14/04/2016 This Week

Tonight, it's the This Week, All Star Family Fortunes.

With us, the Letts family from Taxhaven, the Wallis family

from Fleet Street, and the Haye family from Knockemdead.

Our survey of newspaper editors found they're not very happy.

Neil Wallis, former News of the World man, says it's time

The BBC and their mates at Hacked Off wanted to stop the press poking

around in people's lives. They got what they wanted and they are still

not happy. Funny that. Quentin Letts thinks he's already

won the luxury holiday to Panama. Family fortunes offshore, and at

home party political fortunes, that has been the game at Westminster

this week. And up for grabs, a night

in the ring with former world heavyweight champ,

David "The Hayemaker" Haye. I have taken a lot of punishment as

a boxer, but nothing as punishing as this show tonight.

Evenin' all and welcome to This Week, your Stairway to Political

And you join us reeling from eyebrow-raising

news that the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby's real

father is not the man he thought he was.

Some say there's no public interest, and it's a gross

invasion of privacy, but after agreeing to take

a DNA paternity test, it has now been confirmed

that his biological father is, in fact, John Flasby Whittingdale,

Secretary of State for Culture, Media, Sport and

Maybe I've got that wrong. But I think I'm on firm ground when I tell

you John Whittingdale briefly dated a woman who turned out to be a

dominatrix sex worker, but the romance never flourished. She dumped

him when she discovered he was a Tory MP and not the Archbishop of

Canterbury. Speaking of dirty secrets, I'm

joined on the sofa tonight by two Think of them as the Question

Avoidance and Question Evasion I speak, of course, of #fourpercent

Liz "Miserables" Kendall. And #sadmanontrain Michael

"Choo Choo" Portillo. Michael, your moment of the week. I

think the issuing, at taxpayers' expense, of this miserable leaflet,

which sets out the entirely tendentious one-sided propaganda

case... Say what you think! It beggars belief that the taxpayer has

to pay for the Government to express its opinion is in what is

effectively an election. I hope the impact on people who receive this

leaflet will be that they will be very angry their money has been

wasted upon it and I hope it will cause them to vote against the

Government's position. And I think it will upset Tories a great deal.

And I think it is making David Cameron a highly divisive figure,

such that even if he succeeds in this referendum, you wonder what his

position will be. My moment of the week is the journalist Isabel

Hardman, who I think you know, calling out sexism in the lobby when

she was referred to as Totty by a Tory MP. She was right, she is

gutsy, and I say good for her. She has not named the Tory MP but some

people think they know who it is. She has kept her source is quiet but

she says this is the 21st-century and we are not putting up with that

language any longer, and I am very pleased she did.

Now, earlier this week the BBC revealed details

of John Flasby Whittingdale's private life, and a previous

relationship the Culture Secretary had with a woman he discovered

But if you wanted to know which celebrity couple took out

a super-injunction to suppress details of alleged infidelity,

with a spot of olive oil wrestling on the side, you'd have

to move to Scotland or the States to read about it.

I am told Michael is trying to work out how to include olive oil in one

of his training documentaries. So after phone hacking

and the Leveson Inquiry, has the pendulum swung

back too far on privacy? Here's tabloid poster boy

Neil Wallis, formerly of The People, The Sun and News of the World,

with his take of the week. It's been a week of conspiracy,

smear, counter smears, So I've come for a bacon sarnie

and a cuppa to calm down. But you know what, it's not often

I can say this. It's not been the gutter press that

has been responsible for trampling their way

through the private lives You know what, "single man has sex

with single woman" doesn't It's true, 20 years ago

we would have run a version But you wanted Leveson,

and you got it. And now you have to live

with the consequences. But what's happened this

week has been like Alice The BBC, for decades, has set itself

up as the vanguard of privacy, railing against these

nasty, intrusive tabloids. But now, this week, you have the BBC

teaming up with Hacked Off and some nut job conspiracy theorist website,

to attack the press for not printing a non-story about someone most

people have never even heard of. Of course, the issue of privacy

and public interest And of course, all media

are beholden at all times But the suggestion that there

is a parallel between this story and the privacy super

injunction is ridiculous. It's simply crazy that

in the post-Levenson world it should be acceptable that a famous couple

could use their glamorous lifestyle and their children

as a lucrative marketing tool, and then use their ridiculous wealth

to hire lawyers to persuade judges to gag the rest of us from knowing

the truth about them. The BBC and their mates

at Hacked Off said they wanted to stop the press poking around

in other people's lives. From the Queen's Head cafe

in Vauxhall to thumbing through our own greasy little

This Week menu, Welcome to the programme. The

minister and the dominatrix, you would have pub -- published that in

a flash. 20 years ago, yes. Ten? I am not sure. The mood started to

change even before Leveson. Is it right that the mood has changed?

