29/11/2013 Daily Politics

After noon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. With the war -- will the

war over energy prices ever end? The Prime Minister wants to reduce green

levies. The government has denied it has asked the big six firms to hold

their prices until 2015. Labour said it will introduce a law to freeze

prices for 20 months if it wins the general election. Mr Cameron said

that is not achievable. Will it be Mission impossible

mission accomplished? We will be asking if our salmon's White Paper

gets your vote. -- Alex Salmond. Time could be costly for the

European Referendum Bill. If it doesn't go through today it may

never make it to the Lords. All unsuspecting politicians, we say

beware the killer question. Which year did Manchester United

leave the football the? Last year. She is in good company, I have no

idea. All that in the next hour. With this

we have freelance journalist, former head of the SNP policy unit, Alex

Bell, and Anne McElvoy from the Economist.

Hands up those who want to stay at home and look after the baby. Very

soon it will be easier for the mother or father to do so because

the government is committed to introducing shared parental leave

for new parents by April 2015. I wonder why then? Maybe the election?

Surely not. The Deputy prime ministers said the new rights would

cater for a growing desire by many men to play a more hands-on role

when it comes to being a father and stop women feeling they have to

choose between having a career or a baby.

If you were to have another child is something you would avail? It

depends what place we are in in terms of our work but I would like

to have, and I am sure all couples would like to have, the freedom to

make their own decision. It is an old-fashioned idea that the state

says the dad will only take two weeks off, it will happen straight

after the baby has arrived and the mother must take the remaining

time. We sweeping away these old-fashioned rules so parents can

make up their own mind. Not often you get an answer that clear-cut! Is

this a good idea? I think it is a good idea. Many more households have

two people who work and yet maternity leave arrangements have

been skewed towards the mother. The way the economy is at the moment,

who knows who will earn more? Who will have to go part-time? Couples

need that flexibility. I do think broadly it is the right way to go.

Do not think it is bizarre that he be doing it now? I would not think

this is the thing to establish my power at the Cabinet table. The

sentiment is our fine. But it is an upper middle-class policy for a

party desperately losing support. I'm surprised you say that. The

demographic is the squeezed middle. It goes further down the income sale

than Alex is suggesting. -- scale. People are quite happy to balance

things in a way that perhaps used to be middle-class. It is now much

broader. When you actually polled voters, the people who will come

back and tell you they want this are probably more likely the upper

middle-class. I accept your arguments but if you are trying to

chase a vote, it seems to be a funny way to go about it. I hope you're

not suggesting that he only did it because Miriam told him! I think if

we listen to two more -- more to Miriam than him on policy, it would

be better. Older women would not want to be their daughters to be as

constrained as they work. You often get that grandmother vote. Big

businesses can probably cope with this. It could be a smaller for -- a

problem for smaller businesses. This is a case where if you are running a

small business, you will be more irked by this. You cannot just

handed over. Andrew, you do Alex's job and he will do yours. You have

to look at businesses, particularly those with fewer employees, and ask

how they are going to cope. A lot of businesses are in that position and

can cope. Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today is: Which of these men has the highest IQ? Boris

Johnson. Nick Clegg. David Cameron. Ed Miliband. At the end of the show

we'll see if anyone has the brains to answer this one. It's the Friday

before the Autumn Statement, so the gloves are off in the battle over

rising energy bills, with the Government and Labour both

attempting to seize the initiative. Remember Labour's party conference

in September when Ed Miliband shocked the pundits, pledging energy

price freezes if Labour are elected? The Tories warned of Marx and market

intervention, but they've had to take action. So instead of forcing a

freeze, apparently they've just asked for one until the election.

Although this morning, the Treasury deny this - they were just asking

energy companies whether bills would come down if green taxes were

scrapped. So what's behind the problem? Labour accuse the energy

companies of profiteering - the average energy bill is around

?1,300. But the Tories blame the previous government's green levies,

which make up 8% of the average bill, and the energy companies

agree. That is about ?112 per year. They point to government

requirements on them to tackle climate change and fuel poverty,

claiming they only make around 5% profit in total - though the profits

for the power they generate sits at a very toasty 20%. The energy

companies say the problem is those pesky wholesale prices. Ofgem

disagrees, claiming wholesale costs have risen by less than 2% in the

last year. This is what David Cameron had to

say to this morning. I have said all along that I want to help households

and families by getting sustainably lower energy prices. The only way

that you can do that is by increasing competition and rolling

back the costs of some levies on people's bills. I said that is what

we are going to do. That is what we are going to do and it is a positive

step forward. That is a world away from making a vague promise about

something you may do in 20 months with no idea of how you do it. That

is a con. We are dealing with real policy that can make a real

difference. That was the Prime Minister in Vilnius. We are joined

by Tom Greatrex, Shadow Energy Minister. And Stephen Fitzpatrick.

