21/01/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. The Lib Dem crisis

over Lord Rennard continues, with the former party chief exec

considering going to court to lift his suspension from the Liberal

Democrats. Former party leader Paddy Ashdown joins me live.

The Conservatives and Labour square off over changes to welfare, with

proposals for new benefit cuts and incentives. We will hear from both

sides. David Blunkett has a plan to

reconnect politicians with the public, and it doesn't involve going

to the jungle or diving in a swimsuit on reality TV. He will join

me live. Plus, should the rich fork out more

to fund the arts? All that in the next hour. And with

us for the whole programme today is Peter Bazalgette, the chairman of

England's Arts Council and a TV bigwig responsible for programmes

like Big Brother and Deal Or No Deal. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Let's start with the news that this afternoon, the International

Monetary Fund is expected to announce that it's increasing its

growth forecasts for the UK by a significant amount. So the UK

economy is supposed to be motoring ahead. Can you feel it? I think we

all feel something happening. One of the newspapers this morning had a

survey which said that we, the public, think it is business that is

delivering the growth, not the politicians. We, the voters, think

business is delivering the growth more. Quite often, politicians say,

we have created X number of jobs since we came to power. Of course,

they don't create the jobs, it is businesses that create the jobs. But

they do create the conditions for success. And do you think that has

happened over the last few years, that businesses, as a result of

conditions set by the government, have created jobs? Well,

productivity is the problem. Employment has been positive in that

we have not lost nearly as many jobs as we expected. But investment has

not been so good, particularly from large companies. Investment in

everything, including the arts, but we will come to that. Do you think

this supposed feel-good factor is limited to the south-east? No, but

it is stronger in the south-east. A lot of the country is still

suffering. If you live in London... I travel around the country all the

time, and it is very tough in parts of the country, in contrast to

London, which is booming by comparison. How much do people care

about growth figures if their wages have fallen behind prices for almost

a decade? People are worse off, and there is no question that everybody

is living at a lower level than they were five years ago. So people care

very much, because they can afford to spend less on their holidays and

home improvements and things that matter. That might change, but it

will take time. It will take time for people to feel better. We will

be told it a lot earlier than we will feel it.

So the Rennard crisis rumbles on for Nick Clegg's Lib Dems. Yesterday,

Lord Rennard was suspended from the party on the grounds that his

failure to apologise to four women who claim he made sexual advances to

them was bringing the party into disrepute. That was followed by a

lengthy statement from the former party chief executive, and the

threat that he might take legal action to regain his place in the

party. I'm joined to discuss this by Linda Jack, a party member who is

also chair of the Liberal Left group. She is in Luton. How do you

feel about your party today? Can you hear me? Let me try again. How do

you feel about your party today? I feel very sad, because we have been

deflected from more important issues. For example, yesterday, the

launch of the closing the gap mental health policy, which reflects

everything we stand for as Liberal Democrats. And instead, we are

focusing on something which, although I fiercely think it is

important, is not the whole story about who we are as a party. But

when we are talking about the claims that have been made against Chris

Rennard, some in the party have said it has all been overblown, taste

warm in a teacup -- a storm in a teacup. One MP likened it to

Italians pinching women's bottoms, remarks he has since apologised for.