Yes, it has. Why do you think the newspapers that had the story did

not publish? Two reasons. First, and incidentally what is important is

that they did not all have this story together, they had it

sequentially. Why didn't they publish? They thought, who knows

this guy? And essentially, because it was long before he became a

minister. Single man dates single woman. That is it. What is the story

there? It is absolutely woman. That is it. What is the story

the head of a select committee, a significant select committee. But

the bottom line, the media are in the business of telling

the bottom line, the media are in things that are interesting about

people they are interested in. Even today, I suspect, if you put John

Whittingdale's picture in front of 100 people, 99.9 of them even now

would not know who he was. You managed to bash the BBC and every

second sentence, which is fair enough, but surely there was some

public enough, but surely there was some

newspapers, which fall under this minister's dream it, had an

embarrassing story about him. It was not embarrassing because they

embarrassing story about him. It was weren't interested. He said it was

embarrassing. It was embarrassing to weren't interested. He said it was

newspapers looked at a weren't interested. He said it was

decided it was not interesting is not a hold over him. This is not

some vast conspiracy. I never used some vast conspiracy. I never used

the word conspiracy. I am simply suggesting maybe it was in the

public interest that people knew that this minister, with newspapers

in his remix, had a story they that this minister, with newspapers

he would have preferred would not come out. -- his remix. This was

presented as a great conspiracy by national newspapers collectively not

to publish the story so they could have a hold over the Minister. There

is not, apart from Hacked Off and BBC Newsnight, there is not a shred

of evidence there is any truth in that. Were the newspapers right to

not publish the story? I think they were right not to publish it. John

Whittingdale is a single man and what he does in his private life is

his business. My concern is more why the Prime Minister and John

Whittingdale have not fulfilled their commitment to the victims of

phone hacking, the public and indeed fulfilled the will of the House of

Commons on the measures there. The world has moved on from them. Were

the newspapers right not to publish? I want to answer this way, I think

the story is not particularly damaging to John Whittingdale so you

can't regard it as a sort of Damocles. That said, I think it is

unlucky for John Whittingdale that the story was not published, because

since it was not, it puts him in the position of being suspected of

having a conflict of interest. I think the story was not actually

damaging and so that is not particularly logical, but I think it

puts him in that unfortunate position. And by the way, I don't

often defend the BBC, but I think the BBC is right to say it raises

that question. You think the BBC was right to broadcast the story it did?

Yes. Not because it wished to invade his privacy, but because it wished

to it raise the question of whether the Minister had a conflict of

interest. This is an issue of scale. This was not a story that simply

appeared on BBC Newsnight. This was a huge story on the today programme,

which we know sets the agenda for the day. The follow-up to the

Newsnight story. It was the lead on the BBC News website. I was asked on

to just about every major BBC News outlet, the today programme, five

live, BBC News, even Victoria Derbyshire. They went mad for it.

May I make one other point. You were saying before that there is no point

putting anything about John Whittingdale because no one had

heard of him. There was a man of whom literally no one had heard

whatsoever who was absolutely pushed all over the tabloid newspapers. He

was a member of the House of Lords. You could say he was a married man,

as though that made all the difference, but I am not sure it

does. But I simply do not believe your proposition that the tabloids

have moved on, that they have decided that now if something is

just a private matter for people's private lives... Do you think the

BBC was right to do the story? I understand what Michael is saying

about raising the question of whether the newspapers held this

story back either because they thought it was not a story, or

because they knew he was favourable to them because he has always been

on the record as being anti-Levenson. The truth is we will

never know the answer to that. But the real issue, if I can come back

to it, is that there have been commitments from the Prime Minister

about implementing Leveson, and the will of the House of Commons has

been that we have passed legislation to say there should be strong

incentives for newspapers to sign up to an independent Leveson -

compliant body, and those that don't could face exemplary damages. The

Government is walking away from that and I would suggest because it does

not want to do it, not because of any story on John Whittingdale. But

that is the will of the house. To change their position, they need to

come back and do it. They are not going to do it if they don't want

to. I would like the Prime Minister to explain to victims of phone

hacking and the public and come to the House of Commons and explain why

he is not doing what he said he would do.

