29/01/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. The Government says

it wants cheaper childcare, but can you make it cheaper and better at

the same time? Or is that, as every toddler knows, having your cake and

eating it? Does British football desperately need reform?

An influential group of MPs thinks so. But will it ever happen?

Have you got a favourite political book? We will take a look at some

of the best and worst of the last 12 months.

How much do you propose to spend? A figure? Why don't politicians just

answer the question? We will find out what turns people right off

politics. All that in the next hour, and with

us for the whole programme today is the political writer, publisher and

LBC presenter Iain Dale. But first, we've had two apologies

in the last 24 hours - the first from Rupert Murdoch about this

cartoon in the Sunday Times. It is by Gerald Scarfe and it shows the

Israeli Prime Minister building a wall out of the bodies of

Palestinians. It was published on Holocaust Memorial Day.

And the second apology has been made by the Lib Dem MP David Ward.

He has been formally censured by the whips for saying he was

saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of

persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of

liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on

Palestinians. Iain Dale, should that cartoon by Gerald Scarfe have

gone into the newspaper? I think we don't know the decision process

that led to it. There is a new editor on the Sunday Times. I can't

believe Gerald Scarfe didn't know it was Holocaust Memorial Day. I

read this morning on Twitter that he says he had no idea, I am not

sure it is an argument in his defence even if he didn't know,

because it is a gratuitously offensive cartoon. But we have the

right to offend in this country, it is not illegal to offend people.

Similarly with the David Ward case, he has a perfect right to offend

people but has to justify what he has done. I am not sure what people

suggest should happen, just because people have been very offensive

there should be punishment or not? You were more worried in terms of

the cartoon by Gerald Scarfe with Binjamin Netanyahu at the top of

the wall, the timing of that? If it was printed on another day you

would have thought, well, that is just a Gerald Scarfe does his

cartoons? I think cartoons are meant to be funny. There is nothing

funny about that. It has a message that is certain group will probably

agree with and say why does the Israeli lobby always cut rough on

things like this, why are they offended so easily? I think if you

got the history that Israel and the Jewish people have, I think you

will understand it better. I am not saying the cartoon should not have

been printed, that would have been censorship. It is very difficult.

It is satirical. Where does satire end and political message start?

The David Ward case is very different. It is very

understandable why people thought that was wrong, and most of his Lib

Dem colleagues thought it was wrong, to be fair, because he used the

phrase, the Jews. If the have said that gays, blacks or the gypsies,

everybody would have been outraged. He chose not to apologise initially,

he stood by every word. He has apologised but not withdrawn the

comments. I don't know how you can apologise without withdrawing them.

And he won't use the phrase the Jews in future. How very graceless

of him -- gracious of him(!) The cynics among us might think he is

playing to a certain group in his constituency and it will go down

very well. The Liberal Democrats did well on this, they condemned

the comments, but they have done nothing about it. They have sent

him a letter. What does that mean? It is a yellow card? Some people

think it might ought to be a red card. We are talking about football

later, we might as well -- might as well get the terminology. I think

he should have had the whip withdrawn for a time. Far more

serious than Nadine Dorries going into the jungle, and she had the

whip withdrawn. Now it's time for our quiz. The

question for today is which of these things has not been handed

into the Houses of Parliament lost property office? Is it two jars of

marmalade, a rucksack of bananas, a brace of pheasants or a plastic bag

of peppers? At the end of the show, Iain will hopefully give us the

correct answer. Last time I was on we did not have time! Are we milk -

- we will make sure we have today. Well, the big parliamentary moment

of the day will come in a couple of hours when MPs get to vote on

whether to cut the number of MPs and change all the parliamentary

boundaries before the next election to make them more equal in size.

It's not one of those issues that regularly gets hearts racing

amongst the general public, but it is an issue that is dear to the

heart of the Conservatives as it will probably give them quite a few

extra seats. Their coalition partners the Liberal Democrats,

however, are refusing to back them up on this one because the Tories

didn't let the Lib Dems reform the House of Lords. Our deputy

political editor James Landale is with us now. I think the

Conservatives are unlikely to win this. There is some uncertainty

about how the DUP will boat, but Plaid Cymru and the SNP will vote

with the Liberal Democrats and Labour. Unless there are changes,

the likelihood is a conservative loss. This will be significant for

two reasons, this is an arcane debate and many people might be

stretching their heads, but there are two significant points. One is

over short-term coalition relations. Lots of Lib Dems and Conservatives

are getting very hot under the collar, talk of U-turns and

betrayal. I think there will be anger this afternoon. Secondly and

perhaps more importantly, as you mentioned, at stake potentially,

the election experts say, are 20 seats the Conservatives might have

gained at the next election under these boundary reforms. But will

not now happen and that could possibly make the difference

between a victory or defeat. Many Conservative MPs are worried about

this. They think David Cameron should not have allowed this debate

to get to this stage. However, it could. Arcane and, yes, it will be

slightly parliamentary this afternoon, but today is one of

those days that we could look back on in a few years and say, that was

a costly mistake. Thank you. I am joined by the Lib Dem peer and

expert on everything to do with political campaigning Chris Lennard,

and the president of YouGov, Peter Kellner. Chris, if you always

thought that reducing the number of MPs and equalising constituency

sizes was so bad, why did you sign up to it? He it was part of a

package. We did not mind a reduction in the number of MPs if

we were making the House of Lords more legitimate. We see the all

these things together. We believe the Government should be called to

account by parliament. If you are reducing the number of MPs but not

making the House of Lords more legitimate and effective than there

is a problem. House of Lords reform was in the Conservative manifesto

and the coalition agreement, and the Queen's Speech. I believe the

Conservative Party had a whip on the House of Lords reform. Your

whip this afternoon, as I understand it, is to oppose this

measure. It was in your manifesto, you are voting against something

you agree with? You say there was a whip in the Conservative Party, but

almost exactly half of Conservative backbench MPs voted against House

of Lords reform, that is why David Cameron was so angry that night. He

knew when backbench Conservative MPs torpedoed the House of Lords

reform that this would happen on boundaries, that is why he was so

angry. Do you accept the Conservatives did not deliver are

now part of the deal? Nick Clegg agreed with -- David Cameron agreed

with Nick Clegg's package, but his package was a dog's breakfast. I

think there would always have been Conservatives voting against it. I

don't see what else David Cameron could have done. I think he will

agree they tried to get as many Conservative backbenchers to

support it as they could. Your whip is to oppose something that you

agree with. The electorate, and James Landale said it was arcane,

it is kind of arcane. But the electorate will thing, why are the

Lib Dems voting again something they agree with? You agree that the

House of Commons should be smaller, you agree with equal constituency

boundaries? In the long run we want to see boundaries redrawn on

roughly equal constituency size, but we know the date are now is not

as we thought it would be. At the time of the Bill we thought that

more than 90% of the people who should be on the register are, but

now it is about 80%. Around 6 million people are missing from the

voting register, and you can't redraw the boundaries until they

are on the voting register. Is this about principles? Isn't it just

about straightforward tit-for-tat? There are principles on pragmatism

-- pragmatism. We wanted a package and if the Conservatives will not

deliver, we will not deliver. We are against a reduction in MPs in

the absence of House of Lords reform. And if you want the

boundaries correct and drawn fairly, you need all the people who should

be on the register on it. 6 million people are currently missing.

is a view that says the Lib Dems have had to absorb quite a lot in

terms of losing out on some of their key policies. Have they

really? They would argue things like tuition fees, for example. It

was a big line in the sand. And they could not give way on this

issue? There is a website with all the Lib Dem achievements and the

coalition listed. I think lots of Conservatives think the Lib Dems

have to give more and have taken too much. Moving away from the give

and take, who would lose the most under these proposed changes?

Lib Dems would lose the most, Labour the next most, the

Conservatives least of all. In crude numbers. At the last election,

the Conservatives were nine or 10 seats short of the number needed

for an overall majority. If that election had been fought on the new

boundaries, the Conservatives would have been just two seats short. The

other figure, this will be the last I give you, is my estimate is that

for the Tories to win an outright majority, they need about half a

million more boats operating under the old boundaries, the current

boundaries, than if the boundaries were changed. If they are defeated

this afternoon, Parliament is imposing a half million vote

penalty, if you like, on the Conservatives will stop but it is

half a million and the marginal constituencies... -- in the

marginal constituencies. Every party is voting for their partisan

interests, so why are you so upset with the Liberal Democrats? I am

not, I think there are more important things to discuss than

this. It seems clear that the election will be fought on existing

boundaries, I don't understand why David Cameron has pushed this to a

vote. I will look stupid if he does win it! It is like when interest

rates are put up and then discounted by the markets. There

will not be massive rows on the Conservative benches. They are

terribly angry about it... anger was six months ago. It will

not reignite? I would not have thought so. Do you think the

Liberal Democrats' survival depends on the next election been fought on

the existing boundaries? Parties have survived much tougher times

than this. You are too young, when I was growing up in the 50s, 60s

and 70s the Liberals were in a much worse state. They will survive. One

of the reasons it will be tough with the new boundaries is a Lib

Dem MPs, more than other parties, depend on personal reputation, the

incumbency factor. A few radically redraw the boundaries, a Lib Dem

MPs will lose a lot of voters who know them well and gain a lot who

don't know them so well -- if you radically redraw the boundaries.

