24/01/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. There's a cost of

living crisis, say Labour. Oh, no, there isn't, say the Conservatives,

as they release new figures they say show most people's incomes are

rising. A new row over cartoons of the

Prophet Muhammad. Could this Muslim Lib Dem candidate be forced to stand

down after tweeting a link to the images?

This is the scene in the House of Lords as peers debate more than 70

amendments to the referendum bill, including one in Gaelic. Could peers

be trying to sink the bill with an old-fashioned filibuster?

And is this 18th-century philosopher the world's first feminist? