15/07/2013 Daily Politics

Daily Politics. A welfare cap limiting households to �26,000 a

year in benefit payments is being introduced across Britain from

today. The Welfare Secretary says the measure will encourage people

back to work. But campaigners fear it doesn't take into account the

high cost of housing in some areas, and will hit large families

particularly hard. Tory activists complain they're not

respected by the leadership. We'll be asking have the political parties

forgotten their grass roots. Is media coverage of women too

titillating for today's tastes? And is this man value for money? MPs

will be scrutinising the Prince's All that in the next hour and with

us for the first half of the programme today is the Green MP -

she also used to be the party's leader - Caroline Lucas. Welcome to

the programme. First today, let's start with airports and Mayor of

London Boris Johnson who has been setting out his vision for the

future of London's airports this morning. As well as his pet project

for a hub in the outer Thames Estuary - dubbed Boris Island - the

Mayor has also endorsed Lord Foster's plan for a new hub airport

on the Isle of Grain in Kent or a major expansion of Stansted Airport.

He branded anyone who supports Heathrow expansion "quite simply

crackers" and said the Heathrow area should instead be re-developed with

new houses. What do you think about that idea? Is it worth spending �15

billion to buy Heathrow and turn it into another London borough?

certainly need more housing but I am not convinced this is the best way

to do it. You can't keep up with Boris, every two moment he has an

idea of where he would like another airport. The bottom line is, as the

government knows, they do recognise that aviation growth has to be

constrained. We need to learn to live within the capacity it has got,

naked better. For environmental reasons and the -- make it better.

For environmental reasons that have been probed strongly in recent

months... Business leaders have said we are at full capacity pretty well

at Heathrow and without any expansion, the economy, particularly

in London and the South East, will be really damaged. That is what they

are saying in Schiphol, in Paris, it is the same message, that we are

going to lose out or other countries will lose out. If you add together

the capacity of all of the London airports, it is far above of what

other respective capitals can come up with in other European countries.

Already we have more capacity. The same argument, if we don't expand

then business will go to France or Amsterdam, that is what they are

being told. The bottom line is if we are serious about climate change, we

know that aviation accounts for 12% of climate change emissions in

Britain. If we carry on unconstrained, it could rise to 30%

by 50 -- by 2050. If people want to use a third of our greenhouse gas

budget on aviation, it would mean there is little left for other of

business. The WWF are working with more and more businesses saying they

could be more efficient through videoconferencing and so forth, not

every business but there is a lot of capacity. The figures do not support

your argument that we are at full capacity, he throw is already full,

running at 99% of committed traffic -- Heathrow is already full. All

major airports in the South East will be full by 2030, it is sticking

your head in the sand to say we must not expand further. I think it is

sticking your head in the sand to say we can go on expanding ad

infinitum where we live on a planet with very constrained resources over

whether it is land or emissions. If you add up the capacity we have

throughout London and the different airports, it is more than in Paris

and Amsterdam. It means we are in a good position. Let's learn to use it

more effectively and that might mean substituting trains, more

videoconferencing, using the capacity that is there for long

distance aviation that can't be replaced by Eurostar or similar.

Let's learn to use the capacity more effectively and let's also have

prices that reflect the true cost of flying. As long as you can go from

one end of Europe to the other for �20 on a cut-price flights... It is

hard to say... It is not surprising people will do that. Those prices do

not reflect the full cost of those flights. But Heathrow, it is

Heathrow that has to compete with Frankfurt and Schiphol and Paris. We

know already that there are now direct flights to the second cities

of some of the emerging countries, you can't get them from Heathrow so

people are flying to Frankfurt via Paris, it is a loss of hard income

for people here. I disagree with that. It is true.I think you could

be using the capacity on all London airports more effectively so you're

not concentrating solely on Heathrow. From the tourism aspect,

more money goes out with tourists flying out than comes from people

flying in. The economic arguments are massively overstated. There are

constraints and aviation is ready difficult area cos no one likes to

begin the message that you can't expand infinitely, but it is the

case that if you want a liveable climate into the future, if you want

a decent countryside without the amount of noise and stress caused by

ever-increasing aviation, at some point you have to say stop and we

need to decide where that is. month, Caroline Lucas got a ticking

off during a debate in Parliament. She was holding up Page three of the

Sun. You might be surprised then to learn that it was her t-shirt,

rather than the half naked models on the inner pages of the red top that

caught the eye of the chair during the session. But it's not just Page

three that women's groups and our guest, Caroline Lucas, are concerned

about but more widespread sexism in the media. Attention grabbing

headlines are what newspapers are all about, but are women being

routinely portrayed by the media in For women like me who work in the

media, you want to be remembered for what you say and not just how you

look. Although clearly, that is also important. A group of women's

organisations has looked into the issue and focused the lens on a --

11 national newspapers and how they portrayed women in daily coverage.

