19/09/2013 Daily Politics

Welcome to the Daily Politics. A new report from the TUC says a third of

council tenants have fallen behind on rent because of cuts to housing

benefit - that's the bedroom tacks or the spare room subsidy, depending

on the cut of your jib. We'll have reaction from both sides of the

argument. As house prices boom in parts of

Britain, is this the start of a new housing bubble? Nick Clegg left the

Lib Dem conference in Glasgow a happy chap - and with the polls

looking close, is coalition government here to stay?

And is David Cameron right to say football fans can call themselves

what they want - or is offensive language always offensive language?

All that in the next hour and with us for the duration, the

constitutional expert, star of the House of Lords, cross bench peer,

Peter Henessy. Welcome. Thank you. Let's talk about the Liberal

Democrats, because we haven't done very much of that so far this week.

Yesterday afternoon it was the Lib Dem leader, Deputy Prime Minister

Nick Clegg, who took centre stage. He had this to say. Three is ago I

told you, we had an opportunity, our predecessors would have given

anything to govern. To turn our liberal principles into practice.

Today I tell you that an even bigger opportunity awaits. The cycle of

red, blue, blue, red. It has been interrupted. Our place in this

government has prevented the pendulum swinging back from left to

right. We are now where we always should have been. In power, in the

liberal centre, in tune with the British people. And every day we are

showing that we can govern and govern well. That pluralism works.

And if we can do this again, in government began in 2015, we are a

step closer to breaking the two party mould for good.

And here to discuss whether Nick Clegg is right about breaking the

mould of politics is Stephen Tall, co-editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.

Is he really going to break the mould of two party politics? He is

going to give it a go. It was an interesting speech because he was

trying to stake out what is still quite controversial territory within

the party, which is we are a party of the sensor that can anchor the

other two parties in the liberal mainstream centre ground. For some

activists it is a bit of a hard message to hear, they want to hear a

radical, progressive viewpoint. He is saying, we did not win the

election last time, we are not going to win the next election, we have to

get real. That means we are going to be able walk against extremism of

Labour and Tories, that is our way into politics. It is quite an

audacious narrative to say that we are going to be a break of the

extremes of right and left. In constitutional terms, do you think

he is right in saying this is the start of the end of red, blue, blue,

red? People have said this before. Joe Grimond in the 60s, a wonderful

speech. All the well rehearsed Joe Grimond in the 60s, a wonderful

spontaneity is look rather sad as the decades pass. I don't get is a

problem just for the Lib Dem activists. I like Lib Dems, I tend

to like herbivorous people. But it is very preachy. This is the Lib

Dems of the holier than thou, that only sensible is possible. If we are

rooted in a coalition government. It is almost as if you are saying that

our views are self-evidently decent and right and the others will take

ideological awaydays. Some might say it is a tad hubristic, I say this

with the perfection and understanding. That is the Ritz,

that voters think it is a load of old codswallop. -- that is the risk.

Absolutely. We heard criticism that this is Nick Clegg declaring that

the Lib Dems want to be in power for ever. At the last election, the

electorate could not decide and did not give any one party a majority.

In those circumstances, someone has to break the deadlock. Nick Clegg is

saying he is the person who can. There is the more philosophical

argument which is the symbol arguing, two heads are better than

one. -- simple are given. If you have one party pretending they have

some kind of real majority when they don't, it is much better to combine

forces and come up with the best ideas between them. Except if you

look as if you are prepared to do business with anyone, in the end

your principles go. That is what it might have sounded like two voters,

that it is just power they are after and will get into bed with anyone.