Do you have a clear idea yet of what the Government is planning? No. I

think we have just had a another day of confusion from the Government.

They have a record of doing that over the last year or so. If the

Government were to get an agreement to freeze energy prices, and to get

an agreement to cut some of the green levies, that would be quite an

achievement? The energy companies, a day or two after Ed Miliband's

conference at which she talked about the green levies, that is something

they focused the debate on and which the Government sought to respond

to. But does not deal with the fundamental issues about the way the

market works. The reforms which we proposed, and which Ed Miliband and

Caroline Flint are talking about today, is about trying to reset that

market so it is clear and transparent for consumers and for

industry. What should be done? I think it has become quite a

political issue. It has always been a political issue. It is much more

so. We would like to see action this winter. We would like to see a

greater focus on competition that will help some customers, and better

regulation on the big six from Ofgem. It will help those customers

on likely to switch. -- unlikely. Some of the political noises are

helpful. But when we talk about things taking effect in two or three

years, that is not what customers are interested in. You will not get

reform of the marketplace and you will not get better regulation this

side of the winter. There is nothing that would stop real reforms being

implemented or a different mandate from Ofgem being announced in the

Autumn Statement. That would be to intervene, not necessarily set

pricing, but certainly do away with some of the profiteering from the

big six. A lot of the profits are made from a relatively small number

of profits, customers on the oldest tariffs. Ofgem have talked about

simplifying the market. We hear these ideas from the political

parties. It is great that we are talking about. But if the Government

set to Ofgem, we want you to do something about overcharging today,

they could figure it out. It could happen very quickly. You do not

think there is the political will or the expertise? Perhaps less so the

will, maybe more so the expertise. The big energy companies have done a

fantastic job of convincing everybody that it is really

complicated but it is not. I look at my bill and it is pretty

complicated. The market is structured in a way where the big

companies have found a way to make it very complicated, very difficult

for us to understand what is going on. You must really regret that a

Labour created this market? The ability for the big companies to

integrate was lifted by John Major. You continued with it. We have seen

in the last few years the extent to which it has become more of a

problem. There is more and more evidence, and Ofgem have uncovered

some of it, that actually this is not working. I understand it is not

working but would it not give you more credibility if you put your

hand up and said that during the 13 years you have encouraged the

integration market. --? We reduce it from a couple of dozen 26 and we got

it wrong. Now we have seen the error of our ways and we are going to

change it. Have you seen the error of your ways? The evidence has

mounted particularly in the last two or three years. The last election in

2010, if you go back to the Labour manifesto, that made the point about

Ofgem needing more powers. The evidence since then has mounted. The

Government should act. We tried to amend the energy Bill to do these

things. If the Government turn tomorrow and say they are going to

do it, nobody would be more delighted than me. No mea culpa? The

evidence is clear. The situation has happened where we have a market now

that is very difficult for people. Will Labour do anything? We will do

something about the way the eco-scheme works. When this comment

talks about the green levies, 60% of it has been introduced by the

coalition. The eco-scheme has demonstrated it is very if

inefficient. You talk a lot about the need to get the market to

operate better. I understand that. You also talk about the need for a

price freeze to get on top of prices. Under the Labour climate

change act of 2008, energy prices are specifically designed to rise by

40% by 2020. It was your policy to increase energy prices. I'm just

slightly puzzled that now you are not opposition, having set in motion

an event which was a specific purpose of the act, to increase

energy prices by 40%. You are now complaining. The purpose of the act

and the purpose of the action that happened, we had a Conservative

minister said yesterday it was his idea. That makes you all complicit!