They found widespread sexism and one charity has a particular concern.

found, particularly in the coverage of violence against women, commonly

it would be placed next to advertisements for the sex industry

or for film and mainstream entertainment and culture that was

showing violence against women as part of entertainment. You had a

juxtaposition of a Sirius issue of violence against women alongside a

glamorous and titillating side of violence against women -- age

exhibition of a serious issue. We don't think it is a directly

causative link but our media reflects and creates our views and

standards in society. I honestly do not believe that the manner in which

women are represented in the media could cause them any physicality. If

women were concerned about what was likely to happen to them, they

should look to the video world of pornography, and let's deal with

that. Never far from the spotlight, the Sun newspaper's Page 3 as long

and good campaigners who regard it as an acceptable daily dose of --

unacceptable daily Joe -- dose of objectification. A campaign was

recently taken into the chamber. Order. Can I tell the honourable

member that there is a standard of dress that members must comply with

and can I ask the honourable member to address that and put a jacket on,

please. I will of course comply with your ruling but it does strike me

as... You can get copies of the sun in this place. I admire Caroline

Lucas but it is more hot air. To a majority of people in this country

it is not offensive and may even bring some joy. By being a member of

the Green party, you are by nature, a killjoy. Clare Short stood up in

the 80s and try to make it illegal and had thousands of letters of

support. 12 were from women who had page three mentioned to them while

they were being raped, and yet the Sun called her a killjoy and told

her she was jealous. It is not harmless fun. Accusations of sexism

are not just limited to the print press, the cost media can also cause

offence. BBC sports presenter John Inverdale apologised after saying

that this year's women's Wimbledon champion Arion Bartoli was never

going to be a looker, a comment that proved a turnoff for hundreds of

viewers -- Marion Bartoli. The former deputy editor of the Sun and

the new -- News of the world, Neil Wallace, is with us. Let's take the

report that found systemic sexism in 11 daily newspapers, are you

surprised? Not really, the people who commissioned the report went

looking for something to sustain their argument. I think the media in

this country is what it is. It has always been like that. I don't think

it is any more or any less. I think people are desperately trying to

sustain a hollow argument. It is a hollow argument here? I don't think

it is and the kind of reaction I have had, since having that debate

which wasn't just about Page three but sexism in the media, the sort of

response has been overwhelming from people who say they want a spotlight

put on this. We are not talking about censorship, we are saying that

when you come to Page 3 of the sun, why should that be in people 's

workplaces, in cafes and on tube trains and buses where kids can see

it. There are some fascinating testimony is from people on our

website. A father who went to a hairdressers and Page 3 is in front

of them. It is the normalising effect was that if you want to find

that kind of image, go and find it but don't put it in front of

everybody. Can I just say, it must be wonderful that in Brighton at the

moment, things are so perfect that the MP spends her time in this sort

of gesture politics. I would love to come back on that. The absolute

nonsense of her in the chamber, can I tell you what I really think dot.

if she had stood up with a T-shirt that said no more FGM, far more

respect if she had stood up wearing a T shirt that illustrated the fact

there are 1.2 million offences of domestic violence in this country.

Can I come back on those? I would have far more respect if she had

stood up and took about video pornography, sex slavery. -- and

talked about. To ban Page 3 it is gesture politics. You don't think it

is important? I don't. The idea of why I am picking up on this subject,

it is because of interest in Brighton. A number of women groups

have come to meet about working together. I am absolutely opposed to

FGM and I do work on that. didn't you demonstrate about that?

You were not going to get the coverage. It was gesture politics.

It is absolutely not gesture politics and I work on all of those

other issues. You challenged me about violence against women and I

am horrified of violence against women. I am horrified of the fact

that 60,000 women were raped in this country, I am horrified that the

NSPCC says one in two boys and one in three girls thinks there are

occasions when it is OK to hit a partner or to force them to have

sex. The daily drip drip object of occasion of women creates a culture

where those attitudes are more likely to happen. It is not just me

saying that, there are government report saying that, UN reports. If

you think violence happens in a vacuum, I think you are very wrong.