How serious are these alleged offences? They are very serious. I

was at the same event as one of the women after it occurred, and she was

extremely distressed, and rightly so. What Chris Davies said, even

though he has apologised, betrays an ass dude in some parts of the

party, not the whole of the party -- it betrays an attitude that this is

a trivial matter. I worry that Lord Rennard also sees it as a trivial

matter, urges why he does not think it is worth apologising for. You

were confided in by one of the women, as you have just said, and

there is this argument going on that what happened was actually

relatively minor in the minds of some people. Was it more serious

than just touching of the leg through clothing, as one described

it? Any potential abuse of power is serious. It is also about the

impact. Somebody may not have intended that impact, but the impact

is what matters. I cannot say how somebody else will react to being

treated like that, or how I would react. But some people are making a

judgement that it was just a little bit of touching, as if that did not

matter. That betrays attitudes I would not expect in a party

committed to equality like ours. Have you been surprised that those

attitudes exist more broadly than you thought? I am not surprised that

they exist. I am surprised at how broadly they exist. I am surprised

at some of the responses I have had where people did not agree with me

in terms of not understanding that this is not just about some clumsy

advances, it is about a potential abuse of power. There is going to be

another party enquiry, as you know, about whether Lord Rennard has

brought the party into disrepute. If that clears him, he can come back

within 14 weeks. What do you think of that? This should have been dealt

with ages ago. The party has brought itself into disrepute by having

processes which were not appropriate for the case and were not robust. I

hope that gets sorted out. We need some sort of conciliation at the

moment, if possible. It would have been nice if Nick Clegg had spoken

to Lord Rennard after last Wednesday and tried to come to some sort of

agreement, because this story is now much bigger than him and his

accusers. It is affecting the whole party. And knowing Lord Rennard, I

imagine this is a party he has devoted his life to. He does not

want to damage it. So if anyone can come up with an idea to smooth

everything over, that would be better for all concerned, rather

than it becoming a vendetta, which it feels like at the moment. Is the

party divided into two camps now? That may be the case in the Lords.

Within the wider party, it is not 50-50, but there are those arguing

on behalf of Lord Rennard who don't know what the fuss is about, and

those who see this as a fundamental issue to do with who we are and what

we stand for. Chris Rennard has expressed regret in the statement he

made. Even if he goes further, which he has said he will not do, and says

Warwick, that will not satisfy at least one of the women who made the

claims -- if he says sorry. This is the dilemma we have. We may say we

are satisfied if there is an apology, but at the -- at the end of

the day, it is down to those women. It is about the process. I have been

involved in a lot of internal disciplinary procedures as a union

official. This should have gone to a hearing, and then both sides would

have been able to confront and cross examine each other. That is what the

failing has been. And we have been joined by the

former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown. Welcome to the Daily Politics. You

heard Linda Jackson Nick Clegg should have sat down with Chris

Rennard and they should have talked about this and stop it getting to

the stage. I know Linda and we have often fallen out, but I agree with

almost every word she said, except that. Nick could not do that. He is

a leader of the party. There were enquiry is going on. He would have

been open to criticism if he had intervened in a personal way. Many

of us have spoken to him on several occasions. He is a close friend, and

he knows I think he is wrong on this. But Linda's point is the

central point here. What Nick Clegg has done is stood on a fundamental

visible at the heart of liberalism. It is about respect for individuals

and respect forward. He has taken flak for that, but he is right. I

suspect every party in Westminster suffers from this. Most of them are

saying, there for the grace of God. But this is the Liberal Democrats.

Nick Clegg has stood up for a mental principle and he is right to do so.

Insofar as offence has been given, it would have been easy to find the

words for an apology, and the absence of that is something we

should continue to demand. And other Lib Dem Lords are defying the Clegg.

-- Nick Clegg. They are defying the leadership, who are saying an

apology is the least that needs to come? I can only give you my view.

You are fiercely going to make up the division to be the biggest story

you can. But I don't think it is as bloodthirsty as you suggest. Here is

the central point. The democracy of our party is something we are very

proud of. Yes, it makes it difficult to handle some issues. People fall

out. It is not our finest moment. But when it comes to running the

country, that very democracy has meant that the party has been united

in a way that the Tories are not. Because of that democracy, the party

has walked into the coalition. So you can criticise us about our

internal structures, but when it comes to the big issues, standing

together and taking tough decisions to put the country right, our party

is united because of the democracy it has. But Linda Jack said the

party has brought itself into disrepute. If this investigation

clears Chris Rennard, he could be back within 14 weeks without making

the apology that Nick Clegg has demanded. And you will have this all

over again. I don't think that is correct. I am not going to predict

what happens. The Webster enquiry said two thing is. There was

credible evidence. Not sufficient for a criminal prosecution, and

maybe that should be changed, and an apology is appropriate. All of those

things must be followed through. You can't pick and choose. It stands

together. The central issue is, is Nick Clegg right to have stood on a

principle that Linda articulated brilliantly well, which is that

women now in power demand something different in terms of respect than

what was acceptable previously? He is dead right. On that basis, should

the women who have accused Chris Rennard of harassing them take civil

action, and should the party encourage them to do so? I think

this talk of civil action is foolish. I don't think it will

advance us towards where we want to get. Maybe with everybody in their

trenches, they will want to do that. I don't git will serve the party.