They could lose how many seats? For if you do the mechanistic uniform

swing calculation they could lose on a current poll rating more than

half of their MPs. I don't think they will. There will be some

incumbency factor. But I would not be surprised if they are down 20 or

25 seats. That would be pretty disastrous? I'd like to see a

different system where have you got more votes you got more seats.

was wondering how long that would take! You can't assume that there

is a direct collision between opinion polls and bolts. Opinion

polls and mid-term are very unlikely to be good indicators of a

general election outcome. I have looked at the last eight

parliaments, in seven of them the mid-term opposition has been

completely different during the If you put together AV and the new

boundaries, maybe lose a dozen seats on the boundary change, but

gain 25 seats because of the alternative vote system. We have

got the referendum, and it was lost, which I expected, but the Lib Dems

didn't, and that is part of the beef. But that is democracy.

Lib Dems made a judgment call and they lost. You got that in just

about. What about prospects for the Conservatives under the existing

boundaries? How difficult is it for David Cameron to get that overall

majority? My judgment is, and it depends on how the Lib Dems of

other parties fair, they probably need 41%, 42%, to get an overall

majority, that is a five-point up lift. The when was the last time a

governing party got a five-point up lift at the end of a Parliament?

You have to go back to Lord Palmerston in the 1850s. It is a

tough call. And that is why you come back to this question about

anger? For I think it is impossible. Unless the Liberal Democrats to

vote implodes at the next election, and most of it goes to the

Conservatives, which is not the most likely repository for that

vote, and if you kick implodes for some reason, then you could make an

argument for it -- UKIP. So do you think there will be anger towards

David Cameron for allowing the situation to come about? Yes, to an

extent. That anger has been there for the last two years. Those who

don't want a coalition will always be angry with David Cameron for

going into one. Those who think you shouldn't have given an AV

referendum to the Lib Dems will be angry come what may. But forget all

these ridiculous stories, Cameron is in a stronger position now than

he was this time last year. And that won't be changing. Thank you

very much. This morning, the Education

Minister Liz Truss is allowing a relaxation in the rules on how many

children nurseries and childminders are allowed to look after. Child

care costs in the UK are the second highest of the 34 countries in the

OECD. For a couple where both parents than the average wage, they

are 27% of net family income. Only Switzerland is higher. Other

countries such as Highland, Australia, Slovenia and the

Netherlands have higher fees, but lower net child care costs, due to

more generous state support for childcare benefits and tax

reductions. According to a study by the resolution Foundation, a family

with both parents working full-time and two children aged two and four

in full-time care will spend �13,529 per year on childcare. And

in London, it can cost as much as �10,000 more. Proposals to help

families with the costs of childcare are unlikely to emerge at

the end of next month. Today's announcement would allow carers to

look after four under two-year-olds, or six two-year-olds. The ratio

issue is a big concern for everybody. The majority of day

nurseries across the country deliver excellent care and support

children and families. The issue of increasing the ratio is there costs

will come down for parents, and it is also questionable, because

nurseries are already struggling in terms of their day-to-day

management and the financial situation. If there is more money

available, then the staff need to be paid more, especially if you are

expecting them to be better qualified. Labour's spokesperson on

all of this is Sharon Hodgson. What is your response? Half of them we

agree with. Those following the recommendations of the review into

better qualifications for the staff and the status of the staff, the

level three in English and maths, paying the staff more, totally

agree with those. They are recommended and we agree with them.

The ones we don't agree with other ratios, which seems to be

recommending none of the sector's' No childcare centres that we have

visited say that a plan to avail themselves of these ratios, and

especially not childminders. thought childminders were keen to

try to increase the money they would get by having more children,

more parents paying, and be able to reduce the per parent cost. I am

not saying they will not be one or more out there, but on the whole,

they are not in favour of this. What you think of the Government's

plans? Bear in mind they don't have children, so maybe I shouldn't have

a voice in this, but they do have an opinion. I don't see the problem

in slightly increasing the ratios. When I saw this originally, I

thought they were talking about doubling them, but they are only

going up by one or two children. If it were to be proved that this is

unsafe, then it would be bad. But why it is imperative -- why is it

imperative to have English and maths GCSEs? We have restricted

nursing to people with the equivalent of degrees, cutting out

a huge swathe of people who would probably make fantastic nurses but

cannot become nurses because of the qualifications. Is the Government

not doing the same here? That was explained in the recommendations.