Of course it doesn't. What I am concerned about is the blatant

gesture politics of you standing up like that. It got us talking about

the issue, didn't it? Media sexism. The government alone accepts there

are 30,000 children in this country under the age of ten who are at

danger from the most severe form of FGM. Don't just dismiss it. We are

not talking about bad. We have done the story about the link between

newspaper coverage and what Caroline caused is tripping effect, you

support campaigns against violence against women, but if we are looking

at this issue particularly, do you accept they could be a link between

the overtly sexualisation and portrayal of women in that way and

the violence against them? I think that, in this society, we have film,

the BBC... Do you think the coverage... That is what the report

found, the you say there is no link, that it is overblown? I do not

believe that there is a provable link between some images of women in

some newspapers and the idea of violence against women. Why?I have

never seen evidence that stacked up, apart from vested interest

groups. I do not think the government's own report as a vested

interest, but I find it very interesting that back in the days of

Clare Short, she was told she was stupid and jealous, and the argument

has gone on, and it is interesting to see how he will not engage on the

issue. The issue now is you are saying that it is not a priority,

there are more important things. There are many other important

things, and I am campaigning on those, this is one issue that was

picked up, but I want you to focus on this issue. The reason that he

will not is because you cannot sit there and say that, in a culture

where you have more and more images of object of five women, normalising

women, young kids who see Page three every day, and you are saying there

is absolutely no connection between that and discrimination and violence

against women, and if you are saying that, you are in a complete

minority. Sex does sell newspapers, those stories... Sex sells films,

adverts... You accept that, that is what newspapers are about. No! You

cannot say that is what newspapers are about. All newspapers, like all

television channels, our balances of things. One element appears in some

newspapers that is a glamorised image. Turn to the City pages, for

instance, of the Guardian and the times on this Sunday times, and you

will see pictures of pretty women. I do not see where there is a problem

with pictures of pretty men or women. At the beginning of that film

I said I wanted to be remembered more for what I say than how I look,

but you want to look your best when you are in a medium like television.

Of course you too, but that is a different argument. We are arguing

about whether it is appropriate to have in a newspaper kids that can

get hold of and see. People choose to buy them. That is not to do with

choice, because when you go and see a guy reading page three, when you

go into a workplace, it is the ubiquity of this, you do not have a

choice not to look at it because it is in your face. I am going to have

to finish it there, Neil Wallis, you will be on again, no doubt.

From today, a �26,000 benefit cap is being introduced in England,

Scotland and Wales. The policy is not only expected to save millions

of pounds every year but is also believed to be a vote winner. So how

will it work in practice? Couples and single parents will receive no

more than �500 per week, while individuals will be limited to �350

per week. The cap is set to reflect the average working household

income. The benefits cap applies to people receiving jobseeker's

allowance, child benefit, child tax credits, housing benefits and other

key support from the government. You are exempt if you received

disability living allowance or working tax credits. The Government

says the changes will encourage people to get back into work and

hopes that the cap will save about �110 million per year, but critics

say could does not take into account the higher cost of housing in some

areas and will hit large families particularly hard. I am joined now

by Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi, welcome to the programme. How do you

know this policy is going to get people back into work? This is about

fairness, and you are right to say that there is a discretionary amount

where councils can give more money for housing. At the moment, overall,

there is a saving there. It is not a big saving, is it? When you think of

the bill over the welfare bill, you are saving peanuts. Housing benefit

is about 23 billion, but it is about fairness. Why should an out of work

working age couple get more than �35,000 gross? You would have to win

�35,000, if you were working, to get the same as if you were on benefits.

That is simply unfair, and that is why we are introducing this. How do

you know the policy will get people back into work? Because that is what

the policy is based on, that is the premise, that if we put a cap of

�26,000, we will get more people into work. It is not just this

policy. It is the whole package, looking at universal credit, which

is coming in, and that will mean nobody going back to work will have

that sort of cliff edge where the benefits outweigh the going back to

work. That is important. With this cap as well, you will hopefully

begin to see a nudge in behaviour, people thinking, do you know what?

It is better off looking for work, going to work than claiming

benefits. Plus, the reality is, your viewers watching this, �35,000 a

year as a family, why should your neighbour gets �35,000 for not

working at all? The current system is just not there, it is unfair for

families who are working very hard to support their families without

benefits. Up the whole edifice this is built on is completely flawed,

because the Government was saying �26,000 is the average earnings, and

that is what they related to. If you look at average income, the working

families are able, those earning around �26,000, they could also be

getting housing benefit, they could be getting housing benefit, child

benefit, and they could be getting rather more. So this idea that there

are many out of work families who are raking it in, compared to

working families, is simply wrong. The new statesman, and I will quote

it, it says exactly the same thing, that actually there aren't that many

out of work families who are doing better than those in work. At the

moment there is already a situation where if you are in work, workplace.