There is a way around this and we know what it is. The Webster

omission report is the answer, and it needs to be followed through. It

is simple to find the words to make this apology. There are people

advising Chris who do this every day for large sums of money. Not that

there is money involved here. It goes like this. "I assert my

innocence. I do not believe I did this. But if inadvertently, I hurt

others, I regret that." Ming Campbell said something similar

along those lines. And he did say something like that. At Chris

Rennard is considering legal action now. What is your message to him if

he seeks an injunction to halt this enquiry? My message to all in the

party is, you have done brilliantly in this coalition. You have helped

this country out of a terrible mess. You have shown courage and unity.

This is an internal matter. Give it a bit of time, let tempers cool, and

let's come back to the central principle, the one Nick Clegg has

defended with great courage. In the Liberal Democrats today, there are

different standards. We demand respect for individuals and above

all, respect for women. Test macro, as an observer, what do you take

from this? -- Peter Bazalgette. There does not seem to be much

reconciliation in the Lib Dem party at the moment and not a great deal

of truth. But we are asserting a new standard of behaviour and respect

between the sexes. As we are applying this new standards perhaps

to behaviour in the past. I take issue with this and other serious

court cases going on at the moment. They are all about saying, we used

to do this, it is not how we do it now. It is an issue of principle.

The issue is there has been a change of culture. The old standards are no

longer in existence. People have to come to terms with that. So you

would like to see him permanently suspended on that basis? I am

prepared to let the processes we now have in chain take their natural

course. But at the heart of democracy lies respect for

individuals and if we have stood up for that then I am proud of that. I

will bet you anything you like every other political party in Westminster

is saying today, there but for the grace of God. I am sure that they

are and they will lie low and give you the full spotlight. Is this

turning into an old liberals versus the rest argument? I think it is

much more a generational thing. It used to be tolerated but no longer.

I think it is far more generally -- generational issue. And we should be

leading the way on issues like this. If we helped to change the climate

in Westminster in favour of respect for women then it may be difficult

but I am proud of that. Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today is who is this being hit over the head with a

placard yesterday? At the end of the programme Peter

will give us the right answer. I am working on it! It is not easy

unless you know the story. Now the eagle-eyed among you will

notice that there's been a spate of welfare announcements from both the

government and the Labour party in the last few weeks. It's hard to

keep up. But don't worry, it's time for our welfare round-up. Two weeks

ago George Osborne outlined his spending plans for the first two

years of the next Parliament in which the welfare budget - excluding

pensions - is set for an extra ?12 billion of cuts.

The Chancellor suggested two possible changes to save money. A

cut to Housing Benefit for under 25s and restricting access to council

housing for those earning more than ?65,000 a year. That's if the

Conservatives win the election in 2015. Meanwhile Labour's Rachel

Reeves yesterday announced plans to increase the rate of job seekers

allowance for those who lose their jobs after at least five years in

employment. They'll get an extra ?20 a week for their first six weeks out

of work. But the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary's plan will have

to be approved by Ed Balls, who says that any changes must be

cost-neutral. So who's winning the welfare battle? Joining me now is

Conservative MP Mary Macleod and Shadow Employment Minister Stephen

Timms. Should those who pay into the benefits system get more out of it

when they fall on tough times? We think that the contributory

principle is right. It has been weakened under successive

governments and we think it is time to reverse that trend. You say it is

a trend because experienced workers are to get an extra ?20 per week in

payments. That is hardly an return to the contributory principle. It is

a move back in that direction. It will take time. But at the moment

people feel they pay into the system and when they need help is the help

there. Would you like to see it go further? Well one thing the

government has done that we argued against was that people losing their

jobs on health grounds lose their contributory allocation now. We

think we would like to increase that period. So I think it is an

important first step and most people agree that if you have paid into the

system for a significant period then you ought to be able to get more

help than available at the moment. Ed Balls says it has to be cost

neutral. What was suggested yesterday, at the moment you get

contributory jobseeker's allowance after two years of contributions. We

would look to extend that period. I think with Rachel Reeves on the

front of the pages, it is still the same old Labour. I would like to see

Ed Balls coming out and saying it is cost neutral, we do not think it is.