Why will it guarantee better childcare come --, having a GCSE

grade in maths or English? If we are ever to close the gap with

regard to entitlement for the most disadvantaged two-year-old, we need

childcare delivered by competent people. But getting back to the

recommendations with regard to the ratios, there are eminent people

commissioned by the Government, professors, who have come out on

record and have said that these ratios could damage quality and

could even be dangerous. Even though they are only going up by

one or two children? At a child minder, the number they can look

after his 6, which is staying the same. But she is now saying they

can have two babies, and four under five. You're saying that one person

cannot look after two babies? could have to babies, two toddlers,

a five-year-old and a six-year-old. You have a full-time job on your

hand just keeping them all safe and fed. Where his early education?

Where is the early years foundation stage been delivered? We will talk

to the Education Minister in a moment. But what you think about

the idea that childcare professionals should be paid more?

That would help guarantee higher quality. We would all like to be

paid more. We are to situation certainly where the Government

doesn't have any money to pay them. You have just explained the cost of

childcare. Parents are not getting wage rises either at the moment, so

they won't be wanting to pay any extra. What worries me is we seem

to be coming to a situation where it is regarded as the Government's

job to provide childcare. I don't think we should be in that

situation. If parents decide to have children, surely they think

before they have children about the cost of the child care afterwards.

It shouldn't be left to the taxpayer to pick up the Bill.

every country in the world does take a responsibility to providing

child care for women for the workforce, to get back out to work.

There is the other side of it, it isn't just about looking after...

We are restricting child benefit to people earning under �50,000 per

year. I don't think we should be spending taxpayers' money on well-

off middle-class parents who decide to have children and expect the

state to pick up the Bill. So you agree that the child benefit, it

was right to take it away? A think the way they did was wrong, but the

principle was right. I would much rather that this money was giving

to Louise Casey, who is going to these difficult families, give it

to her to spend on children who really need it. But we were given

money for early intervention, and that has been cut by this

Government by 40%, as has the training budget for training these

people that they now say need better qualifications. Let's just

bring in Liz Truss, the Education Minister. He may have been able to

hear some of the debate going on. How can you argue that the quality

of care is going to increase when you were reducing the number of

workers per child? What we are saying is that only nurseries who

hire higher quality staff will be able to take advantage of those

ratios, and those ratios bring us into line with countries like

France and Denmark, which had really high quality childcare

systems. The reason they are high quality is they have more focus on

the qualifications of the staff rather than the numbers of the

staff, and our regulations have focused on the wrong thing. All of

the evidence suggests that having really high quality people,

graduates in child care settings, improves the outcomes for children,

not just in nursery but also in primary school and for the rest of

their lives. We are giving more headroom to nurseries to be able to

do that, to hire the high quality staff using the money they gained

from being able to offer extra places. But what guarantee is there

that having a few more qualifications necessarily make you

better at looking after children? All of the evidence on longitudinal

studies shows that having teachers in early-years, 3-and four--year-

olds, increases the quality of education. Countries like France

spent the same amount of money as we do, but get better qualified

people and more highly paid people in their settings. Our salaries in

early years as six Pan 60 per hour, barely more than minimum wage.

you think they should be paid more? �6.60 per hour is not enough. They

should have more say over how they operate. Lots of nurseries want

this flexibility. But she says not. There are. The most popular nursery

providers in England have said they want this flexibility. Who are

they? Which once? Bright horizons, Busy Bees, all very highly

respected Nurseries, want the opportunity. And they will look at

it on a case-by-case basis. This isn't going to be an overnight

change. What they want is more flexibility like they have in

Ireland, Scotland, France, to be able to hire a really high quality

people and make sure that they are doing a good job. You mentioned

about the level of pay. When you're going to publish the report you

Commission last year into increasing the ratios? That was

part of the Child Care Commission, and we are going to be publishing

that alongside the other evidence we collected. When? Very shortly.

What we made clear in the mid-term review is that there will be a new

offer for working parents, because we recognise that the cost of

childcare are very high and it is stopping people going at work who

want to. It is also stopping people getting the benefits of early

education. The report contradict what you're saying. The one by

Helen Penn and Professor Eva Lloyd. It is difficult to comment on it

because we haven't released it yet. So why you announcing the

proposals? I was on a debate this morning with Eva, and she said that

changing ratios will enable people to be paid more, so she has made

that point earlier this morning, and that is right. We are

realigning our ratios to match countries with best practice and

move away from the minimum wage culture that we have at the moment.