That great impartial publication! If you allow me to speak, you might get

an answer. If you are working 24 hours, but we knew you are exempt

from this cap. Below that, you are right. If you are a single person

working 16 hours... So it will hit working families, too. And element

will hit, but you can go up to 24-hour is, that is the idea, to get

you to do more work. The private sector has created 1.3 million jobs,

we have lost half a million from the public sector, but there are jobs

out there to go after... There are five people after every one job,

what are the other four meant to do?! If they happen to have bigger

families... There is no money tree... Could you answer my

question? Look at what is happening in the economy... All I would say to

you is, at the moment, there are more jobs, more people in work than

there have ever been before. That is a good thing, but we need to do more

to grow the economy further. There is no money tree, tell me where you

are going to find the money. There is a reality that most voters like

this policy, they do think there is intrinsic and fairness and that

actually �26,000 is enough for people to live on. Perhaps with the

exception of London and the south-east, where housing is

expensive, people like this policy. Well, unfortunately, I think this

government is trying to appeal to people's less good instincts, in the

sense that they are trying to whip up the sense that people are ripping

off the system. If you look at some of the figures about what people

think, for example the number of people fiddling the system, lots of

people think it must be about 30%, but in fact it is 0.7%. Nadhim

Zahawi admitted the saving will not be that important from a perception

and symbolic importance that people feel that the system is treating

everyone fairly. If we had Fairfax, they would have a better chance of

doing that, and I come back to the initial point, which is if you look

at the working family on 26,000, they can still be getting more money

from housing benefit and more money from child credit and so on, so the

figures are not comparing like with like. That is wrong. Secondly, we

should get away from this idea that you need to penalised people. We

know that people, if they have got four children or more, are going to

be very hurt by this. Caroline will agree with Labour, they want to make

hard-working people need a voice, we give them that voice. Credit costume

or in the end? If you look at what local authorities have said about

housing. -- could it cost you more in the end? There may not be many

with five or more children, but they will be pushed into poverty, and

that will bump up your costs. are 56,000 households, roughly,

about 80,000 individuals, 190,000 children, in London it is 49% of

London homes that are affected by this. Around the country, I think in

my area in the West Midlands is about 7%. So let's see how this

works. It is an important message, it is direction of travel, part of a

package of making work pay, making work the right way forward for

people when they are making choices. The welfare bill is join or must, by

anyone's standard... You say that, but a lot of it is going on housing

benefit, can I make the point that it is not going into the pockets of

feckless people? Rents are so high, that is why housing benefit is high.

I would put a cap on rent increases. Distort the rental market? Caroline,

you are flip-flopping all over the place. It is not fair to push more

people into poverty! Before you go, would you like it to be lower than

�26,000? If this works, would you like it to be brought down further?

Let's see if it works. The important thing is to make sure that it is

fair... Would you say it would be something you would bring down

further? I think people on benefits should never get more than the

average income. They very rarely do... It is about living within your

means... All right, that is enough, no more money trees, Nadhim Zahawi,

thank you. Our guest of the day, Caroline Lucas, is the MP for

Brighton. The council is controlled by the Green Party. But is

Brighton's green dream turning sour? We are joined now by Lucinda Adam,

who has been following events in Brighton, but today she is in

Tunbridge Wells, just to confuse you. Welcome to the programme. I was

in Brighton a few weeks ago, I saw the rubbish all over the streets

because of the strike, and there has been a reprieve, but are they going

to go on strike again? There is no clearer sign of trouble at a got

cancelled and piles of rubbish in the streets, and the seagulls have

been having a field day. This all started because the Green Party,

which has a minority leadership of the Council, plans to change the

allowances on overtime paid to staff. The GMB says that some refuse

collectors will be left �4000 worse off. Negotiations failed and they

strike began. But what it revealed, more than disagreement between the

council and the union, is the extent of growing division between Green

councillors. Many sided with the striking workers, and even Caroline

Lucas was at the picket line pledging her support. Green Party

members sent an open letter to their leader calling for his resignation.

They say he is going against the democratic decisions of members of

the party and bringing the party into disrepute. Some even attempted

to get Labour councillors to join forces with them at a recent AGM in

an attempt to oust him as leader. But Labour capitalised by leading

the request to the media. He has fought off calls to resign so far,

but his problems are not over. As you said, fresh negotiations begin

today to try to find a new pay settlement for refuge workers. But

GMB leaders have warned that the boats are on a knife edge and

another strike could be imminent within weeks if not been as agreed.

Thank you very much. Let's pick up on some of those

points. If we look at the strike, you were on the picket line, the

Green Party is divided. The images of rubbish strewn on the streets of

Brighton looked absolutely terrible, doing nothing at all for

your image as a confident runner of local government. Well, nobody wants

a bin strike, and you are quite right that it did look awful.

Unfortunately, the Greens are not the only administration where there

have been bin strikes, there have been under all the administrations

in Brighton and hope. One of the reasons that the problem happened

just now was, as your reporter said, we are under a legal obligation to

get the quality is legislation properly imposed. At the moment it

is open to challenge because the amount of allowances that the bin

men have been getting has been more than many women in comparable jobs.

So we had a legal imperative to be able to equalise the allowances.

