrument of power. She expressed power through her

clothing. That is why the V judgment is doubtful. It is not

about the quality of the clothes, it is a historic moment in which a

woman becomes Prime Minister and uses the clothing to advance her

political power. And her clothing changed as she herself felt more

powerful. As Maureen says, you see the pictures of her as Leader of the

Opposition in the 70s. Sort of girly. Then you see the padded

shoulders and Jager and so on. Other jackets are available, I should say

on the BBC. The clothes almost began to reflect her own sense of power

and importance. And Dynasty was on, and people wore those. I would never

contradict Maureen. You have convinced me. And it was a conscious

attempt. That is what it is interesting for the V It has

historic value. The outfit she wore in the tank, with the swirling veil

around her head. The outfit she wore in Moscow in 1987, when she was

mobbed by what was then people in the Soviet Union, a month and a half

before the general election in this country, and she wore that great big

coat with the Ferrari lapels and the flat, all absolutely land. Iconic

images that were reflected back to Britain and said, this is the woman

we are going to vote for. I am sure they didn't like her at the V

They want McQueen and Bowie, because then they get a cool audience in.

They will not be queueing around the block to see Maggie's clothes. I

don't know about that. I think it is a bit of Oxford University, Mark

two. It is like a Greek tragedy. Would you agree that clothes must

have been an important part of getting the character right? Style

and substance are actually not two separate things, I would suggest.

They reflect each other. I dislike her less now than I did, but one of

the reasons I disliked her was because she was such a bad actress

and you could see the cogs going around, the sort of acting I don't

like. But now, I had my own suits and my own wig, and my earring just

fell off! Style icon! That's your lot for tonight,

folks. But we leave you tonight with

today's deja vu press conference from the Governor of the Bank

of England, who was hired over two years ago,

at considerable public expense in order, it would now seem,

to miss his inflation targets and keep interest rates exactly

where he found them No offence, Mark, but that

doesn't sound too difficult. Nighty night - don't let

the impatient crowd bite. So, remember, remember, the 5th of

November. What, if anything, is memorable about today's inflation

report? Certainly, the headlines are the minute. Inflation remains close

to zero. I have written another open letter to the Chancellor explaining

why and what we intend to do about it. The MPC has voted against by a

majority of eight to want to maintain the at 0.5% and by 90 zero

2 entertain the purchase assets. And once again, as it has since February

last year, we have reaffirmed our expectations that when the bank rate

rises occur, they can expect to be limited and gradual.