If it's not in the public interest to publish this story, why are the

tabloids gagging to publish the story about the celebrity couple?

You are talking about bananas and cucumbers, what you have on the

celebrity threesome story is a world famous couple who've used their

family status, who've paraded their children, used it as a marketing

ploy, then using their vast wealth to basically hire expensive lawyers

to try to gag the rest of the world from seeing it. Sure, but that's not

the tabloids stopping this, they'll sell a lot more newspapers than the

story on John whiting gale. There is an element of that. A big element.

But the issue of how you gag a story like that which I would argue is

completely in the public interest. Why is their private life in the

public interest? Hypocrisy. He's saying putting a different picture

ahead of what the reality is. But... If you had been a famous MP

campaigning against abortion, but that you had had last year an

abortion, would that not be in the public interest? Yes, it would, but

what you are saying, from what I understand it, is that however they

may behave in their pill vat life, they may have their private life

too. I don't know who the celebrity couple is. You must be the only

one... I do understand though that in the case of a legislator who is

advocating a public policy... That's completely different. I don't know I

don't understand why, because these people are famous, their public

lives are up for grabs. It's about hypocrisy. I But why is it in the

public interest? What is hypocritical? Because when they have

their children, it was almost like the birth of a Royal Prince. It

was... What has that got to do with what they do in their bedroom? I'm

afraid this is bananas and cucumbers, you have a view on this

and we have another. Is Labour right to call for John Whittingdale to be

removed from new newspaper and regulation because, now this story's

out, the newspapers could hardly influence themth him if there's any

more? The focus should be on more on asking him to fulfil the will of the

House in him doing what he said he would do for the newspaper toes

comply with Leveson. So you are saying the strong incentive is, if

they don't sign up under the Leveson plan, even if they don't want a

court case, they would have to sign up. Come back to the House and

explain to MPs... The Government's position... By the way, accusations

made against the BBC is that the BBC done this against John whiting gale

dale is because they are in a tussle with him over the licencify. It's

prosecution it is rows. You want to get him recaused if giving any sort

of influence on that decision -- licence fee. My understanding is

that the licence fee was set up by the Chancellor anyway. Thank you

very much. Now, it's late - Corbyn

speech on Europe late. And if you want further proof, take

a look who's waiting in the wings. Former heavyweight champion of the

world David Haye is here, and Liz certainly

fancies her chances. And if you can't hold back,

why don't you come out swinging and Gordon Brown's Intergalactic

Chat Bot. Now, when Boy George

cut the top rate he was asked at the time

whether he would personally benefit, I'm not personally

affected," he told the BBC. Well, now we know he has,

in fact, been benefiting from his own tax cut,

after Gideon was forced to publish his tax return this

week, following the lead of the Prime Minister

and the Panama Papers leak. Although he only published his most

recent return, so we have no idea whether or how much he stood

to gain in previous years. Maybe it doesn't matter

to you, maybe it does. Which is exactly how we feel about

the Daily Mail's Quentin Letts. Here's his tax-tastic offshore

round-up of the political week. Nothing irregular or criminal,

or morally dubious. Just a quick inventory

of This Week's offshore assets. Between you and me, if the costume

budget is anything to go by I'm not sure there will be much

in the vaults here at This Week's But everything has

to be accounted for. And accounting for investments

is what David Cameron had to do The Prime Minister had to fess up

that he had profited While his finances were all legit,

the leaked Panama Papers raised issues of tax

transparency and regulation. The publication of a Prime

Minister's tax information in this way is unprecedented, but I think

it's the right thing to do. But let me be clear,

I am not suggesting that this The Chancellor has today published

information on his tax return, in a similar way

to the Shadow Chancellor This begs the question of how far

the publication of tax With all this stuff about tax

havens, Labour ancient He was duly red-carded

by the Speaker. I know, I know what

you're saying to me. This man has done more to divide

this nation than anybody else. I order the honourable member

to withdraw immediately from the House

for the remainder of Oh, I say!