You voted against savings on welfare. That is not true. But just

to get to the point, we have a long-term economic plan in place and

that is about bearing down on the deficit and making sure mortgages

stay low. Part of that is putting a cap on housing. Why allow young

people under 25 to leave home and take housing benefit? That cannot be

fair or right. I would like to think your supporters would come forward

with ideas for the next election to say people under 25 should just

think about staying at home. Do you support that? I would like to see

the detail of what is being proposed. We have agreed with the

principle of universal credit which unfortunately is in a mess at the

moment. We agreed with the principle of the benefits cap. Some changes

did need to be made. But we should have a system where if you pay in,

you can be confident of support. And you do not think that there should

be a system for when people fall on hard times, when they have

contributed, that they should not be demonised as some people have

criticised ministers for, for claiming an effort. I do not think

we criminalise people. Ian Duncan Smith has done a fantastic job of

helping people out of the welfare trap. We are talking about people

who have worked with them fall on hard times. I understand that. You

have to live within your means. Part of that is that we take difficult

decisions and focus the money on those women -- on those in most

need. We believe in the principle of capping benefits but not the cap

that the Conservatives used. Labour cannot keep saying we support you in

these things and then vote against it in Parliament. And actually this

is just about electioneering, posturing? The Labour Party feels it

is seen as being soft on welfare and now seems to want to make itself

tough. Rachel Reeves says Labour will be tougher than the

Conservatives on slashing the benefits bill. How will it do that?

Well we want to assess people who become unemployed right at the start

to see which people have got a sick skills needs and then provide them

with basic skills training to address those needs. If they do not

take up that training we will have benefit sanctions. It is not just

about posturing. We are putting forward a programme which will be

developed over the coming months and will be ready for the general

election, where all the different parts of what we will propose will

come together. We spoke yesterday about education, a programme to take

it in forward and get us out of the mess we are in at the minute. This

is a battle over who is going to look toughest or fairest, which ever

way you look at it, on welfare. The guys have done their research. They

know people in work have had tough time and the public questions

whether the benefits system is too generous. But I would make a

different point, which is that we have all this pressure and talk of

the benefits bill. We're not talking about one of the largest elements,

the cost of the old age pensions. That is because old people are more

likely to vote and so there sacrosanct. When you do that you

make the pressure on the rest of the benefits bill very tough. That point

would be right if we had not in the last three years taken some tough

decisions. Not on pensions. Increasing the number of years that

you have to work. That is a big change in culture. Of course the

universal benefits will stay, rightly or wrongly. We have said I

think it was above inflation, the triple lock. It is being protected.

I have nothing against that policy but we must look at benefits in the

round. I fear we are putting too much pressure on one area of

benefit. We can take a look at the rest of the benefits bill if

pensions are put aside. George was born says he wants to cut the bill

further by ?12 million beyond 2015. Where would you find those cuts?

What he signalled is what he needs to do. He has talked about the under

25 is which Labour will not support. I hope they will changed their mind.

That is part of it. Looking at housing benefit for people earning

?65,000. Where is the rest going to come from? I will not sit here and

speculate, I'm not the Chancellor. What I would say is that we have

indicated you need to find more savings in the welfare budget. I

hope Labour will support us if they are serious about this. I suspect

they are not. It is the same old Labour with more taxation. In terms

of other things that Labour has been shouting about, like the minimum

wage, George Osborne has still underfunded. It is a welcome change

of heart. I hope that he sees it through. The key to bringing down

the Social Security Bill is to get people back in work. ?15 billion

more has been spent on social security because so many people are

out of work. So many people who want to work full-time can only find

part-time work. That is what we have two address. But the unemployment

picture is not as bad as you predict. It is now looking up. We

were told after the election that there would be steady growth but it

took three years of no growth. Finally there is some growth and the

opportunity must be taken to get people back into work. Where would

you set the national minimum wage? We would take advice from the low

pay commission. Would you like it to be beyond ?7 an hour. I'm happy to

wait for advice on that. But we would encourage employers to pay the

living wage and there are ways to encourage them to go further. How

would businesses feel about that? It would make life more affordable for

people working in London. It might cause problems for some businesses

employing some of the lower paid workers. But personally, it is not a

political point, it is good to hear both parties backing a living wage.