New generating capacity is required. You have to think how you best do

that in a way that provides energy security. And you also have two

minimise emissions. You have decisions to be made about how the

infrastructure is renewed. Do you have an oversupply of gas, or a

mixture of renewables and other forms of technology? The coalition

has been in power for more than three and a half years. It has been

clear for some time that the energy market in this country does not

operate like a market should. It may not be a cartel but it is not a

market. A cartel implies illegality and collusion. It is not a free

market. Or even a market. Do you detect any sense that the Government

has addressed this and knows what to do about it? They are listening, I

suppose. It is a start! It is a great start. When I hear about

infrastructure and I hear policies that are being announced like a

price freeze at some point in the future where the price is not set or

defined yet, you don't get certainty for consumers but you create

uncertainty for investors. That is the problem might have got. This

issue has become so political now that it looks like everybody is

trying to reduce a very complex issue into a simple slogan to

increase votes. That may be politics. But energy is very

important. A lot of people struggle to pay their bills. The last thing

anybody want is for the lights to go out. We need to focus on value for

money, transparency, competition, the best way to lower bills in the

long term, but it is going to take a long time. People will die this

winter? This annoys me so much. Ofgem have announced a whole list of

false and problems with the market that reads like... There are ten

pages are problems with the market. Their solution is, energy companies

can have fought tariffs and we will see where we are in 2014. Four

winters. How many people will be affected?

An increasingly large chunk of our electricity bills is not made up of

wholesale generation, profits, green levies, it is made up of the cost of

distribution. Distribution costs are regulated by Ofgem, but they are

becoming a bigger and bigger part and that is because of the climate

change act of 2008, you have put a lot of electricity generation in

areas that are nowhere near the National Grid so we have to build

new grid lines from onshore, offshore, to get there, that is a

big part of the energy price rise. The network costs will go up and

then they will level out. Ofgem, you have seen, last week, have used

their role in terms of directing some of the costs. We moved the

generation, you said. You did. You have got the Dorset array which is a

huge offshore Park which is being done. To connect back to the

National Grid, it will have to go through the new Forest. How much

will that cost? And in Scotland, the Bewdley line that took ten years.

That is a consequence of Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem policy. It

is a consequence of having your new generation capacity are partly from

Newton -- renewables, and you do that in the best places where you

get the most efficiency. You would be arguing if you put them on sites

where all the most efficiency. You would be arguing if you put them on

sites were all power stations were, why are you building at there? I

would be arguing whatever you do. Your thoughts on energy?

If you look down the table in Europe Britain sits in the middle in terms

of its energy costs but you wouldn't think that to listen to the debate.

Not if you strip out the government taxation and VAT. Our wholesale

prices are among the highest in Europe. Nonetheless, I have lived in

Germany and other countries, they simply accept the green argument at

the moment more than we do did a soon-to-be one of the problems that

has been the policy with both parties, the focus was on Green

parties, if you looked at the Conservatives, they were vying to be

greener with each other. You have a kind of consequence, I know there

are many other things, you have made good points about the way the market

is, it is missed Richard. You wanted to sign up to this, and now you have

the consequences. Whatever we do we have got power stations coming to

the end of their lives, some you can extend for a little bit, which

source of power do you use? Your message is very different to the

green message before the election. I know we will be back to this.

This is why would voters lose faith in politicians, it is not that

complicated, it has been apparent for a long time, fuel poverty

campaigners have been making this transparent, nobody can pretend they

didn't know, they couldn't regulate that system. There are other

examples of a generation of other industries in Britain at the moment

which do that. Nor can anyone pretend this is essentially a

regressive tax on poor people to pay for the lecture is politicians

compose. We will be back on energy prices on

the Autumn Statement live here on BBC Two on Thursday. We start at

10:45am because the Chancellor has bought the Autumn Statement

forward. He has got a lot to talk about. Maybe by Thursday he will

have worked out what he will do. Thank you both of you for coming in.

The debate over Scotland's future, the week when Alex Salmond publishes

white paper on is that -- independence, George Osborne claimed

it would cost the Scots thousands of pounds each, David Cameron was

accused of being a big fairty. Here is a flavour of the debate.