Ideally, of course, what we would want would be to bring the women up

to the level of the allowances of the binman. Let me explain this,

because it is important. I would love to have had the money to do

that. We had a proposal to other parties in the council to say, let's

raise council tax, and Labour sided with the Conservatives, not to raise

council tax. Ism is as if it is said you have no more money, it was

a redistribution of the money you had which ended up with bin workers

getting �4000 less. That's not right, we have a living wage policy

and I am proud of that. We have a policy whereby there is a ten to one

ratio between the highest paid and the lowest paid. The Chief Executive

took a pay cut and the lowest paid people took a pay rise. But the

Greens have mishandled it? We have not. There is a legacy issue which

should have been sorted out under the last administration. We are

under the threat of legal action in October which could mean if we don't

get equality is legislation in place, the council itself could be

liable for millions of pounds. Nobody wants to see that so we are

trying to find a way in a difficult financial situation, to find more

money. Why is the Green party split, with challenges even to the

council leader, splits in the Green party that resulted in labour being

asked to come on, who said to sort out your own problem. It like naive

politics. I think that was naive politics will stop one person has

held their hands up and apologised and said it is naive. I would be the

first person to say it has been really unhelpful to the Greens in

Brighton, it has been very public and it is not a pretty sight. What

we are doing is coming together, working to find the best possible

resolution so we can meet equality is legislation, to which we are

deeply committed, and ensure people are not losing �4000 from their

allowances, because that is not right either. We are trying to sort

it out when previous legislation have left us with that. Leaving you

bombed rubble to Labour taking over? -- leaving you vulnerable.

Labour are second but I am confident that I am able to demonstrate the

effectiveness of a Green MP in Westminster. Why have recycling

rates robbed? I wasn't aware that they had dropped. The Brighton

evening Argus said they had come down from 32%, to 26%. The overall

percentage of waste produced has gone down. We are trying to bring in

food waste collection, the other parties have not supported that and

we have not got the money from the EU that we needed. We want to put in

place food waste because it is a massive amount of the waste produced

in the city. We haven't got the green light for the money but it is

a big priority. Thank you for being our guest of the day.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the only thing happening this

week is the imminent arrival of a new Windsor, but Parliament is busy

tying up a lot of loose ends before the summer break. So, let's take a

look at what else is going on this week.

Today, Margaret Hodge is taking aim at the tax affairs of Prince Charles

- the Public Accounts Committee is scrutinising the accounts of the

Duchy of Cornwall. Eric Pickles is launching a new Conservative Party

group to try and widen the party's appeal among working class and

ethnic minority voters. Meanwhile 40 Conservative MPs in some of the most

marginal seats are launching their strategy for the 2015 general

election. Tomorrow, the Trident Alternatives Review will be

published ahead of a debate on Wednesday. Also, the Government is

expected to publish its legislation on the lobbying industry. Wednesday

sees the last PMQs before the summer recess. Unemployment figures come

out in the morning as well as the Office for Budget Responsibility's

latest report on the public finances. The House of Commons rises

for recess on Thursday, returning on second September. The Lords will sit

until 30th July. And joining us now from a sunny College Green are The

Spectator's Isabel Hardman and from The Times, Laura Pitel. Laura, an

interesting story about Samantha Cameron pushing her husband to take

a more robust stance in Syria after seeing the suffering their first

hand. How much impact do you think she has had? I don't think anybody

would be surprised by the fact that a Prime Minister listens to his wife

at home. What is interesting is she is seen as more normal and a lot

cooler than David Cameron. Tim Montgomery in the Times had an

interesting line, she said if the story is not on six music, I am not

interested. So she is interested, she went to Syria and was touched by

what happened. I don't think we should overestimate her role. He has

a whole host of national-security adviser is telling him what to think

on this. And let's not get carried away with the idea that Samantha

Cameron is the epitome of normal, she is the daughter of a baroness

after all. Isabel Hardman, you may not be surprised but should people

be worried if there is some sort of influence going on at home? I think

it is quite normal for a spouse to listen to people in their

households, it would be odd if David Cameron did not this on. But he has

many other advisers who we will also listen to and give more weight to.

Tory MPs will be worried about any attempt to rush into intervening in

Syria for that the Prime Minister seems to have cooled on that but if

anything happens on the summary says, Britain has to take a decision

without insulting parliament. Many Tories MPs leave this could trigger

the leadership challenge to David Cameron. It is well-known that the

coalition is divided on the issue of Trident but how far do you think the

Liberal Democrats will get with the argument that Britain no longer

faces a threat that requires round-the-clock deterrent. We have a

story saying that the review into Trident alternatives report argues

that the Lib Dems think we should not go for like for like

replacements but producing half the number of submarines. The Tories

have it back on this, saying it would be irresponsible. After the

election in 2015, the Lib Dems will not be a power on their own but we

might have another hung parliament. The big questions is will the Lib

Dems make is non-negotiable, saying they will not replace it and will

not team up with anybody who will? Will it be a red line in the sand?

Philip Hammond has said the Lib Dem proposals would be a step that note

responsible government could take. The Lib Dems need to show it has not

just been an exercise they have been sent away to keep them busy and no

one is going to pay attention, they want to show it is a responsible

alternative and even if it is rejected, it has been paid due

attention. The proposals for a register are out this week after

many years of looking at this issue. Does it tackle the potential

conflict of interests of lobbyists having too much influence?

remains to be seen, some in the industry say it is not because it

leaves out the area of in-house lobbyists. It leaves out the area of

in-house lobbyists. It will only force people who are outside

lobbyists to declare their clients. If you are the communications firm

in-house, let's say a big oil or media company, you don't have to

declare your interest so it is a huge hole that has been left open.