That is the risk. In Germany they have the FDP party which has flipped

between left and right over 40 or 50 years, propping up front

governments. There is that risk that you come to be seen as political

harlots. From the Lib Dem point of view, we are trying to make sure

that there is a chance for a correction, to get some liberal

policies in government. Stephen Tall made the point that no one voted for

one particular party but no one votes for coalitions. They don't,

but they would do if we had proportional representation. Then

you would have to have agreements, you would develop agreements so that

people knew what combination they would get if the outcome went this

way rather than that. It is easier to do, it is obligatory in many

ways. The real problem is it is very hard to strike a pose of a

principled tart and that is exactly what this strategy involves. Do you

think for Nick Clegg, look what happened to the alternative vote to

proportional rippers and taken, it did not happen, no appetite for it

-- abortion or representation. There is a risk that this could just be

one win for them. -- proportional representation. Some Lib Dem

activists would be more comfortable with Labour. Then you have the

activists would be more comfortable leadership, having worked in

partnership with vivid Cameron for leadership, having worked in

three and a half years committee has got a working relationship with him

is with David Cameron. He would probably prefer that relationship to

continue rather than starting again with Ed Miliband. Do you think a

coalition is likely in 2015? Do you think it is becoming more of a

possibility? I have a terrible record as a forecaster. The polls

suggest the Lib Dems may come down to 20 seats and that may be enough

to be the power broker again, but it may not. Certainly the guardians of

the British constitution are may not. Certainly the guardians of

refining the lessons of last time in terms of how you get to a coalition.

Because it will take longer because we are used to it, unless the money

markets are going bonkers. The Cabinet manual has been refined

based on the lessons of last time. The system is adapting to the

possibility. I wrote a blog post about this and I want to make the

commitment on TV, if we are reduced to 24 seats next time, I will run

naked down Whitehall. I think the chances... Lets hope they get more,

is all I can say. There is a risk, ten to 20 seats. It is a real

possibility that the Liberal Democrats could lose that many

seats, could they really then be the power brokers? They have 57 seats.

If the party was reduced to 40 seats next time, don't forget when you're

talking about government majorities, you can double that because one vote

against is worth two in favour. You have to have 80 extra MPs on the

other side. Do you think there is a bar below which the Liberal

Democrats could not justify being power brokers? In human terms, if

Nick has presided over you losing a lot of seats, he doesn't look like

the young, promising, convincing person. He is still an extremely

nice man but the polls don't suggest he is receiving the praise of a

grateful nation. In psychological terms it would be hard to portray

yourself as the repositories of reason and savers of the

Constitution. There are two factors. If Nick Clegg has lost by losing

seats, you are right, it makes it If Nick Clegg has lost by losing

far harder to negotiate a good deal in the next hung parliament if there

is one. I think he is aware of that risk, if any kind of backslide is

going to make it much tougher to govern. There is also the other

point that Conservatives and Labour have both watched the coalition play

out and they are nervous about what another five years of coalition

government means for them. The Conservatives are completely split,

partly as a result of the coalition. Labour will not take kindly to

having to deal with the Lib Dems either and Ed Bill abound -- Ed

Miliband knows it could give him problems that David Cameron has

faced. I don't think labour or Conservatives are looking forward to

the prospect of coalition. And Nick Conservatives are looking forward to

Clegg says he's not going to in politics for ever. Exactly, only

three or form or elections! Now it's time for our daily quiz.

With the Lib Dems holding their conference this week, and Labour

following on next week, Conservative MPs have jumped on the chance of

getting out of Westminster. But where have they all gone?