And I think that is all to the good. If nurseries don't like it, they

don't have to do it. This is optional, and only for highly

qualified staff. What about the view that says, it might be better

to let parents decide or keep more of their money, for instance the

childcare benefit that the Government is cutting for many

families, so that they could stay at home and bring up their children

themselves? That would be a traditional Conservative view.

support people who make the choice to stay at home. Except you are

spending money on nursery care and taking away child benefit. There is

real evidence that nursery care is really beneficial for children and

it helps them in later life, and we need to make sure it is high

quality. My frustration is we are spending �5 billion per year, the

same as France, but we are not getting the same quality from our

system. I am reforming our system, making it simpler, so that parents

can go out to work safe in the knowledge that their children are

really benefiting from the nursery education. Do you think it would be

better prepared to put their children into nurseries rather than

letting them bring up their children? Is that what the

Government is trying to do? I think it is up to parents. We need to

give nursery's choice about how they operate. We have to give

parents a choice about the best decision for their children. What

we need to make sure is that our early education system is not seen

as an add-on, but part of a programme of education where

children are really learning. At age two, they are learning

vocabulary, had to count. And that build up into school education. I

went to a fantastic University yesterday at the Durham Academy,

where qualified teachers with quite large classes were teaching young

children, engaging, having a fantastic time. That is what I want

every child. What about You need a Grade C in English and

maths, that is for childminders, too. What about people who have

come from abroad, will they need an equivalent qualification? At the

moment there are no regulations on nannies, but that are on

childminders. We have seen a halving in the number of

childminders because it is quite difficult to jump through the hoops,

so we are enabling childminder agencies to develop so that

childminders have a one-stop-shop they can go to. This has been very

effective in France and Holland in increasing the number of

childminders. Childminders are great for parents who want more

flexibility, they might work were long or irregular hours. We will

see an increase in the number of childminders as well as good-

quality nursery places, which I think is good news for parents.

Our guest of the daily, Iain Dale, wrote to a blog worrying he is

losing interest in politics. He had a great list of reasons including

cynical journalism's and the great bugbear of many, partitions not

giving a straight answer to a straight question. -- politicians

not giving a straight answer. want to know how much you propose

to spend on the Routemaster buses? A figure? Nor more all more or less

-- no more or less than the... despair. It is a real blow to you

if the deficit rises again. You are not answering the question. I am.

Let's move on. Do you accept... urged both sides to put aside the

rhetoric, get around the negotiating table and stop it

happening again. Get round the negotiating table,

put aside the rhetoric and sort the problem out.

Get round the negotiating table, put aside the rhetoric and stop

this kind of thing happening again. It is about living standards.

understand that, but you are not answering my question. Could I have

the answer to my question? My point is this, there are fiscal choices

that the Chancellor could make. he a resident in Britain for tax

purposes? I have no reason to think he has not complied. That is not

saying that he is. Have you asked him? I have no reason to think that

he has not complied. Had you asked him? Have you asked indirectly?

have discussed it with him and I have no reason to think he did not

comply. Did you say, are you residents in Britain for tax

purposes? Our guest of the day, Iain Dale,

wrote recently about his despair at the state of political discourse.

Is that the type of thing you were talking about? Partly. We have a

culture in this country where political programme produces think

that the general public has the attention span of a flea and can

only cope with two or three minute interviews. Not on this programme!

This is the exception! But when you do that, as an interviewer you

can't get to the nub of the problem, which encourages interviews to be

very aggressive. If you shout at somebody, which is what's

interviewers like Jeremy Paxman, John Humphrys and others do, you

will not get anything out of them. But they don't answer a lot of that

time. It is not just the thought -- fault of the interviewers, it is

the fault of the politicians. We used to have programmes on a Sunday

lunchtime where you would have a politician being grilled by Brian

Walden or Jonathan Dimbleby for a whole hour. So you are calling for

more political programming? Yes, and the BBC made a ridiculous

decision to axe Straight Talk with Andrew Neil, a very cheap programme

to produce, a black studio, one guest, gripping viewing, because

Andrew is an excellent interviewer, and they axed its. Why has this put

you off politics? It is the culmination of things. I watched

Question Time last Thursday, and for the first time I thought, you

know, I think I am seeing how the general public sees politicians. I

have been involved in politics the 25 years, I have loved it, when I

wrote the blog people said I was bitter because I failed to become

an MP, rubbish. Maybe you have just had too much and you have become

cynical? I think things has -- things have changed. Prime

Minister's Questions have not changed. I think the cynical way

that the media deals with politics and politicians is corrosive. When

you have a story like Boris Johnson and David Cameron in a pizza

restaurant in Davos, that is considered a real scandal. If

politicians think that everything they do will be commented on,

something fairly normal like having an evening meal with a couple of

people like -- that you know, why would anybody go into politics?

are people covering it? Because people are interested. You

mentioned the story about the pizza and the guys going out on a boys'

night out, or something along those lines, isn't that also a case of

the digital age that you so strongly support and tweets about?