from the Conservative's man May I support the Prime Minister

in fending off those who are attacking him, particularly

in thinking of this place, because if he doesn't,

we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low

achievers who hate enterprise, hate people who look

after their own family, and who know absolutely nothing

about the outside world? With politicians' tax

returns being published, the Prime Minister had a pop

at Jeremy Corbyn, I'm glad he wants to get

onto our responsibilities I thought his tax return

was a metaphor for Labour policy. It was late, it was chaotic,

it was inaccurate, it was uncosted. Mr Speaker, I'm grateful

to the Prime Minister for drawing attention to my own tax return,

there, warts and all. The warts being my handwriting,

"all" being my generous I actually paid more tax than some

companies owned by people Labour is worried that

steel-maker Tata wants to leave The question of nationalisation

is buzzing around Westminster and the Business Secretary hinted

that the Government was not ruling out some

form of intervention. The formal sales

process begins today. I've been in contact with potential

buyers, making clear that the Government

stands ready to help. This includes looking

at the possibility of co-investing I welcome the long overdue admission

from this Government that it is their duty to help find

a future for UK steel-making. I just hope it isn't a case

of too little, too late. Former Foreign Secretary David

Miliband was in town this week, shoring up support for the vote

to stay in Europe campaign. And finally, posties up and down

the land have been delivering a controversial EU referendum

leaflet, promoting a vote This vexed the Brexiteers,

who said public money was being used to push

one side of the debate. At PMQs, David Cameron

was reminded of strong feelings Have we withdrawn from the free

movement of people, or is that The nation has been waiting

for Jeremy Corbyn to lay out his deck chairs on the EU,

and finally we've learned Not rest and recuperation,

but remain and reform. There is a strong socialist case

for staying in the European Union, just as there is also a powerful

socialist case for reform That's why we need a Labour

government, to stand up at the European level for industries

and communities in Britain, to back public ownership

and public services, to protect and extend workers'

rights, and to work with our allies to make both Britain and Europe work

better for working people. There's been the offshore tax hoo-ha

and then the row For some, that's been

too much secrecy. Now, how about that

This Week inventory? Quentin Letts locked

inside the high Security vault in Leadenhall Street's Revolution

Bar. Michael, the Panama papers quickly

narrowed down in this country to a story about the Prime Minister and

the Prime Minister's late father. Did either of them do anything

wrong? Certainly nothing's been proven wrong that either one of them

did. I think it's a kind of political things. I'm quite a highly

paid person and yet I've never had any dealings with any off shore

investmentstrusts so I deduce from that that those who do have contacts

with a very tiny minority of the population indeed so as it were the

political sin is to be associated with something incomprehensible from

the mass population. Did either of them do anything wrong? Not by the

letter of the law but I would agree with Michael, the Conservatives'

political strategy has been to try to detoxify the party, move to the

centre say they're a compassionate one-nation. Cameron's succeeded on

issues like gay marriage but not on economic issues. They have done good

things around raising the minimum wage, far outweighed by the cuts to

the minimum wage. Few at the top do well but get fewer breaks, whether

it's on capital gains tax or inheritance tax. It blows a hole

through the central Seattly. Posh, wealthy, privileged and so on. As

long as off shore assets are declared by required by the law, and

we live in a globalised world, what's wrong with having them, MPs'

pension find is offshore, the Guardian has offshore... What is The

Real Story here about Panama that's got lost in Cameron and his father

and about MPs publishing their tax returns. It's the extremely wealthy

individuals trying to hide their money to try to avoid paying taxes.

And everyone from Assad, Mugabe and Putin trying to avoid that. That is

very interesting. Isn't it the case that the Panama papers raise issues

about taxes. Sometimes Government themselves using these things to

hide it. Maybe the parochial concerns about tax returns, the

Prime Minister's father, have dedelected from the much bigger

issues? Yes. It is interesting because Putin

is facing no scrutiny whatsoever because the press is not free. I

agree it has been a diversion, and the greater diversion was into

inheritance tax. The legislation is clear on inheritance tax. It has set

out all the ways in which you can make it a voluntary tax. If you are

willing to give away wealth during your lifetime and are lucky enough

to live seven-year is, you can effectively not pay inheritance tax.

It is not dodgy, it is set out in statute. And it was in place when

Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and when Tony Blair was Prime Minister.

I take your point that what is done is done in this country, so was Mr

Cameron right to publish his tax return? I think he had to in the

end. But that does not deal with the big question. Cameron has made a

small step forward by getting agreements among some of our

territories that they will compile this register of beneficiary

ownership, but it doesn't go far enough. We don't know whether anyone

other than UK authorities can scrutinise those registers. There

are increasing OECD agreements coming into place, and there are

already EU agreements. Since the crash in 2008, there has been

pressure on governments to do more. But they are not public so you have

to know there is a problem to ask. The only way to deal with it is to

make them public. There will be automatic exchange of information.