This white paper is the most detailed blueprint that any people

have ever been offered anywhere in the world. As a basis for becoming

an independent country. If the 650 pages we have here, there

is just one page devoted to Scotland's financial position,

economic position, in the future. Within an hour of this publication

Alistair Darling described it as being totally ridiculous, not of any

worth whatsoever, which amazed me because I must congratulate that man

on speed reading, because via my estimation that is 3000 words per

minute. Can the first Minister tell me whether his government, his

ministers or his officials have received any feedback from any other

European Union country about Scotland's membership of the

European Union? Today in Brussels the European commission spokesman

repeated their view that new countries have to apply from

scratch. The treaty provides some clear articles when it comes to the

need for new third country to apply to the European Union if they want

to join. Well he stop being pathetic? I am

enjoying the debate we are having now.

Independence gives us the opportunity to make choices, to

spend less on weapons of mass destruction, and more on educating

our children. I am reassured when I look at the questions and Anne said

that on page 564 we will still be allowed his" add we are going to

have the same time zones. -- allowed to speak English. We are still going

to join the Eurovision Song contest. Joining us now from Glasgow, home of

the Commonwealth games next year, John Curtice, profession of politics

at the University of Strathclyde. Wellcome to the programme. We have

had the white paper for a couple of days. It is not long for a

prospective but give us your thoughts as the dust begins to

settle, when this great debate this. There are two aspects we should look

at, the first is what difference has made to the toing and froing between

the parties, who is arguing about what? Although it has made some

difference, in particular simply by laying out what claimed to be a

detailed perspective, one of the things they are able to do is save

to the no side where is your covenant? What happens to Scotland

if they decide to vote no? The truth is the Conservatives and the Labour

Party are still trying to work out what they might wish to propose in

the way of more devolution for Scotland, and then there is the

question of whether or not they agree. The truth is the party is not

going to get anywhere near to sorting this out until the spring of

next year. That has left a clear hole. The second thing is at least

they have come up with an iconic policy, but simply illustrates why

they think independence would be Scotland economically stronger, the

childcare policy designed to get more women into work and overcome

some of the demographic disadvantages in Scotland would

otherwise suffer. So far as the big debate is concerned, one also

emerges -- what also emerges is the degree to which the SNP's version of

independence is one of continuing collaboration with the rest of the

UK, and is reliant on the goodwill of the European Union. The problem

is indeed Scotland itself might want to continue to use the pound as part

of monetary union, it might still want to be in the same energy

market, it may wish to remain in the European Union, but the trouble is

these and other things are not simply in the SNP's gift and when it

comes to the claim of the no side this still leaves an awful lot of

uncertainty. Difficult for the yes I do back because it is not clear what

is going to happen until negotiations take place. Some

progress but still some clear problems for the yes side even

having made up their vision. A lot of what is in the white paper

is the sort of thing you would really expect in a general election

manifesto, rather than a referendum about the future of a 300-year-old

union which is a geopolitical decision, whereas the white paper

talks about scrapping the bedroom tax, more free childcare, Holyrood

has the power right now to do that, give out free to air if it wants.

Other things about higher minimum wage, better pensions. These are

things that are normally in general election manifestoes. Is that the

strategy the SNP is using to fight this referendum?

There are two aspects, the first reason the SNP are doing it is

they'll wanting to try and illustrate how if Scotland became

independent they believe they could do things that are more appropriate

to Scotland's needs and aspirations and there before -- and therefore

governed the country more effectively. The second thing is the

belief at least, widespread in Scotland, and common inside the SNP,

that actually people 's policy preferences in Scotland, Scotland is

simply more left-wing than England, because she doesn't vote for

Conservative MPs in the way people do south of the border. In truth,

the power of that argument is easily exaggerated. Scotland is a little

more left-wing but not that much. The problems with the Conservative

party is not the people on the right in Scotland, but they will not vote

for the Conservatives. You can find plenty of evidence that people don't

like that -- bedroom tax, difficult to find that attitude persuades

people to vote for independence. These are politicians with a certain

agenda who wish to achieve certain things who are hoping to persuade

the Scottish public to view the debate they would like to view it.

Whether they would succeed is debatable. The crucial issue, the

thing that seems to matter most, is whether or not they and their

country will be economically better off. Although it might be argued the

white paper contains rather optimistic assumptions about

Scotland's public finances, even against the backdrop of those

assumptions, the white paper admits that in the short run at least an

independent Scotland would be running the public sector deficit

and what actually you would struggle to find is very much indeed in the

way of tax cut is, spending increases, and in the short run

would clearly say to people if you vote for independence you will be

better off pretty quickly. But other promises there are in the long run.