That is how it is? The internet plays a big party and his cynical

view of politics and add to it. I'm not sure anything can be done. The

internet is very democratising, people can get involved in politics,

we see that on your programme. have to take the rough with the

smooth. Yes, but you should feel free to comment on the fact that

this will end up in a very bad place, because in 10 years' time we

will have even more... All the leaders of the political parties

have the same background, they have been in politics all their lives,

that will continue. We will have a very elite group of politicians far

removed from the general public. The current politicians say, yes,

we have surgeries and get letters, we are in touch, but nobody out

there believes that. I am not sure I can cheer you up. I will drive.

Moving on to football, the national game. The football Association, the

governing body running football in England, marks its 150th

anniversary this year. They're all sorts of celebrations, including a

game against five times world champions Brazil at Wembley next

week. But English football has received a kicking this morning

from MPs on the Culture, Media and Sports Committee. They have warned

that the sports needs to reform within 12 months or face possible

legislation. The BBC Sports Editor David Bond joins me. Welcome. What

did you make of the report? It was not much good news for football,

nothing to smile about at the FA. It was a pretty withering attack on

the way that the game is run. In a nutshell, it was saying that the FA

needed to show much more leadership. It highlighted a few areas where it

was particularly concerned, this conflict of interest which keeps

coming up between the professional game, the Premier League, the

Football League and the grass roots, saying it is weighed too much in

favour of the Premier League clubs, who have all the money from the

television deals with Sky and elsewhere. Effectively that many

needs to be redistributed for the good of the game through to the low

levels and a much more efficient way. It talked about supporter

representation needing to be much better, fans not having enough say.

It talked about the lack of transparency and the ownership of

the country's big clubs and so on. Lots of these things have been

around for a long time and we have heard lots of talk about the FA and

Football needing to reform, and it is not a sport which has been too

keen to do that. What grounds do you think MPs feel they have for

having a say in how football is run? MPs know it is a big vote-

winner to talk about football, there is clearly political interest

in seeming to side with the people in the stance. Effectively the

select committee does not have any power, it is saying that within 12

months it would call on the Government to introduce legislation.

As you know, it has no power to do that. The Government is reluctant

to introduce legislation. It is an empty threat? Yes, really. They

have no power to do it. This Government has no interest in

trying to regulate any industry, let alone a sports industry where

they think the FA needs to take a stronger lead. In a statement they

have said that they will look at introducing regulation, but from

people I have spoken to there is no stomach. If you go back even

further up to 10 or 15 years, David Mellor's Football Task Force, there

was need for a statutory regulator, it has never happened. The

Government is not interested in doing this. There is a will and

determination from politicians to get that all to change its culture.

Football has made some steps in the right direction, independent

directors on the FA Board, for example, but it still has a lot to

do. Thank you. David Davies is the former executive director of the

Football Association, how do you rate the chances of MPs getting

football to change dramatically? am a sceptic, I regret to say, or

at least in his generation. The reality is that in this generation

the leadership of football, which is dysfunctional because of the

structure that some mothers inherited's some of us inherited,

we have failed to come together and agreed one list of priorities for

the whole game -- because of the structure which some of us

inherited, we have failed to come together and agree one list of

priorities for the whole game. It has proved virtually impossible.

Yes, there have been small reforms, and some huge successes. The one

thing David did not mention is that some 25 years ago the professional

game most certainly was committing suicide. We have had Hillsborough,

the Heysel Stadium disaster, attendances were going down the

chute. Something radical had to be done. That included the Premier

League, which has been a huge success commercially, but has it

been in terms of governance? Another issue. You don't believe

there will be wholesale change until this current generation is

swept away and a new groom has brought in? Rightly or wrongly

there will be a new leader of the Football Association. The chairman

is 70. However good he has been, and in many eyes he has been very

good, and people and the media think he has been good, there will

be a new chairman of the Premier League. The change is coming but

not fast enough. I do not disagree with that finding of the select

committee. They have given football as dead mother given Football 12

months. Do you see it as an empty threat? -- they have given Football

12 months. David Bond talked about David Mellor's task force. I go

back to the time when I discussed with Alastair Campbell this very

idea, should there be a regulator for football? This would have been

the late 1990s. He put it very clearly, why on earth with any

governments, a Labour or Conservative government, he did not

mention a coalition government, he hadn't seen it coming, one of

football's problems as well as its own! It is not an idle threat?