A) The UKIP annual conference? B) Grouse shooting in Scotland? C) A

late summer getaway in Ibiza? Or d) An away day at a hotel in

Oxfordshire? At the end of the show Peter will give us the correct

answer. Now, it's what the chattering middle

classes like to talk about, especially if you live in Wandsworth

or Hampstead. Not George Osborne's hair, but house prices. They're on

the rise again and everyone's talking about a housing bubble. But

what's the true picture? Certainly in London, average house prices have

risen by almost 10% over the past year. And in the South East that

figure is 2.6%. Elsewhere, in the South West and the East there are

more modest increases compared to London. But it isn't such a rosy

picture further north. Over the past year, prices in the North East fell

by 1.3% and in the North West they have gone down by 0.7%. Despite the

mixed picture there've been calls for the governor of the Bank of

England to step in and control a housing led boom. Here's what he had

to say. We see further improvement in prices and activity, but that is

our expectation. And perhaps some acceleration, so we do need to be

vigilant about this. But,speaking to the BBC's Business

Editor Robert Peston, the Chancellor George Osborne rejected the idea. I

don't see the evidence of some housing boom. IC has prices 25%

lower, mortgage approvals half what they are. We are a long way from a

housing boom. I do see a lot of families trying to buy homes, unable

to afford deposits because of the weakness of some parts of our

banking system and I want to help those families. I am joined by the

Shadow implement minister, Stephen Timms, and Professor Len

Shadow implement minister, Stephen Shackleton, a fellow at the

Institute of Economic Affairs. We are experiencing another housing

bubble? I think it is too early to say. The real problem is that we are

not building enough new homes. It has got a lot worse. 9% down,

107,000 new homes started last year, 9% less than the previous year, the

lowest peacetime figure since the 1920s. That is why there is a rough

threat of a bubble because we are not building enough. Labour in its

13 years also built to few houses. We could certainly have done with

building more but we did build more than the current government. You had

13 years. More per year. There is still a shocking shortage of houses

over those 13 years. More needs to be done but things have gone

backwards. You say it is too early to understand if there is a housing

bubble? I think it is too early, we must be vigilant but the priority

must be on more homes. Is it a good thing that house prices are going up

in London and the south-east? It is good if you own a house, not so much

if you don't. I welcome the fact there is help being given to people

who want to get onto the housing ladder but we need to make sure

there are enough homes for them to buy. Do you think there is a housing

bubble? I think there is potentially a housing bubble. I think Mark

Carney is right to say we don't know. These schemes are boosting

demand in a situation where we are not putting enough houses and the

government has done nothing to liberalise the housing market, to

open up the supply of land and make it easier for people to build.

Except land is available and planning permission has been given

but builders are waiting to see if house prices rise. There has been a

sort of break. What can the government do about that? The

government could bring forward planned public investment in

housing. We have seen a 60% cut in government housing investment since

the election. The IMF is calling for investment in infrastructure, things

like housing, and the government could do more to bring that forward

and lead by example by building new homes.

We have had a deep recession. The fact people are now starting to move

is surely a good thing. We need, if you like, some sort of housing boom

in order to help the economy move. You might be right. As your piece

made clear, at the top end of the market, the housing market is

picking up. People are spending more at that

end. That is going to boost spending in the London economy, certainly, as

a result of the effect of greater equity in housing. That is

threatened by people like the Lib Dems with their mansion tax.

Something labour would like to do as well. Indeed we would. People who

are well should make a contribution. Are they living in mansions if they

are living in London in houses that are £1.5 million? We have seen a big

-- big tax cut for those on the biggest incomes. We think it would

be fairer if people were putting in more.

At what point do you think action more.

should be taken to dampen down more.

housing market? You say you want to wait and see. What will say to you,

right, we need to do something? We need to make sure we get more new

homes built. That is going to take a certain amount of time. House prices

have gone up 10% in a year. You can only build a certain amount of

houses in 12 months. What level of increase in London do you think

would be too much? One can't put a simple figure on that. We should be

taking action now to bring forward housing investment to make sure we

get no -- more new homes and don't get the inevitable bubble if we

don't. The Bank of England has been told to

put an annual cap on house prizes. Is that a good idea? Fantasy. It

can't be done. What about increasing the base rate?

Is it time for Mark Carney, even though he has said he is not going

to do it, is there a point at which you would encourage the bank of

England to look at increasing the base rate? I don't think politicians

should do that. That is a decision for the governor. It is a good

mechanism if they decided to do it. That is a call for the government. I

can understand why politicians will do anything to promote growth. They

would run naked around the square inch of Felder. -- in Trafalgar.

From the past recoveries, the pacemaker has often been the housing

market. There are problems with that, partly because it adds to the

rigid tea of the labour market. It is hard to move to the South East

and get a house and job if you have lived in the north. It always ends,

to some degree, in tears. Unless you had a command economy, which nobody

does, it is hard to know what to do about it. But there is a pattern

from past recoveries in which this has always been a problem. You are

right. It is difficult to see what the government and the bank of

England can do that they are not the government and the bank of

currently doing. They have got a policy of looking at what is

happening to unemployment as an indicator... Is that a good idea, to

tie it to unemployment? That is a useful indicator of demand in the

economy. Would you scrap the help to buy scheme? No, it is a good idea.

It has been criticised. It is saying we are going to get people in debt

when they can't afford to pay back their mortgage payments.

If we were building more homes, this would be a more manageable problem.

Why does every government failed to build enough homes? There are

varying degrees of failure. But generally, they do. The problem at

varying degrees of failure. But the moment is that the worst

recession since the 1920s is happening now.

Stay with us. Since the government's bedroom tax has come

into force, there has been an increase in rent arrears, and that

is the view of the TUC. Of the 114 councils that responded to their

Freedom of Information requests, one in three affected has fallen behind

on rent. In a recent separate study, the National Housing

Federation found that a quarter of households affected by the cut are

falling to rent arrears for the first time ever. The Department for

Work and Pensions say it is too first time ever. The Department for

early to judge their policy and that the removal of the spare room

subsidy is a necessary reform to return fairness to housing benefit.

Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC comment joins me. Can you

Frances O'Grady, general secretary explain how, exactly, the findings

were carried out? We issued a explain how, exactly, the findings

Freedom of Information request to local authorities up and down

Britain, and these were the results that came back to us.

Is that evidence solid and this is the first time this council tenants

have gone into arrears since the policy was brought in?

These are tenants who were not in arrears before and now are. That is

around 50,000, which we think is a conservative estimate.

Not all local authorities responded to our request. The housing benefit

bill is £24 billion. How would you bring it down? One of the key ways

is to make sure that people earning decent wage in the first place and

can afford fair rents. We have got sky-high rents in the

private sector. They need to be tackled. You don't

tackle them by pushing disabled people and pensioners out of their

council homes. Bearing in mind that we have been in a recession and

people have struggled to hold onto their jobs, the chances of there

been increases in wages is obviously difficult.

I ask you again, how else would you difficult.

bring the housing benefit down? There is a big debate about how to

control rent in the private sector. The best way with two -- would be to

build more affordable homes. Is it too early to judge this

policy? It has only been several months.

Do you think that after a period of time, when people are just, that

actually some of those difficulties will be ironed out? -- when people

add just. It is easy for million years to talk about adjustment.

-- millionaires. We need the crisis addressed now. There are too many

people who are genuinely afraid that I going to be facing eviction. The

government should scrap this crazy tax. The government talks about

fairness. It says the policy is a symbol, if

you like, for fairness, that they should not be council tenants in

houses that are too big for them. Most people feel that a better

symbol of fairness would be a mountain tax -- mansion tax. I hope

that politicians from all parties are going to scrap it. We have been

asking all parties to scrap it. It is unfair, unworkable, and it needs

to change now. Lord Collins has today released his

report on Labour's relationship with the unions. It says the electoral

college, which elected Labour's leaders, is up for negotiation. A

third of it is trade union votes. What is your response? That is an

internal Labour Party matter. My opinion is the one most people

share, which is that it is important that ordinary people have a voice in

politics and that they have a stronger voice in politics. The

Labour Party has been conducting its own consultation with those unions

that are affiliated to it. I'm sure they will come up with a sensible

solution that ensures that ordinary people keep a voice in politics so

we can speak loudly on issues like this bedroom tax that most people

feel is so unfair. But Ed Miliband has said that

ordinary people should have a voice and they will have it by having one

member, one vote. I say to you again, is it now time to look at the

real possibility of getting rid of the union block vote in the

electoral college? I think most people agree it is essential, Mao --

now, more than ever, that British politics is rooted in the experience

of ordinary people. Otherwise we would not hear, frankly, about

issues like the bedroom tax. Thank you rematch. Stephen Timms,

your colleague called for the spare room subsidy to beast -- be dropped.

We don't yet have a fully costed programme for what we would do in

2015. We will have a programme by 2015. We will make it clear at that

point what we will do about this dreadful measure. Liam Byrne was

very to go about this, so surely this is something you should pledge

to reverse? Once we have a full programme, we will make that clear.

The worst thing about this is, I think that people can do absolutely

nothing about it. There is nowhere smaller for them to move to. When I

canvass in my constituency, I know it is a lot of people who are

frightened they have no idea where they can go to. I take that point,

that there are not enough smaller houses. But then you do agree that

people should live in homes that are the right size for them? They should

not have spare rooms that are funded by the taxpayer?

What we proposed during the debate on this was that if people had been

offered somewhere smaller and refused to move, a penalty would be

fair in now. Two Pina lies people when there is nothing they can do

other than take the hit and potentially get into digger

arrears, as we are hearing in the surveys, that is a terrible idea. --

to penalised people. It has been executed in a ham-fisted

way. Indeed, the amount of money to be saved by this is only in the

region of £500 million per year. My daughter is being given two years of

free meals. Why? And yet we are running into this problem with

bedroom tax. In the longer term, we have to do something about using

social housing in a rational way. We have got into a situation where a

lot of people are occupying space that is different from the historic

needs. Over time, I think we should give people strong incentives to

downsize if that is appropriate. Is it the best way to reduce the

housing benefit you'll? It is a small amount, really. You have got

housing benefit you'll? It is a to think about how you can bring

this down systemically. In real terms, in 1970, we were spending

£250 million. Now we are spending £24 billion. This is extraordinary.