Not public, but automatic between jurisdictions, and that will make a

difference. It will, but I would like to see them public, to make

sure that authorities in other countries can scrutinise what is

happening in our territories. There is more we can do, and the

distraction about MPs tax returns has taken our eye off the real

question. Maybe it has been a distraction because surely by

definition tax returns only tell voters how public figures are

complying. If they are not complying, it will not be in the tax

return. I certainly think there are enough disincentives to become a

member of Parliament. If you took drugs when you were 16, had a gay

relationship at 17, whatever... And now you have to publish your tax

return as well. I know Alan Duncan made his point in a clumsy way in

the House of Commons... In an obnoxious way. I was massively upset

by it, shocked, to be honest. I don't know why! If it becomes the

norm that MPs have to publish tax returns, we will have even fewer

people stepping forward. I must say, I find one of the great joys of not

being in the House of Commons is that I do not have to answer

questions about my private income. Do you buy the

questions about my private income. loves the European Union? He did not

say that. I thought he loves the European Union? He did not

honest. You might be surprised to hear me say this but I think he

probably hear me say this but I think he

a lot of people, which is sceptical. It needs to change, but on balance,

stay in. I think that is It needs to change, but on balance,

right. The less glorious putting that is that we are unhappy

being in it and too frightened to leave. If that is the best that can

be said for it, it is a hopeless situation. I do not know why Jeremy

Corbyn is under such scrutiny. I situation. I do not know why Jeremy

don't believe Jeremy Corbyn is any more euro enthusiastic than Jeremy

Corbyn. There is a final issue to address. It is clear that a majority

of Conservative voters will probably vote to leave. It could be 55-45. So

of Conservative voters will probably how are you going to get this

Labour, Mr Cameron needs how are you going to get this

vote to win. This was an important speech. Labour voters and supporters

needed to hear the Labour leader say speech. Labour voters and supporters

this because all they have heard so far is a Tory leader, and they are

relying on us to get the vote out. He has said it more than two months

before polling day. And he will say it again. I doubt he will. I think

he feels he has done what he had to do. Anything two months before

polling day is irrelevant. Who remembers Iain Duncan Smith? It is

completely irrelevant and I don't think there will be any great effort

to turn out the Labour vote. Do you think he will campaign, do lots of

rallies? I am an East Midlands European champion and I am busting a

gut to get the Labour vote out. Then I am sign the more frightened than I

was! -- I am slightly more frightened than I was.

The second rule of This Week is, you do not talk about This Week.

And the third rule of This Week is, if I yell, "Stop",

which I'm told happens quite a lot these days,

then This Week is over, we roll the credits,

to Lou Lou's to lick our wounds and sip a Blue Nun cocktail.

And that's why we're putting Fight Club in this week's Spotlight.

British boxer Anthony Joshua isn't about to let his guard down.

No sooner had he won a world heavyweight title than The Haymaker

Former number one David Haye says he's on a comeback.

So why do some people love the fight so much that they just can't avoid

Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing

Forum for democratic debate, or bare-knuckle bearpit?

David Cameron pledged to put an end to Punch and Judy politics

But doesn't he live for the fight, too?

This week has certainly been a bruising one

I know that I should have handled this better.

And how does the Prime Minister's new sparring partner deal

Jeremy Corbyn might have called for a kinder politics,

but maybe you have to beat your rivals at their own game.

I don't do interviews under any circumstances.

Liz could have been a contender for Labour leader until she got

And the man in the blue corner certainly knows how she feels.

So whether your sport is boxing or politics,

how do you fight on, and when do you throw in the towel?

David Haye is with us now, welcome to the programme. Do you like being

in a fight? Tyler it. It sounds crazy and a lot of people probably

could not relate to it, but I feel at my most comfortable in the heat

of battle, when I am in there with somebody and fighting. I can't hear

anybody else, I am just in the zone that no other walk of life can get

me into. I am fortunate we live in a society where I am allowed to do it.