believe you is genuine and that, I believe he is fed up with this

problem, the issue and the governments of football. But does

the Government at the top believe it? Football is a private business,

should the government interfere? it should stay well clear of

regulating any sport. Remember when Mrs Thatcher brought in legislation

by identity cards? It was a disaster, because not many people

and that governments understood football, and I am not sure that

many in this Government to event. If there was not enough money going

into grass roots from the Premier League, there should be a levy on

transfers of over �5 million or something. They are financial

issues across the game. Do you accept the Premier League has far

too much influence? The way it has emerged, unquestionably there needs

to be a rebalancing. The big question arising from this report

is the FA should be, is written down as, the governing body of that

Paul. But is it able to be the governing body with this

extraordinary representation it has? Two-thirds of the council are

over 64, there is one female for -- of the Mel board director. Until it

is a more representative group running again, it will remain like

that. It is too complicated, there is too much for them to represent?

I am a big fan of many of Iain's view as... Really?! But I have to

say that before you dismiss everybody obeys certain age...

not dismissing them all. -- before you dismiss everybody over a

certain age... Some of these so- called amateurs are more

professional than the professionals? They have been on a

The short list for the Paddy Power and total politics Book Awards have

been drawn up, with the winners to announce next month. We asked some

of the judges what they like and The thoughts and deeds of the great,

for better or worse, or political life is here for your browsing

delectation. There are more than a thousand books on politics here.

This one is a personal favourite of mine. Others are frankly not so

good. But what makes a great political book, and what should be

remaindered? If these are some of the contenders

for the title of political book of the year. I want it to be well

written, compelling. If it is funny, that is also handy. But I want

there to be some thought behind it, not taking perceived wisdom from

the past but really try to make original connections about how we

organise ourselves as people. breaking news, this is what goes

straight into the bargain bucket. The bog-standard memoir which

starts with your parents and goes through university friends and the

various postings which you had is probably going to be a clunker.

Even if you have been prime Minister, we tend to look at those

books more active duty than anything else. If only someone

could give us an example for the -- of the type of thing he is on about.

The challenge always is that those who get to the top of politics are

not always the most successful writers. Michael Heseltine, a

fascinating man, but absolutely terrible writer, and his

autobiography was a very dull book. So those with the most interesting

things to tell are not always those who were the most suited to tell it.

So historically, what is hot? favourite book is the essays of

George Orwell. And a lot of the work of American revolutionaries,

Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson. They have a lot

to say about politics that is still relevant. And what's not? Somebody

writing about what it was like to be in power. I think somebody like

Bill Clinton did a better man while than, say, Tony Blair. I felt there

was a humbleness to it that he didn't get from Blair.

Thatcher's Hmam ones are pretty disappointing. Oddly enough, I

think Laura Bush's memoirs are more interesting -- Mrs Thatcher's

memoirs. Which perhaps shows it is better to be feared than to write.

And with us now is Keith Simpson, Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk, a