That is an eye watering figure. But as has been stated, if it saves £550

million and there are limited options for many people in areas

where there are not alternative housing, do you think is a good

policy? The problems were explained in the

House of Lords. Our expert pointed this out. I accept the need for

deficit reduction. This is not fantasy stuff. It is a gripping

priority. Housing benefit is one of the very big items. To do it this

way, the level of social disruption and the lack of small alternative

accommodation, all of this was foreseen. One can only sympathise

with ministers who have got to find the billions. They have also got a

duty of care to the vulnerable in society free. -- in society.

Is it just the vulnerable who are affected? There are people who are

just living in houses that are too before them.

A lot of people on low incomes are being very badly damaged by this.

The one encouraging thing is the Lib Dems conference voted overwhelmingly

against the government. Until now, they have voted in favour. I hope we

might see a change of heart. You said you are pleased the Lib

Dems have voted against it. Why won't you just say you will get rid

of it? In 2015, this measure should be scrapped. You think it is a good

idea, Len Shackleton, in theory and principle. It has only been three

months, that is quite early days. It is and I think some of the scare

stories about this... There are obviously going to be people who are

stories about this... There are in a difficult position but we don't

really see from the figure is just what proportion of people there are,

and whether they are being helped by the discretionary payments that are

in place to help hard cases at the moment. When any measure to reduce

public spending is introduced, you get the stories coming out about the

people who are suffering. You have to pay it -- bear in mind that the

average taxpayer is paying out about £700 a year on housing benefit for

people, this figure has to come down. This may have been handled

badly but I think the principle is OK. We are getting figures from the

surveys of the scale of this. One in three council tenants affected,

about half of housing association tenants who are affected. It would

add up to 300,000 in the housing association side, a couple of

hundred thousand in councils, it is a big problem. Those TUC figures are

about people who have gone into debt after April 2000 and 13 -- April

2013. The it does not compare the figures after the measures have been

introduced so it is dishonest to compare the figures in this way.

Labour voters want these issues tackled, they are the ones who fully

support welfare reforms. They want to get people back to work. They

want the welfare bill brought down. Indeed, the housing benefit bill is

still far too high a cost they haven't managed to get people back

to work. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

So, the Lib Dem conference is over. How we will miss it. The media and

political road show is now winding its way down from Glasgow to

Brighton for the Labour conference as we speak. But have party

conferences lost some of their sparkle? Giles has been rummaging

round the archives to find out. Conferences. A few days of tribal

politics, intermingling, some of it useful, some best unmentioned.

Lewis, debate, policy and PR. Some of the worst comedy known to man. I

heard they have got Peter Hain booked for the next series.

Honestly, I just cannot watch that again. There is a narrative that

conferences don't matter these days. Gone are the epic showdowns of

labour in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I am telling you, you can't play politics

with people's jobs and with people's services.

APPLAUSE There is no doubt this man put his

head on the block by saying, I fervently believe, because that is

what he believes, of a relationship and a strong one with the trade

unions and the Labour Party. He has put his head there, now is our time

to vote, give us a bit of trust and let's have this vote support. And

even the PR savvy new let's have this vote support. And

couldn't stage manage everything. You can't make me leave the

premises. The Tories have never been much infused by Sally in conference

with anything like sites that matter, but tectonic plates have

shifted in circles at conference. I have only one thing to say, you turn

if you want to. The lady is not for turning. Let's be clear. Prison

works. And it has been the stage of defining moments. The fact that we

works. And it has been the stage of are gathered here, now, shocked but

composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed

but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.

And don't tell the Lib Dems that conference is so passe, this is

their week for above-average coverage, and poetic licence

attacking both sides. Something borrowed, a lot that is blue, too

much that is old and nothing new. Playing to the grassroots, the core,

without giving away how awful you find most of them, is what it is

about four MPs and ministers. To Cheri... I mean...

APPLAUSE Well, at least I don't have to worry

about her running off with the bloke next door. There you have it, the

final proof, Labour's brand-new shining modernist, economic dream

but it was not brown's, it was balls's. How much the public feel

anything about these tribal tribulations is a good question,

perhaps we should put it to conference.