It is a place that I believe I am truly genetically designed to do

that. To be in there, competing. But you retired in 2012 and you said

that being hit in the face for 20 years was long enough. I had a plan

from when I was a kid that I would retire before I was 31. I believed

competing for 20 years, it's a long time. But I believed I could achieve

what I wanted in 20-year is. I was the undisputed cruiserweight champ

of the world. No other British fighter had ever done that before. I

then went up to heavyweight and won the heavyweight title, beating the

biggest ever heavyweight champion in history. Then I went to unify the

titles against Vladimir Klitschko. I went to do that just before my 31st

birthday and I lost on points. So I did not quite achieve it. I wanted

that perfection in my career. If I had that I would have been able to

retire. I had been saying I would retire since I was ten so I thought

I would do so anyway. Sitting at home, on a beach somewhere going,

something is not right, there is still work to do. A number of boxes

outside the ring, including you, gentle, softly spoken. Is it easy to

go from that to the aggression required to win? It is harder being

here now, being a healthy member of society. That is the hard part.

Michael has found that, too. He is still working on it. Believe it or

not, the easiest thing for me is once I'm in the ring, there is a

referee there, me and my opponent. I do not see the referee. I know he is

there, but I am just in this own. Not many people can get it because

not many people have been there, but it is a special place. But now, even

before you get in the ring you are expected to do this face-off, stare

at each other and look angry and serious and threatening. Is that a

mind game, or just show business? It is a bit of show business.

Unfortunately, I have been in a situation where someone got too

close and it ended up kicking off and I had a punch-up in a press

conference. In front of 200 members of the press. Terrible. Everyone

said it was a disgrace, terrible, but after that it was one of the

biggest grossing fights. That was the best possible promotion for a

boxing match, strangely. All of the writers who said it was disgusting

they were there in the front row saying, what a great fight, much

anticipated. It was a genuine grudge match. Politics is pretty

adversarial, isn't it? There is a lot of fighting talk. Even the

metaphors. We talk about who wins PMQs. The big beast, all of that.

Who wins, the upper hand... I have always found it fascinating about

the chamber that it is really exposing. Under pressure, people

cannot hide who they are. It is both a fight, but it is also theatre, in

the real sense that people are very exposed and their real tendency

comes out. I think the number of people really stimulated by the

fight in politics are very few, and they get to the top. People like

Tony Blair and David Cameron are exceptionally good, really

stimulated by it. And they triumphed because of that. When you were

talking about being in the zone and loving it, you could say that about

politicians. You are also saying that you are a rare beast. You are,

I am sure, and so are they. When you gave up the political fight, and I

know you have no thoughts of coming back, was there something in the

back of your mind that said, this may just be for a while? Well, that

is how it was because I was defeated and I had this idea of unfinished

business, like what David has said. I came back because I had unfinished

business. The second time I decided to leave, the first time I left

voluntarily, that was it. No question whatsoever. But I am also

absolutely sure that I lacked the aggression that David has described,

and the aggression that David Cameron or Tony Blair or Margaret

Thatcher displayed. Every day you have to get back on your feet,

forget the insult and keep driving forward. Our country has a new world

champion, Anthony Joshua. You want to fight him. I would love to. He

did a great thing the other night, had an American champion come over

and he dispatched him. This country is good at boxing. We are doing

fantastic. We have 12 current world champions. Why is that? It might

have been the spur of the Olympics. Maybe kids are seeing champions and

believing they have a chance. Amateur kids believing that they can

be there one day. It Israeli popular in my constituency. We have a couple

of local gyms. -- it is really popular. My next fight is on the

21st of May, fighting a Kosovan, 29 fights, never lost. He is going to

get knocked out. I might need a sparring partner.

That's your lot for tonight folks, but not for us.

We're giving Lou Lou's a miss tonight and heading

to Big Nick's Nightclub in what was formerly

the People's Republic of Hackney and is now

Not just tax-free Blue Nun, but I'm told Diane has been dancing

of David Cameron, who this week turned up at the Remain Campaign

phone bank and wished he hadn't, after he dialled the wrong

We can debate my policies, argue about them, but my motivation has

always been about that. My motive now, with no question in my mind, is

that I am concerned that this Government that I want to succeed is

not able to do the kind of things it Government that I want to succeed is

should, because it has become too focused on narrowly getting the

deficit down focused on narrowly getting the

say where that should fall, other than simply on

say where that should fall, other progressively can less afford

say where that should fall, other have that fall on them. The more you

can keep going on that keep going until June the 23rd. Many thanks for

talking to us. All right, take care.