well-known political bookworm. He always puts together a great summer

reading list of his great -- favourite titles each year. He has

also one of the judges of the Book Awards. What makes them good

political read? First of all, that it is readable. There are a lot of

political books that are worthy, but not readable. Secondly, is the

author saying something new and something interesting and

challenging? I like to think that, even if it is one that is a

historical book, it has some form of contemporaneous relevance. So do

you feel it has to reveal something new? Something that we didn't know,

in order for it to grab the interest up not just us? Ideally,

and I speak as a voracious book read and publisher. As a publisher,

I always want a book I take on the have something new to say. It

doesn't necessarily have to... I spent most of my life reading

political diaries. They are contemporaneous, so they cannot

necessarily reveal anything new. They often reveal a lot about the

person was thinking and their emotions at the time, but not

necessarily... Alastair Campbell's diaries didn't reveal anything we

didn't know about the Iraq war, but it was gripping. The trouble with

Alistair Darling -- Alastair Campbell's diaries, they have been

in different versions as he has been able to add more. So you're

never sure with diaries, they are all edited. 2 million words, they

think he has there. A Book of diaries is maybe 150,000,

so it relies on the skill of the editor. Some of them work well

because of the editing rather than necessarily the writing. Some of

them make money, because I presume books by a people everyone knows

will sell. But what about the others? The short list for the Book

Awards, there are loads and loads. Look at Jack Straw's book. We will

offer that to publish, and I turned it down I regard him as slightly on

the dull side, but it is not a dull book. It is excellent. I gave it

great praise, I thought it was good. Jack came through. He ducked and

weaved and a bit about some of the political decisions. If you are a

big name, or you have shock revelations, if you tie it up with

a serialisation in something like the Daily Mail, you might get an

advance of �5,000, and then the Daily Mail or the Mirror or whoever

might give you 25,000. Unless you were a big name politician, the

only way to make money is to get a newspaper serialisation, otherwise

you get a few thousand copies sold. But there are other main -- reasons

for writing such a book. Is there a sense that people have to do these

things for the Careers? A little. I have published one or two books by

journalists, one on George Osborne, and part of the reason that the

author is getting there is because he has written a book which has had

good reviews. The old Bernard Montgomery thing, what makes him

tick, or what makes her tick? Some of the best books and diaries are

not have written by the people at the top. Alan Clark and Chris

Mullin, middle-ranking Ministers, who saw the absurdities of life as

well. And completely different characters. Alan was very much the

louche, risque stuff. Chris was self-deprecating, and a man with

some very serious political ideas. When the winner is announced, do

you think they are a good idea? do, very much. He is chief judge,

what is he going to say? You think they are well worth it? I have not

received any financial reward for doing this. He doesn't have to

declare it. Her you are a cynic SMAC we will have them back here on

5th February. Within the last hour, Downing

Street has announced that Britain is to send several hundred troops

to North Africa as part of an EU- wide mission. They are not likely

to get involved with the fighting in Mali, that is being left to the

French. There are reports in this morning's papers that we could be

sending a few hundred to the surrounding countries to help with

some of the training and logistics. Within the last few minutes in the

House of Commons, there has been an urgent question on the likelihood

of a British deployment. The UK is also prepared to offer up to 200

personnel to provide training to troops from Anglophone West

Anglican countries -- West African countries contributing. To

establish those requirements, we have deployed a small number of

advisers to Anglophone West African countries who are likely to

contribute to the mission to assess their needs and to gain situation

or awareness. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond there. Let's just

clear up the first thing. David Cameron, I understood, a few days

ago said, we would not be sending combat troops to Mali, and yet we

are sending troops to the region. The difference here is, when he

said combat troops, he meant formed units who were going to participate

with the French in physically fighting the opponents of the

Malian government. What he's talking about is sending troops, a

mixture of combat and support troops, as part of an EU military

training mission, and he was quite open about that. The big questions

are, should we do it? Some colleagues raised that. And

secondly, the size of it and whether we are going to have our

fingers drawn into some form of it. Mission creep. I am not sure about

how this mission is constituted. I would like to see the figures on it.

Are we providing 80% of the troops? I would be wholly against sending

combat troops in. We have all sorts of defence cuts going on. The

military are already stretched. I'm sure they can spare some advisers,

but I wonder what they are doing. Remember when the Soviet Union

provided advises in Afghanistan, and that worked out well, didn't

it?! Who will protect the advisers? I don't know exactly where they

will be deployed. The majority will be deployed to those nations who

are going to be contributing to what is effectively a support

military unit from the surrounding African countries for the Malian

government. That has been constituted under a United Nations

resolution. Doesn't that make them targets? I don't think it does. I

can understand the concern, but from what I understand, talking

with both Ministers and the military, this is pretty low down

on the party listing. The example we used here is the fact that David

Cameron became convinced that, for example, our decision to intervene

in Libya was the right one, and was pretty much at a lower level,

actually. The military do for such -- forces destroyed -- the military

forces deployed were at a safe distance. And we helped to return

Somalia to a country that hopefully will be stable. Are you not worried

that David Cameron talked about the existence of Islamist militants in

this region, and what might happen if they were not contained? I think

the French should be capable of doing this themselves. Do we not

have an interest? We have a number of interests. We are supporting the

French just as they have supported us, and we have been doing it at a

low level throw out this part of Africa for several years. Also we

have an interest in terms of making sure that Al-Qaeda is stopped.

Thirdly, there is a UK national interest in making certain that the

whole of West Africa is and destabilised. There are big

countries like Ghana and Nigeria that are absolutely crucial to the

UK, both in a political and economic sense. Thank you very much,

Keith Simpson, for staying with us. And there is just time to find out

the answer to our quiz. The question was, which of these things

has not been handed in to the Houses of Parliament lost property

office? Two jars of Mahmood, a rucksack of bananas, a plastic bag

of peppers, a brace of pheasants? Peppers. You are wrong. Peppers

have been handed in, but pheasants have not. I thought it would be