The role of Lynton Crosby and his links of tobacco has come to the

fork so David Cameron will need to be seen to be taken action -- has

come to the fore. Who will be in charge over the summary says since

Nick Clegg and David Cameron are both aware at the same time? I don't

think being on holiday as Prime Minister is the sort of holiday that

any of us would recognise. He does have a phone and staff with him,

bodyguards following him around on the beach. Don't they have nominated

person to be in charge when they are away? Quite a few people will be

hoping it is not Oliver N because when he is left in charge strange

things seem to happen. Theresa May weight -- may hope it is heard given

the leadership ambitions she seems to have been showing. I forgot what

the protocol is if you have the Prime Minister and the deputy away.

No one knows! I wouldn't actually bank on it. Thank you both.

With the next election fast approaching, the latest blow has

been struck this morning in the battle for the future direction of

the Conservative Party. 40 Conservative MPs representing the

party's most marginal seats have published 40 policy ideas to attract

swing voters. And as luck would have it, one of the authors is on our

panel today - James Morris, welcome. We're also joined by the Labour MP

Gisela Stuart and the Liberal Democrat Malcolm Bruce. It is a very

glossy report, especially when I looked it on screen. How did you

pull together these policies? groups represents the 40 held

Conservative marginals. We wanted 40 contributions because it is quite

neat. The book demonstrates the creativity and energy of those 40

marginal members of Parliament. Lots of practical ideas for the future of

the Conservative party. Was it an act of desperation because you are

so worried about UKIP? Not at all. There are ideas about how we tackle

the growing problems of mental illness in Britain, access to

psychological therapies, lots about improving the enterprise agenda.

Stuff about driving forward the localism agenda by giving people a

much better and stronger community right to challenge. They are

practical ideas for the future of the country. Nothing you could

disagree with, is there? There are some interesting ones. As I was

reading stuff about immigration, what you intend to do with single

mothers, capping university places for foreign students, I thought

Nigel Farage does not have to win places because his policies are

being incorporated in the next Conservative manifesto. Welfare is

the top priority, welfare reform is a popular. The idea around teenage

pregnancy is still a big issue, there are very high rates in

comparison to European partners. I think we should look at it, I know

it is controversial but it needs to be looked at. The interesting thing

is you are in government foot up if this was of a party in opposition,

if a group of Labour MPs had done this, I would say there is a real

fight for the next manifesto, but three years into a government in the

first term of a government, for 40 MPs to issue their own manifesto is

extraordinary. This book demonstrates that the Conservative

Parliamentary party is leading the battle of ideas. The Labour Party is

completely intellectually redundant, these ideas are for the future of

the country. Malcolm Bruce, do you sign up to these ideas? I think it

is against what a Conservative government if it was in majority

would be do, what being anchored to the centre ground by the Liberal

Democrats. It is an invitation to realise what the Tory party really

want to do. Some of it is not growing as, it is up to them how

they win their seats. You disagree with policies on improving the

approach to mental health? There are policies that are sensible and some

that are clearly not thought through. It is like reactions on the

doorstep duplicate people. These are your coalition partners? They are

not, they are the Conservative party who wish to lead the country on

their own next time. The top 30 are exempt from universities and what

happens if you are at 31? This is an attack on universities who may have

the best courses, it is elitist, how do you define it? It has those rings

of picking and mixing the things that you will pander, dog whistle

like... There are arguments about this immigration policy, there are a

lot of universities that are running courses which have no value and they

are attracting overseas students to get the numbers up. It is something

we should look at. In this book, it is directly in the centre ground, in

the mainstream, it has a balance of ideas about the future of the

country, looking at improving health care and services and the lives of

children and young people. Why have you felt the need to do it? You are

in government, you are obviously not getting your message across to the

Prime Minister, or he is ignoring you. He has written a foreword to

the book. This is the 40 most marginal seat in the battle ground

offering 40 ideas to be taken forward by the Conservative party.

Does it worry you question but what about the marginal seats you will

have with conservatives it could be a challenge? I have had an even more

marginal seat for a longer time than he had. A one term MP, now here for

the fifth term. The way you'd track the people on the ground is not by

saying, this is my alternative. If I was a voter, I would say, there is a

Conservative government and an alternative group of the 40s you are

trying to offer an alternative menu. This is not an alternative group.