Final question, it is clearly it is a left of centre pitch for votes,

more government spending, welfare. You think that fits in with the

prevailing Scottish political culture. Am I right in thinking it

is also particularly pitch for the West of Scotland, the Labour West of

Scotland, where the referendum will be won or lost.

It is certainly true of the three Unionist parties in Scotland, it is

the Labour Party support that is most likely to vote yes, albeit only

10%, 15%. It is also true people who are less well off soon-to-be more

willing to vote for independence and one can vote -- understand why the

strategy is going in this direction. The disadvantage is at the end of

the day is they need to create broad coalition, a broader coalition man

exists at the moment, according to any of the opinion polls, and the

potentials disadvantage is the narrow their appeal. Thank you very

much. Are you happy with how the launch went? It was a fantastically

successful day. Those big events are nightmares for politicians. It is

all very well, these generalised remarks about the document

containing apes, buts and maybes. But nobody has found a substantial

error. That is another triumph. It was meant to enter all of the

questions but it has left a lot of major questions unanswered, or at

least there is an argument. The need for Scotland to reapply for

membership of the European Union, that is definitely an unanswered

question. The White Paper act it was not unanswered. But we know there is

definitely a matter of controversy. And the issue of the currency. If

what remains of the United Kingdom says, we are not doing a currency

union with you, what happens? I do not think there is anything more

doubtful connected to the Scottish Government position on Europe than

you can find in the British government connection to Europe. We

are promised a referendum in 2017. We don't know what the renegotiate

would be. We do not know if David Cameron will honour his word. You

have to accept that some stuff is beyond hard and fast politics. The

White Paper incest and claims that it is not an issue, that Scotland

will just automatically seamlessly remain a member of the European

Union? If on the morning of the 19th there is a Yes vote, there is 18

months until actual independence. I think, and indeed the words we are

fired from Europe suggests that within those 18 months, a transition

would be made. You would have to get the agreement of all 28 members to

do this. Spain is obsessed with Catalunya. I think the Spanish Prime

Minister was referring to a little local problem. When decisions come

to be made in Europe, I think Angela Merkel baby a better source to go

to. May be a better source to go to. It seems to me that you're living in

Clyde Kunkel and if you think you can have independence, keep all the

oil how have submarines out of Scotland... If only that was an

accurate representation of what has been set. If there is a Yes vote on

the 19th of September, if the money markets make -- wake up and our

doubtful about the status of UK debt because they do not know what will

be divided between England and Scotland, the price of UK debt will

increase. That is elementary economics. There is an imperative

for London to settle this problem quite quickly. There is no

suggestion there would not be a trade-off of assets. So if you do

not get the Sterling, you will not take the debt? I don't think we

would ever be in that situation. The people who hold the debt would not

know which debt they are holding. Are you saying that if you don't get

sterling, you will not take your share of the national debt? What I

am saying is there is no chance we will not get sterling. That is

typical of the White Paper. That would be my worry about the

approach. I am concentrated on the fiscal gap. I still find it an

assumption in the treatment of the public finances after independence

in the event of a Yes vote, which does not seem to reflect what other

economists say is a problem. I think what happens is, unless you return

to a kind of economics that I have not heard really since the John

Smith era, where your answer to everything seems to be a gap, he put

more state money into it, some people really believe this will

happen. I think a lot of people will doubt it. Very briefly, Alex? You

are arguing that if you have the pluses and minuses of a full

economic system, you can find the money for better services by having

more advantageous taxes. We are going to leave it there. It can only

get better. Politicians are a necessary evil. Governments are

there to uphold the rights of the people. Sounds like common sense to

me. But, in the 18th Century, those were revolutionary ideas. One man,

Thomas Paine, took those ideas from humble beginnings in the south of

England, across an ocean to the New World and inspired a Revolution. In

the latest in our series on great political thinkers, Giles went to

meet Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker, to examine the legacy of Tom

Paine. There cannot be that many political

philosophers that end up with a beer named after them. But they like Tom

Paine here because he lived here in Lewes, alongside New York and Paris.