You're watching the Daily Politics - and we've been joined by viewers in

Scotland who have been watching First Minister's Questions from

Holyrood. Are they what they used to First Minister's Questions from

be, party conferences? Nothing is what it used to be. It is easy to be

sceptical and cynical in the error of hyper spin. One must remember

there were turning points. We saw Mrs Thatcher in 1981, the lady is

not for turning, in the middle of dreadful economic indicators,

enormous pressure, the riots of that spring and summer. We saw Neil

Kinnock taking on militant, just as spring and summer. We saw Neil

Gates could have taken on CND in 1960. One remembers Jim Callaghan in

76, talking as he saw it, truth to a labour movement that did not want to

listen about not being able to spend your way out of a recession. It is

easy for those on the outside, and I am not a party person. Heaven knows

what the people who are not that interested in politics make of these

weird tribal occasions. We must remind ourselves that it does matter

that parties exist and it does matter that they have their own way

days to cheer themselves up, and sometimes it matters in the wider

scheme of things, but very rarely -- they have their own way days.

Why does it matter, that the big changes have gone. The criticism is

that these party conferences are too slick, the memberships are bundling.

In all three of the main parties -- memberships are dwindling. And it is

read the lobbyists that are provided for. You have to remember that the

parties are under a lot of pressure, it is not an easy life being a party

person, they are always got that and they have to cheer themselves up. It

is largely internal, the tribe being jolly with itself was not the

journalists and the rest of us love it when they have a domestic. This

year, the Lib Dems was particularly upset, would Vince Cable turn-up to

hear Nick Clegg defend the government's strategy? It won't be

remembered, and yet it seemed to make the weather for at least a

couple of days. I used to be a journalist so I won't be critical of

them, but I think the combination of mania and fatigue sets in. If you

put the TUC as the first one and you get three following on. People live

in a strange world than they usually do. The symbiosis gets even tighter.

But it does matter. You need an anthropologist, not an historian to

explain this phenomenon. There are some people who genuinely love this

explain this phenomenon. There are party conferences. Lots of

journalists love it, too. So why deny them their annual pleasure? Why

indeed. Now - are the luscious red benches

of the House of Lords getting a tad overcrowded? When you tot up the

bishops, the life peers, and the few remaining hereditaries, there are

766 working peers. And the ermine keeps on coming - in fact in the

last few weeks, the flow of newly ennobled peers has continued - see

how many of the famous-ish faces you can name.

I, Martha, Baroness Lane Fox of Soho, do solemnly, sincerely and

truly declare and affirm... That I will be faithful and bear true

allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth... Her heirs and

successors, according to law, so help me God.

The stately ceremony of it all. I'm now joined by the Liberal

Democrat and newly ennobled Lord Paddick - formerly Brian Paddick.