You win the most marginal by saying that as a local representative, you

may offer something extra but you have to be part of the party. You

are welcome to what you're doing it may help us. This is not some other

group, it is a group of not intellectually dead Conservative

members of Parliament. There is a huge range of ideas in the

Conservative arty. We are leading the debate. You cannot get away with

saying, I am an MBNA marginal seat, I have a different agenda from the

Prime Minister. He said these were interesting ideas that not everyone

would agree with, he had no choice. These mainstream ideas that the

government are building one. We look forward to getting your party's not

alternative manifesto! Now, last week Ed Miliband announced plans to

reform his party's relationship with trade union members, and later this

week Conservative Grassroots members are meeting to discuss improving

relationships with their party leadership. As Parliament goes into

recession, how happy are party members with their political

chieftains? I'm joined from College Green by Conrad Landin from Left

Futures, Gareth Epps from the Liberal Democrat Social Liberal

Forum, and Bob Woollard of Conservative Grassroots. Let's start

with you, Bob, are you happy with the leadership? It is not a question

of being happy with the leadership, there are a range of matters that I

am happy with, and a range of matters that I and countless

hundreds and thousands of Conservative members and loyal

activists are not happy with. ones? If you take same-sex marriage,

the bill is going through its final stages in the House of Lords today,

and there was no mandate for that, no manifesto commitment, no Green

paper, no White Paper. No mandate. If you take other issues, HS2, for

instance, overseas aid, a number of this use where the leadership do not

seem to be listening to their grassroots. And what has happened as

a result? What has happened to the grassroots? They have gone, many of

them have torn up their membership cards and are either sitting on the

hands or have gone to UKIP. What about the Labour position on

austerity? That's supported by the grassroots? I think what a lot of

Labour grassroots members want to see is a proper alternative to

austerities. I do not think it is enough to say that posterity is

going to far, too fast. We need to be saying, as Ed Balls has been

saying in some cases, that posterity is crippling the British economy, it

is losing people jobs, but at the same time as that, we have not been

proposing what we will do in said, so we need to be saying what we will

do instead, we need to be saying that we will embark on a massive

programme of council house building. We need to be proposing

things like nationalising the railways, if we need to make cuts,

we should be cutting trident, which is wasting billions of money which

could be invested in things that are actually useful for the economy,

such as green energy and re-nationalising the railways,

things that will create jobs but will not be wasted in their impact.

Is Ed Miliband a good leader? think he is a good leader... Just

not doing any of the things you say. We are having an open discussion in

the Labour Party at the moment about a lot of these things. We need to

come to a King collusion more quickly than we have so far, but I

think we are genuinely making progress. -- a conclusion. I am

going to stop you there, because I want to move on to Gareth Epps, what

about you? What do you think of Nick Clegg? Has he done enough in

coalition? He has been working hard, and we have achieved some

significant things, not least lifting people out of paying income

tax altogether, but he has got a very tough job and has made it clear

that our party, which is a centre-left party, is something he

wants to lead from the centre-right, and as we look forward to 2015, we

have got a big dilemma on our hands in terms of how we tackle the future

debate on the economy, and in particular we had a policy motion

that was unveiled over the weekend, came from Nick Clegg and Danny

Alexander, which effectively looks as though it is going to be

committing us to all spawn's view, and that is not is what Liberal

Democrat on the streets or people who have worked hard to ensure our

57 MPs got elected in 2010 are going to be able to stomach very easily.

Would you rather see Vince Cable leading the party? I do not think it

is about personalities. I think at this stage it is about the policies

and visions. Nick has achieved a great deal as leader of the party,

where some of us are quite concerned is that he seems not to want to

route the party in the way that we have always done in liberal values.

He seems to be wanting us to follow the centre ground and to be tied in

2015, for the next Parliament, to the decisions we have made in

coalition with the Conservatives in the last Parliament. Just as I think

the Conservatives would find it strange to be tied to Liberal

Democrat commitments in 2015, I do not think the Liberal Democrats can

do the same and follow the economic George Osborne. We have to have a

distinct approach, and that was the approach that Vince Cable

articulated so well in 2010. Do you think UKIP are going to make great

games at the expense of the Conservatives in terms of not just

grassroots members but seats? think they probably will at the

European elections. But we have got to really get back, in the

Conservative Party, in my opinion, get back to what ordinary people

want, what ordinary people are feeling. You know, people are fed up

to the back teeth of politicians who say one thing when is an election

coming up and do another when they get into power. So this is switching

people off totally. Will give Nigel Farage one thing, in particular he

is a straight talking type of chap, and we need a much more straight

talking, we need to speak from the heart, take people with us, take

people along with us. That is what is not happening at the moment on a

range of issues. Do you both agree on that point? There is a challenge

coming for all the parties, and I see it quite differently to some of

the voices... Briefly!I think the Labour Party needs to be offering a

more modern vision. I think we need to be at the forefront of campaigns

such as for equal marriage, but we also need to be shown... The Labour

leadership needs to show they have nothing to fear from openers and

debate and from grassroots voices being heard. Is a challenge for all

three, and the world has changed. The fact that we are talking about

equal marriage legislation is something that none of us would have

thought would have been possible ten years ago. Political parties do need

to remember that they need to be doing that straight talking and be

honest with the electorate. Thank you, gentlemen, very interesting,

thank you for coming onto the programme.