I am pleased to hear everyone backing this principle. The

important thing is incremental increases to the minimum wage do not

hurt businesses, small or large. All the research I have seen indicates

that there is not that damage if it is incremental.

How we pay for the arts in this country has always been contentious.

And never more so than in these austere times, where every penny of

public money counts. The government would like to see arts organisations

moving closer to the American model, where philanthropy rather than the

state funds the lion's share. In 2012, more than $14 billion were

donated in the US. In Britain, it was just under ?700 million. But are

the two systems comparable? And could what happens in the States

work here? David Thompson reports. The take written, one of the great

national galleries and free to all comers. Most people agree that the

arts are good thing. We are proud of our galleries. We love it when a

Brit wins an Oscar. It only gets tricky when it comes to funding it.

This government has been urging arts organisations to do more to raise

their own revenue. But how much the public prepared to stump up? People

to not give that much to the art. Their favourite causes are medical

research, international development. The arts has never been a popular

fund-raising calls except for major donors who always gave a lot of

money to the arts. He here is one of those donors. His home is testament

to his wealth. There is nowhere near the same magnitude of fundraising

that you find in the United States. In this country, it is moving in

that direction, but it is not there yet. Therefore, the government has

to give organisations in this country and a four effort of trying

to move the needle -- they have to give an A4 effort. But we have a

longer to go before we can compare apples with apples between New York

and London. But even if ministers can make London more like New York,

what about the rest of the country? The government has put a lot of

building blocks in place to encourage donors to make

contributions to our arts facilities. I suspect it may do more

in time. What it hasn't done is thought through how to encourage

more giving to the small, regional arts organisation. For donors like

John, sustaining Britain's cultural heritage is too important to be left

to short-term financial necessity or longer term ideology. This is a

serious part of this country's culture. If you are going to change

the funding base, you should develop a long-term plan and do it. The

reality a 20 or 30 year plan with these institutions to try to say,

let's look at this over two decades. In that time, we would like these

institutions to be financially independent. Private patronage of

the arts is hardly new. The challenge now is to harness the

values of the Medicis 28 when she first century renaissance in how we

pay for our current -- 21st century renaissance in how we pay for our

culture. Why is philanthropy so much bigger

in America than here? Actually, Britain is quite a charitable

nation. Although not as much money gets given to charity in Britain as

America, if you look at the international league table, we are

high up there. But to the arts? You have put your finger on it. Less

money goes to the arts than probably should do. Probably 1% of charitable

giving goes to the arts. We did some research that told us that only 9%

of the population knew that arts and cultural organisations were

charities. That is a marketing issue for the arts sector. But there are

things we can do. The interview who said -- the interviewer who said it

was a problem outside London is right. 80% of the philanthropic

money raised for organisations goes to London. The Arts Council can only

do its bit, but we are doing some things. We are doing a scheme where

we have given money to be matched by private donors, which will help

raise more than 100 million. We are putting money into training a new

generation of fundraisers and improving the fundraising

departments. But we need to do more. But why is it more successful in

terms of giving to the arts in America than here? Well, as I say,

arts and culture here has not presented itself as a charitable

object. And it does over there. Also, there are tax breaks. For

instance, did you know that if you leave more than 10% of your estate

to a charity, you get a 4% reduction in your inheritance tax? No. I do

now. Very few people know about it. I have discovered that the Treasury

gives us tax breaks, but they never publicise them. Of course. But as

you said, we know Britain is a charitable nation. We know that

interims of disaster appeals. But we give more to donkey sanctuaries than

we do to the opera. Does that upset you? I think people should give

their money to whatever cause they want to. If we are going to compare

donkey sanctuaries to opera, that is difficult all stop quite a poser for

this time of day. But we do need to raise more money for the arts, and

we can get a bigger slice of the charitable cake for the arts if the

arts present it in the right way. It is difficult outside London, but we

are going to have a go. Is it taboo to celebrate people's generosity

here? That is another thing. We should do that. We are good at

getting arts organisations to put arts Council funded or Heritage

Lottery Fund did. Maybe we should write, do John Studzinski funded.