The local MP likes and not just because he was a resident, but

because its heady mix of reason, rights and justice is very much to

his political taste. Tom Paine was sent to Lewis as a customs and

excise man. It seems apt to meet outside the house he made his own

first six years. I admired Thomas Paine tremendously. He stood for

what he believed in. He would not bend to the prevailing wind. He

stood for rights and justice. Plain argument and common sense. Doctor

Elizabeth Fraser explains what that an -- common-sense actually was. He

was a settlement of the world. An inspirational concept for people who

want to be free of nation states. His theory is a theory of rights.

And the theory of rights he bequeathed to us is basically

another one that we have in our human rights institutions. And in

his book, Agrarian Justice, he described the importance of having

social insurance, pensions for people. The town of Lewis has always

had a character that made it a perfect match with Tom Paine. It has

always been a bolshie place, which I like about it. It is always

challenged the establishment. The king was checked when the first

Parliament was initiated. And with almost local logic, Thomas Paine

thinks politics has a very limited role. For him, politics and

government has one role, to uphold the rights of individuals. It has

got no business anywhere else. Here we are at this fantastic bowling

green which has been here for centuries. Tom Paine would have

bowled from here. He was a member. This very spot? It could be this

very spot. What is Tom Paine telling us in his work? I think he is

telling us that we should base what we do on freethinking, reason, and

respect the individual. Don't be hemmed in by the tramlines of

established orthodoxy. Excellent shot! Does he get into trouble for

saying this? Yes, because most people would bend and go with the

flow. He doesn't. He ended up in a pauper, just six people at his

burial. I think you won that one. I think that is bang on. His ideas

inspired revolution and a constitution in America, and later

in France, where he was so involved he was even elected to the

Assembly. But relentless focus on rights has its drawbacks. By the

Rights of Man he definitely meant the rights of men. And feminist

rights have been a problem theoretically in politics ever

since. There is also just a more general problem with the idea of

rights which is that it treats us as individuals, it can be seen to put

this into competition with one another. It can be seen to lead to a

litigious society. And Thomas Paine is accused of having ignored

community, the relationships between us. But in the town pub where Tom

Paine drank and debated, there is an argument which still resonates

today. It is hugely relevant. He was very modern. He was perhaps an then.

But he did not like governments. He called them a necessary evil at

best, intolerable at worst. He wanted to make sure policy was

framed towards the individual. He was suspicious of unelected bodies.

House of Lords. The monarchy. Here is to Tom Paine. Cheers. We will

talk to Norman Baker in a minute. First we are going to go live to the

Central lobby in the House of Commons, where they have been

debating the European Referendum Bill spearheaded by James Wharton.