Democrat and newly ennobled Lord Are you excited? I was unable on

Democrat and newly ennobled Lord Thursday but I will be inaugurated

at the end of October. It feels very strange but I am looking forward to

it. What is your plan and objective in the House of Lords? I want a

political platform to try and talk about the things that I think are

important. The bull might be surprised what the topics are. --

people might be surprised. There is a bit of a clue on Liberal Democrat

Voice website. I am not going to disappear without a trace as some

peers do. Are there too many? There are too many but that is because

there are so many who are not interested in the Democratic

process, not interested in going to Parliament. A lot of them are too

old or too infirmed to make it there Parliament. A lot of them are too

anyway and under the current system there is no way they can retire

gracefully. What about the bill to try and have a maximum the bishop or

seniority, or a retirement age? We need to get it down to 500. It is a

lot to lose. I think there are technically 815. Most working days,

390 come. The majority of them are very conscientious. It is a

coalition of the willing. People very conscientious. It is a

come for things that matter to them. You will have a wonderful time and

people will enjoy you being there, I am absolutely sure. It is a

remarkable form of Adam education -- adult education. We have got to get

it down to 500 and that will be difficult. I am against paying

people redundancy because we are all volunteers. The public would not put

up with it. You have to get a retirement scheme that enables

people to live with dignity but it is very hard to get the numbers

down. A study was done which suggests we live 15 years longer in

the House of Lords because the grey cells asked elated everyday and we

are pampered. At what age would you make it compulsory? -- the grey

cells are stimulated every day. Some of our best people, however you

measure it, I think I over 80. Lord Carrington is 94. Would you back

that sort of bill? They have been trying to get a bill through and it

has never managed to get onto the statute book. We want a

democratically elected upper chamber. Bearing in mind that has

not gone through, would you back some sort of bill that would put a

maximum age, anything to bring the numbers down? I think the first step

is to say to current members that there is an option to retire

gracefully from the house. Where you there is an option to retire

can keep your title but you are no longer able to attend the House. I

think that would significantly reduce the numbers. Then we need to

look and see if we need to cull any more. In this latest intake, there

isn't, I am told, a single crossbench peer. They are done

separately to those lists, that is why. The Prime Minister did a deal

with the chairman of the appointments commission to get it

down to two a year from four. I think because the crossbenchers were

voting against the government. They are quite separate from the

political trance. Isn't it too dominated by political patronage? It

is very important to have experts in their field and sometimes you can

only get those by having crossbenchers. We have the former

direct of public prosecutions as a Liberal Democrat peer so it is

possible to have experts who will also take the party whip. Are there

too many people who are political? I think we House of Lords, from what I

understand, is far more consensual than the House of Commons. And that

there is far more movement in terms of peers who decide not to obey the

whip when votes, long. I am not sure -- when votes, long. I am not sure

the problem with tribalism is not as much of a problem as it is in the

the problem with tribalism is not as House of Commons. I think the Lib

Dem peers in the House of Lords are the heaviest whip of all, it is

wonderful that the party of liberty and freedom and thought are the most

heavily whipped. I hope you will rebel. I don't think that is the

case and talking to some of my fellow Liberal Democrat peers, they

quite enjoy rebelling. It is just because the Liberal Democrat

argument are far more convincing than the other parties, which is why

more Liberal Democrat peers as peers follow the whip. I am touched!

Now for something completely different.

Today on the Daily Politics, we play who is this man? He ran an election

campaign. He wanted to be boss. He invented the Labour red rose. He

likes walking dogs. Let's go through the studio doors and find out who it

is! Congratulations. The answer is Bryan Gold.

There are no prizes. I do apologise. Where have you been? I have been in

New Zealand, where I was born. There is a life after politics and I have

enjoyed it. I have kept up my interest in politics in New Zealand

and Britain. I have it in a book about the last two or three decades.

-- I have written. Where did it all go wrong? The book is pretty damning

about the state of western democracy. Where did it go wrong?

It went wrong because we invented democracy, or achieved it, so there

was a legitimate force, government, that could offset and restraint

would otherwise be the overwhelming power of those who would be

dominating the marketplace. We found in the 1980s, with globalisation,

that governments were sidelined. International capital could simply

say, if you don't do what we want, we will go elsewhere. Do you think

Tony Blair was sidelined? He resided over a huge majority in this

country. He presided over a boom. I think it is tendentious to save

the global crisis was created by governments. It was certainly the

irresponsible behaviour of banks. The only point I would disagree

where Tony Blair was encouraging this development of weaker democracy

in favour of the big forces of the economy is that I think he embraced

it. This is the extraordinary thing about new Labour. They didn't set

out to withhold support or restrain the powerful forces in the economy.

They said, go for it! The free market is a wonderful thing.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Nobody was calling for that kind of

restraint. The Conservatives weren't, either. With respect, I

was. If you have seen my book, which I don't expect you will have done,

I'm able to draw on a long experience going back through all of

that period and before in which, on issues like the City, the euro, full

employment, or monetarism, on all of those issues I have been

consistently calling for the positions that I now believe are

likely to be more acceptable because we have seen the deficiencies of

what has gone before. Do you think that if Labour had taken your

positions in the mid or late 1990s, would they have been elected three

times? Of course they would. In 1992, the British electorate were

desperate to get rid of the Tories. It was, I think, wrong for Labour to

believe they had to abandon their old policies in order to get

elected. It seems to me that what new Labour did was simply to

perpetuate, as they have agreed that they did, Mrs Thatcher public

policies. It is a shame he left. His voice in

the Cabinet would have been something. Even Bryan would have a

job arguing against these big forces in the world. Was the Cold War was

over and IT and globalisation let rip, you couldn't do democratic

socialism in one country. It would have become increasingly difficult

for the Casey would have argued -- the case you would have argued to

operate in the new reality. I recognise that. I had lost an

argument, not intellectually, but the forces came against me. That is

why I left. I saw my future as to be a licensed cricket -- cricket. Ed

Miliband has at least drawn the line under the sort of defeatism that I

believe characterised Labour. The polls are good enough. There's a

chance he will win. He is addressing the wrong issues. He is still

debating in a debate framed and characterised by Tory values. The

one piece of advice I would offer him, not a criticism, is develop

your own agenda. There are really coming problems out there. Not

reducing the deficit, that is they sent off the problems. Our problem

is that we are fundamentally an uncompetitive economy. We have

handed over eating policy to the bankers. We have banded full

employment as even achievable, let alone desirable. These are the

things that should constitute a Labour agenda now. I believe that if

they did that, they would be elected overwhelmingly. Now, do you find

this offensive? Yid army! Yid army!