So we have discussed who should pay for funding the arts, but what about

how that money gets distributed? We have been joined from Birmingham by

Dorothy Wilson, chief executive of the Mac Arts Centre. How do you feel

about the imbalance? Is it something that has been there since time

immemorial? Has it improved over the last few years? It is a big picture,

of course. The arts Council has been channelling the department of

culture support and local authority support, together with donations

from individuals, corporate organisations and foundations. That

makes up the whole picture in terms of investment out of London. Each of

those are challenged. I agree with Peter that there are signs of some

improvement in terms of philanthropic giving that is coming

outside London. But it is slow. The point was made by one of your

earlier speakers that this has to be a 20 year plan. I agree with that.

But how big is the discrepancy between, say, London and York, or

Birmingham, in terms of the money they get for their theatres and art

galleries? It varies enormously. A recent report illustrated that the

amount of government money going into the arts is very much dominated

by London. It is therefore easy to say that that should be rebalanced.

Everyone would agree that there should be some rebalancing, but

London is our capital, and it is also an international centre for the

arts. So we would expect that to be carrying the lion 's share. Let's

look at the figures. You are aware of the imbalances, Peter, but but

you are also presiding over it. Arts Council 2013's spend was ?163

million. ?20 per head went to serve the capital, versus ?3 60 outside

London. That is a big discrepancy. Dorothy makes a good point. She and

I have discussed this in the past during my visits to Birmingham.

There is a historical imbalance between London and outside London.

The main reason for that is not to do with the arts Council, it is to

do with the fact that the government directly funds the National

museums, things like the Tate, the British Museum and the National

Gallery. 80% of that money goes to London, because that is where most

of the national institutions are. By comparison, the arts Council has

always been the champion of arts outside London. It has two sources

of finance. One of those is lottery money, and the other is money from

the taxpayer. 60% of that money goes outside London. It used to be less

than that. So the trend is towards outside London. I hope Dorothy and I

would agree that we need to keep that trend going, because investment

outside London, where the money is really needed, like the fact that a

quarter of ?1 million has gone into Birmingham in the last few years,

there is a national is usual in the West Midlands, the royal Shakespeare

company in Stratford. We have to keep the trend going. Dorothy, what

about complaints about community projects, things that are

experimental? Those struggled to get funding. How do you boost those? I

agree with a lot of what Peter was saying. But we must also remember

that whilst most of the major institutions are still based in

London and the South, we need to be careful not to focus production only

in the capital. What is really important is that we need to be

nurturing centres of production and engagement throughout the country.

It is tough. I see small green shoots in my own experience, which

indicate that some, particularly the London based foundations, are

starting to look outside London. That has to be encouraged.

Now, do you remember this? If you can't be asked to vote, why should

we be asked to listen to your political point of view? You don't

have to listen to my point of view but it is not that I am not voting

out of apathy. I am not voting out of absolute indifference and

weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the

political class that has been going on for generations and which has now

reached fever pitch where we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned,

despondent underclass that are not being represented by the political

system. So voting for it is tacit complicity with that system.