He joins us now. There are developments. What is happening? We

have just had a division. We have come to the last group of

amendments, the slowing tactics being used by the Labour Party and

the Liberal Democrats from going through. There will probably be

another couple of divisions, then we move into third Reading. If we get

through third reading, that means it will have passed all of its House of

Commons stages, a significant development. It is something that

when we set out on this path, many commentators said would never

happen. Get the impression that despite the to derail your bill,

from the tone of your voice you sound reasonably optimistic that he

will come out of today the winner? Well, I hope so. We're not there

yet. We are making good progress. We have had day after day after day of

sitting. We have had many days in the committee. My Conservative Party

colleagues have been disciplined and worked very hard to get us to this

stage. I think we can get it through the Commons. That would be very

significant. Many people thought it could not be done. If we can, we are

a significant step closer to letting Britain decide on our future in the

European Union. That is a good thing. It has been quite a hurdle to

get this far. It is not quite over yet. Is it not fair to say that the

hurdle in the House of Lords is higher? It will be difficult when it

gets to the House of Lords. It is a different problem for a different

day. I have been focused on the stages. We have run up against real

determined opposition. I will do everything I can to get this bill

through today. I will do whatever I can to influence the weather House

of Lords acts when it comes to them. Members of the House of Lords will

have to give serious thought to what they are doing before they do

anything to frustrate this. It is a bill which gives people a

referendum. For an unelected house to deny the British people a say on

a bill passed by the House of Commons, would put them in a

difficult position. Thank you. We will follow that. You

need to get back into the chamber. That is the latest on how the

European Referendum Bill is going. It looks like it will go through the

Commons. It faces a tough hurdle in the House of Lords. Let's go back to

Thomas Paine. He has been influential on political thought on

both sides of the Atlantic. Norman Baker joins me from Brighton. I

suppose a lot of what Thomas Paine stood for, which was controversial

at the time, is now just an accepted part of political values, would be

right? Some of it certainly is. He was ahead of his time when it came

to democracy and elected government. He challenged unelected bodies. Who

put you there and how can we get rid of you? That was pretty

revolutionary for the 18th century. We still have unelected bodies in

this country, including the House of Lords. I think you also was prepared

to challenge the mainstream opinion -- he was also prepared to

challenge. That sometimes is necessary. We end up with the

situation sometimes where people go with the flow because they are

frightened to speak out. The consequence of that is that

injustice could be allowed to surface. Tom Paine was very keen on

individual rights, that was his belief, the core of his belief. He

was suspicious of big government, particularly when he got in North

America, because big comment meant the colonial government. There was a

huge argument with the founding fathers as to exactly what powers

the new government should have. They were all suspicious. The world has

become more collectivist since the days of Thomas Paine, including your

own party? We are wary of big government, too. One of the

principles my party espouses is the idea you do not concentrate too much

power in one Particular Place or in the hands of one person. That is why

we like the idea of devolution from the EU to nation states. That is

still government. There is a great belief in the power

of government. There is not a problem, your party activists don't

see they could not be resolved with more government. That's what almost

every motion before your party conference is about.

We are removing power from government in certain circumstances.

The example with not proceeding with ID cards, we have been keen to roll

back so the state does not intervene. He was right to support

the American Revolution, we can agree on that. The French revolution

was necessary, but unfortunately it took a nasty turn. The fact is the

corrupt monarchy, undoubtedly that was something to be challenged.

Are you a supporter of him? The weak point came at the end with the

French Revolution. It is not just something that goes a bit wrong, it

is something where you have a theory of the state which have terrible

injustices that need to be addressed, you go down the route of

reform and consistently push for reform, but you get into trouble and

make those of unpopular doing so or do you assume? You ministry goes in

different ways and in the American Revolution it seems to work out

rather well. I don't think it does the French Revolution and that makes

me was goal. And with the American Revolution, maybe the only example

in the past 300 years of a successful, full-scale revolution. I

am glad we can agree with representation we should also have

taxation. To go back to this discussion, yes it is, but the

reason why people like him as he has a wild West element. He is the lone

hero, the figure who walks through history, happens to be in the right

spot, and does wonderful things which we like to think we would all

do. Where is probably we would be more cowardly.

There is a real problem which is about the relationships which is

what happens afterwards. This lack of awareness in its philosophy of

how communities which is going to be, one of the big themes, we have

lots of rights, we can take them off to Europe, how we get along as

communities is a more complex problem. And he could be the

revolutionary he was because of the printed book, it was widely

accessible, and now I wonder whether we are faced with the technology we

currently have which is taking over, taking the place of

government. At one of the leading inspirations for the American

Revolution wasn't Scotland. Not that you are counting. 44% of the

founding fathers of the American declaration of Independence had

Scottish, or as they call it bolsters scotch backgrounds. --

Ulster Scotch. Helen heard the words at school -- Scottish by Barak

hockey club, can you answer five questions on sport? Who is the

women's Wimbledon tennis championship I know Andy Murray did

for us, that is the most important thing. He will go bigger and bigger.