That is, of course, what Tottenham Hotspur's fans. The club

traditionally has a strong Jewish following, but the FA has said it is

not acceptable for their fans to use the word yid. David Cameron has

argued that it is fine for Tottenham fans to do so as they are not

motivated by hate. Joining me to discuss this are David Aaronovitch

and the actor and writer David Schneider. Is the term yid

offences? In most contexts in which it is used against somebody as an

attempt to offends them and be detrimental, yes.

But not in all circumstances. As used by Spurs fans, no. Is that

right? Can you make it that nuanced?

As a comedian, you are always aware of what you say, whether it is a

joke, how it is going to play, how you intend it.

It is also who is receiving it, who is listening to it. The reason I

think it is wrong, which is a decision I have recently made, is

because of the response, because of the audience. That means everybody

else. The Chelsea fans, West Ham fans, anybody who replies with the

gas noises, the Holocaust chance. My beef is not so much with the Spurs

fans. It is with the general response. Spurs fans now have to

take responsibility to accept that the word, and I am shocked at how

people bandy it around, like when your Twitter feed. It makes me

cringe, but I can't say the word. Yet people are saying yid without

inverted commas. That shows how it is wrong.

All you are encouraging is for people to be committed even if they

don't intend it to be, to be pejorative. They are using a term

that can offends people. There is a kind of absurd to in this.

Here is a word, yid, and in fact my grandma over -- grandmother only

spoke Yiddish... I speak Yiddish, the youngest

Yiddish speaking the world! It comes from a Yiddish word. When it is in

English, it is offences. What I was going to say is that it

is absurd that a word which is used by people who are not using it to be

offences, that actually isn't offensive to Jewish people when

hearing it in that context, and by and large it isn't, should anything

be regarded as something you have to and large it isn't, should anything

stop. Other people might take it up as a basis on which they build their

own... But everybody has a responsibility... Let's look at the

end word. Why is it so unacceptable and yet the word yid is OK?

In a comic context you could find ways of using it. I remember that

you were one of the people who was upset about the idea of introducing

a law about religious discrimination because of the effect it would have

had on comics because he wanted the freedom to be able to use words.

As Spider-man would say, with great power comes great refunds ability.

-- great responsibility. You have to be aware of the effect of what you

are saying. This is a chance at a football match. I don't think

football match fans should be thinking about their social

responsibility at the point of making a chance. You are not there

to do that. You are not there to prove your social responsibility.

You are there to celebrate your tribe. There are things, actually,

that's Spurs fans have chances that are genuinely offences and that I

have wanted them to stop. This is not one of them. The FA are in a

tricky position. Can they afford to intellectualise about it if they are

trying to get rid of racism in football?

They are in a tricky position because they are dumb. If they want

to take up the business of anti-Semitism, by all means do.

What would happen, by your logic, if Ed Miliband, who self identifies as

a yid and called Labour the yid army, would Cameron say it was

fine? He has got to take responsibility for the word. If Ed

Miliband was a West Ham supporter and sang, I am for ever blowing

bubbles, it would be strange. Should David Cameron have got

involved in this? He can only lose. We are a better country for people

being sensitive. The first time I went to White Hart Lane, there was a

drum and everybody shouted the word. I was shocked. I couldn't believe

it. There are linguistic minefields. Banging the drum! Don't rap artists

use the end word? That is another word. If this was in a synagogue, it

might be different. What percentage of Jewish people does it have to

be, David? 5%? I would say it has to be mostly Jews and to a Jewish

audience so that the irony is clear. The problem is not Spurs fans, it is

other fans. I agree. The problem is... To defend David Cameron, he

replied because he was asked. Quickly, the quiz. Where did they

all go, the Conservatives? I think it was the nice hotels. You are

all go, the Conservatives? I think quite right. We would love to carry

on talking. You can do that outside. Thank you to all of our guests,

particularly Peter Henessey. The one o'clock News is starting on BBC One

now.