That was the comedian Russell Brand, talking to Jeremy Paxman on

Newsnight last autumn. His attack on politics and the political process

got some headlines, and prompted politicians to scratch their heads

and wonder why the public hate them so much. One senior backbencher has

been thinking about this a lot. He joins us now. David lunk it,

welcome. -- David Blunkett. Why do you think young people are so

disengaged with mainstream politics? There are lots of reasons. Partly,

we don't talk the language. We are not as honest as we should be about

where power really lies and what influence we have and where we don't

have it. But actually, there is a corrosive influence taking place,

and Russell Brand is part of that, to pretend that this is something to

do with what he described as the political class. Whereas, of course,

politics is to do with all of us. It is not a spectator sport. It is

about people getting engaged with their own lives and participating,

and also voting. This evening, in a speech I am making, I will make the

point that the people who need politics the most are the least

likely to engage. That has always been the irony. Do you think

celebrity culture has damaged politics? I am fully in favour of

satire. I am totally against sneering. I am in favour of being

sceptical. That is part of a healthy democracy, but not cynical. Too

often, we just get straight abuse. They are not very funny either. But

they are also helping to disengaged other people. And the people who are

in the know, who actually do have a voice and can get on Question Time

or get a radio programme on the BBC, they know where the power lies.

They have a voice and some influence. To encourage other people

to disengage and to do away with their little bit of influence in the

world is a disgrace. Let's put that to Peter Bazalgette. You know

something about celebrity TV. It is damaging politics and stopping the

people who need it from getting it. That is pretty ten pensioners. --

tendentious. A few years ago, I cooperated with the Hansard Society

to do research into fans of TV shows and their attitude to politics. Why

do young people not vote? It is a good question we will be talking

about this evening. Young people are after authenticity and decency. One

thing I hope you will address this evening, David, is the tenor of the

debate between politicians, because it is depressing. If I may say so,

in the media, they constantly disagree with each other and people

get very tired of that. It seems very inauthentic. We need a more

authentic political discourse to engage young voters. David, the

anti-politics you dislike so much is proving to be popular for that

reason. Well, we are caught. If we are not entertaining, we get

ignored. I grant you that. With Prime Minister's Questions, this

must be a matter of age. I find Prime Minister's Questions a

complete turn-off. I sit there, thinking, who is this reaching?

There are plenty of our viewers who like that argy-bargy. So we can't

win on that. We have to address where people are at. One of the

great thing is nine years ago was something called make poverty

history, a major campaign across the developed world. Here in Britain, at

the beginning of July 2005, we had over 2 million mainly young people

involved, 1.5 million on the streets of Edinburgh, peacefully walking and

influencing the G8 summit which took place at Gleneagles that week.

Sadly, at the time of the London bombings as well. And they did make

a difference. That campaign changed the minds of world leaders in terms

of debt relief in Africa and to a degree, on climate change. But there

are events where politics has been damaged by politicians themselves. I

can quote you Lord Faulkner . In 2012 on the 10th anniversary of the

Iraq dossier, he admitted that the war had had a hugely damaging effect

on politics and political discourse. Do you accept that things like that

have eroded trust and belief in politics? I do accept it has a major

influence. We need a sensible dialogue. We need to disagree when

we disagree instead of for the sake of it. We have to get across that

sometimes in a do not receive you do not get your way. I was the first to

say in 2010 that you have to lose elections as well as the women in at

democracy. -- as well as when them. I do think that kind of honesty will

bring people back. The tragedy from the Hansard report is that many

young people say they are determined to vote in 2014. And they have been

hit most by austerity. They are in danger of being disenfranchised.

Earlier in the programme we said old-age pensioners have been made

sacrosanct part of the benefits budget because they vote. Young

people are in danger of being disenfranchised. Voter turnout is

down. If young people get out and vote they can actually get power

back. What about the lack of political ideology, as many people

see it. Having a powerful narrative is some past leading politicians

had, because that has gone away, that in itself has meant that people

are less interested? Well we have 24 hour news streaming, that has made a

difference. But we have to engage with people in different ways. On

the bigger issue, I think... Occupy, that did engage people. It

caught their attention for a moment. And actually mobilise people as

consumers. They have had an impact in terms of social media when they

have said we do not like what you're doing. I think Ed Miliband touched

on this at the weekend, there is more work to do on that. But could

we get citizens advice involved in mobilising consumers and giving them

a voice? That is an area to explore. Now, have the Conservative Party got

a problem retaining their female MPs? Yesterday Jessica Lee became

the latest Tory MP to say she was standing down at the next election,

citing personal reasons. In the last few months Laura Sandys and Lorraine

Fulbrook have also said they are leaving Westminster. The party

increased its number of female MPs from 17 to 49 at the last election.