You are the FA Cup holders at the moment? Manchester United because it

is my favourite club. Who is the England rugby union captain? What

about hockey? Which it did Manchester United leave the football

league. These are hard questions. Last year. 92. Final one, which

Paralympian one most gold medals at London 2012? Dave Weir. It was the

restraining swimmer, she won eight. Poor Helen! I wouldn't have got any

of them either and would have been proud of it. The dusty halls of

Westminster are littered with the bodies of politicians who have

failed those tests on popular culture. Previous sports minister

Richard Caborn also flunked the sports quiz. The PM and the London

Mayor both zeroed tests on the price of milk and bread. Mr Cameron's

excuse was that he had a posh bread-maker! Good answer. And let's

not talk about that Gordon Brown "Arctic Monkey" moment. So does it

matter? Do we really care if our politicians can't tell their Arsenal

from their Elbow? Arsenal, by the way, is an Association Football

Club. Elbow is something you normally hear on Radio 2. The

inquisitor-in-chief on many of these questions is the broadcaster, Nick

Ferrari, from LBC. He joins us now. It may be a kind of Romanesque

sport, but does it really matter? It matters hugely. These people seek to

tell it how to live our lives whether through financial

responsible at sea, where our children should be schooled, whether

they should be in Europe, sends our children is to war, these are the

decisions they take. If they don't know the price of bread or who won

the FA Cup they should be exposed. You need to know who won the FA Cup

for you declare war on Iraq? You need to know you are in touch with

the ordinary policy. If you want to appear to be relevant and when their

votes and not to preach and be granted it would be artful to well

cost. I don't know who won the FA Cup? You are not an elected

politician. You hold them to task, that is your job. I don't have to

vote for you. I vote for a man to lead this country first although I

do! I think if you speak on a sports

brief that is the problem. There are a number of very basic questions, I

remember a Labour culture Minister who couldn't remember the last bit

of culture they had seen. That is a problem because you have gone out

there, just basic preparation. If you get a question, if anyone ask me

about cricket, I would die in a whole but it is very nifty say there

is a basic number of things you should know, Wimbledon, the FA Cup,

and it is part of the discussion, people are having this discussion,

if you put yourself to one side you are out of the picture. All the

politicians I liked were cricket fans. There is something about

following test matches which makes for a good, in touch politician. The

tip for a minister in a situation like that is everybody prefers a

body goes I don't know. I haven't a clue, you tell me.

In the sports issue, sometimes the politicians get hoist by their own

petard because they make, football, they hardly ever talk about

cricket, but the more public school they are, the more they want to talk

about football and they were on the terraces with a pork pie which is

all nonsense. One former prime ministers said he liked watching

about on the terraces before he was even born. If they have the answers

to everything, if all our schools were fantastic, if we had full

deployment, I don't care you don't know the price of milk but it is not

like that so be like one of us. Is it true Nick Clegg, is he your

new best friend? He is my new best broadcasting body. -- friend. I

count you as my print friend. He has never asked to see the questions and

he has literally had people report their membership on air, he takes it

on the chin. He did get the Arsenal back for. I wish I hadn't said that.

Now to our quiz, the question was which of these men has the highest

IQ? Boris Johnson, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Ed Miliband. Does anybody

know? Johnson. Ed Miliband. Nick Clegg. You are all wrong, or you

could all be right. We don't know. You tricked us! Wanted you make

about Boris Johnson's remarks? I detested them intensely. I don't

care what he has to say about grammar schools, but to start

segmenting the public by IQ, the rock and awful lot of clever fools

at Westminster and elsewhere, it does not set a good turn. Why did he

do it? Because we are all talking about it. He is a cat thrower. You

throw a cat amongst the pigeons, Andrew. I think he wanted to

establish himself as top --. Deeply offensive, a ridiculous character.

He is almost like Berlusconi in his extremes and I find it astonishing

he is taken so seriously. I take on board the point it was clumsy but to

say some people are smart and some people are not, we need to help

those -- help those who are not smart and they will not enjoy the

economic boom. That is not quite what he said. I did read the speech

cleverly, closely, not cleverly! When you are measuring at what other

circumstances. He said it was almost like talking about dogs, treating

humans like a species. I agree it was clumsy. We have got to accept

some people are brighter than others. Was scripted or does he go

off piste? It is very much scripted. You know when he

freelances, you can kind of tell, remain the it was the Thatcher

memorial speech... A critique of equality, if there was a clear

political boat and difference, there is a man saying I don't buy into

equality. He is conservative, doesn't have to. Is he playing for

position in a Tory defeat? That is why a quality is being set up a mate

is not like anybody is delivering a quality anyway. Wouldn't Holly read

be brightened up -- Holyrood. If it had, who is the Scottish Johnson?

Thankfully, so far, he hasn't escaped. Into the public domain. But

if Joyce Johnson wants to be leader of the Tory party can he do it

before the referendum? It would be such a help. You think it would be a

help to your case. Wall the health is the Tories being five points

ahead in September of next year in the national polls. Since I have

been in London for 24 hours, do you think London wants to win the

referendum, I get the impression from Downing Street they are not

entirely convinced? I wouldn't put Alistair Carmichael and Alison

Darling as the head of my campaign -- Alistair Darling. Why choose

those two? We have to do simile in a Scottish

constituency -- someone. That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The

One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now. I'll be back on BBC One

on Sunday with the Sunday Politics. I'll be talking to Yvette Cooper, do

join me then. Bye bye.