All of them seem to be unhappy with the leadership in one way or

another, not listening to them, the Conservatives said that the

grassroot numbers have gone for ever. Ed Miliband has nothing to

fear by being open. And that is why I think the recognition that all the

major political parties have to become broad movements again, where

your grassroots actually not just your members. But can you get any

new members with what Ed Miliband is suggesting? My grassroots are not

all male and white. I thought it was very interesting that those three

examples of speaking for the grassroots. My grassroots are

hundreds of people who deliver leaflets, and probably only a third

of them will be card-carrying Labour Party members. You engage them in

the political process and ask them genuine questions. I am doing

something on welfare where I am waiting for responses because I

really want to know. The Liberal Democrat there, Malcolm Bruce,

saying they are a centre-left, not a centre-right party. Something sounds

wrong for him... The party is a liberal party which is broadly

centrist. The fact is, if you look recently, an interesting article in

the Economist, showing that young people are fundamentally socially

and economic li liberal, and our job is to make them vote Liberal. You

cannot run away from the facts, nobody likes austerity. We have to

do things that nobody came into politics wanting to do, and I think

the electorate get it. The debate should be how you do it as fairly as

possible, and that is what the debate about the parties will be,

rather than trying to pretend you can ignore the background and do

something you will never deliver in government. Very briefly, we heard a

lot beforehand, but you have lost quite a lot of grassroots for ever.

I do not necessarily agree with that. My sense of talking to the

grassroots in my constituency is that they are encouraged by the fact

that this Government is focusing on these use of ordinary people,

Welfare Reform Act off He says you are not listening, HS2, gay

marriage. These are things which are of central concern is to ordinary

voters in my constituency. Margaret Hodge and the Public Accounts

Committee have a new target in their sights, fresh from attacking the

likes of Google, Amazon and Apple, the committee turns its attention to

Prince Charles. His chief adviser, William Nye will be asked to explain

why the Prince pays income tax on the money he receives from the Duchy

of Cornwall, but no corporation tax. The cabin is -- the campaigning

organisation Republic wrote to Margaret Hodge asking her to

investigate his affairs. Why are Prince Charles's tax affairs a

problem? He pays income tax. Duchy of Cornwall is the issue, not

Prince Charles as an individual. This is one of the excuses they have

tried to make, suggesting there is no distinction. There is a

distinction, the Duchy is a major commercial property empire, it makes

millions of pounds every year of profit on, you know, trading in the

property market and pays not a single penny of corporation tax. In

this day and age, and people are very upset about this issue, Google

and Amazon and Starbucks, there are serious questions to ask about why

that is. We will get onto that comparison, but public funding for

the Prince of Wales fell by 50% in the last financial year, and the

income he receives from the Duchy enables him to be largely

self-funded, and he also pays the household expenses of William and

Kate, a pretty good deal for the taxpayer. No, the funding did not

fall at all. All is that happened is that some of the costs were shifted

onto the Commonwealth countries. We do not owe him any money at all,

he's not be head of state, so we are not getting a good deal. There is a

fundamental point of principle, attack should be applied equally to

everybody, and there is no justification for the Duchy of

Cornwall not to be paying it. All of their excuses have been taken apart

by experts, and they carry on trying to twist and turn and get out of

paying corporation tax on multi-million pound profits. Thank

you very much indeed. Do you think it is fair to compare, as was done

there, the Duchy of Cornwall to Starbucks and Amazon? No, I don't

think it is. Talking about a personal attack on Prince Charles,

no Woody would be suggesting that Prince Charles and his organisations

are not doing great work in Britain. -- nobody. It is probably right that

we live in an age of transparency, and it is legitimate that the Public

Accounts Committee looks at the details of this, but I do not think

any Woody -- anybody would be suggesting Prince Charles is

avoiding paying tax. But should he be paying corporation tax from the

estate, not him personally? He pays income tax on the money he makes, I

suppose you could argue that he would be being taxed twice. He would

be able to offset one against the other. That is what the Public

Accounts Committee are looking into. I do not think I could comment

other than it is good it should be investigated. He should be paying

his fair contribution, whether in income tax or corporation tax. A few

years ago, the Queen did not pay any tax, now she does, and we are moving

into a situation where it is expected that the Royals should pay

their fair share. I agree that this is the Duchy of Cornwall, not Amazon

or Google, this is a domestic business. The only issue is whether

it should be managed on behalf of the role family or in a way that is

just fair and just to the public sector and to the Royal Family to do

the job they have to. transparency, they have to be just

as transparent as every videos, so it is a good move. It is a shame he

is not going to appear before the committee. I do not think he is