But could that situation get worse rather than better in 2015? We've

been joined by Andrew Gimson from the Conservative Home website. Why

are so many Tory women finding life at Westminster itself on appealing?

A great many Tory men find life at Westminster on appealing as well! I

think three things are tough for women. One is the continued feeling

that the series decisions are taken pretty much entirely by men. This is

true also of the Labour Party. And you may be arise with some

particular knowledge of some field of policy which are burning to put

into effect and no one pays you the slightest attention. Then the hours

are so long. It is difficult. Most women who have got to Cabinet level

under David Cameron do not have children. Also if you have elderly

relatives. And also the vulgar abuse you get from a certain type of

horrible boorish man on social media. Has that not always been the

choice? The pressures of public office versus the pleasures of the

more private one and the strain on family life. That is true. Margaret

Thatcher worked phenomenally hard and did not spend all that much time

with her twins. The first job she was given was a highly technical job

to do with pensions. None of the men thought it was of the slightest

importance. It was a horrible job and for a long time she was

excluded. But she came through. If David Cameron concerned about this?

I think he is. As Leader of the Opposition one of the most

conspicuous things he was doing was to get more women as candidates in

sexy and he succeeded pretty well. -- in safe seats. There is now a

danger that the numbers could actually fall back. The House of

Commons authorities and various leading backbenchers have said they

have done a lot to change life of Parliament. Is it still as

incompatible with family life as it used to be? It is still difficult.

The idea that you can pop home and give your child a bath and read to

them in the evening is for most MPs entirely impractical. You're pulled

in both directions. You are expected to do fantastic amounts of work in

the constituency and also a great deal at Westminster. To have time

left for family whether you are a man or a woman is very difficult.

The more cynical view, after Louise Mensch step down -- stepped down and

Nadine Dorries suggested that she had left because she thought she

would lose the seat? She left actually because she married the

love of her life who lives in New York. When Lorraine Fulbrook, she

gave up in September, she did not cut and run like Louise Mensch. She

said she had given 12 years of her life to her constituency and that

that was enough. Unless you're extraordinarily strong minded it

consumes every moment of every day if you're not careful.

Does it matter if your local pub shuts its doors for good? This

afternoon MPs will debate the issue of pub closures and what can be done

to keep them open. One option available to local communities is to

make use of a new set of community rights, which came into force over a

year ago. We asked the Communities minister Stephen Williams to explain

how they work. Here's his soapbox. I have supported Oxford United for

more than a decade. It is an important part of my life. You

cannot underestimate how popular this club is. The football club is

really important to Oxford and Oxfordshire. This is the stadium,

home to Oxford United. Back in May last year they succeeded in getting

the stadium listed as an asset of community value. Now if the owner

ever wants to sell the stadium the club will have six months to put in

their own bid in order to buy it, so preserving it for future use. It was

the first in the country to get this status and now joins 13 other

stadiums. Football clubs are often at the centre of communities,

bringing people of all backgrounds together. So we felt it was

important for supporters to be able to protect their club. Just down the

road we are in great Milton. This is the last remaining pub in the

village but sadly the brewery put it up for sale. Through the community

shares policy around 300 people came together to form a great Milton

community Pub Co. They took it into community ownership last year and

raised almost ?280,000 in shares. After our first meeting we had

promises of over ?200,000 within a week. That enabled us to buy it and

to refurbish it upstairs. It had been neglect did for some years.

People volunteered their skills and expertise. We had teams of

gardeners. All completely voluntary. It is not just pubs and football

clubs. Tame was one of the first places in the country to vote on a

neighbourhood plan. Residents planned and drafted where they

wanted new homes and a school to be built. They prevented new houses

being built as one mass development outside town and instead spread the

houses across and around the town. People are at the heart of their

community. Without them there is no market, no local pub. Now the

government has given people a real chance to shape their own community.

They can list assets of community value and develop their own town

plan. People are now in charge of shaping how their community will

look. That is surely a good thing. And Stephen Williams joins me now.

Looked like a lovely pub! How many of these projects have actually

caught -- got off the ground? There are hundreds of project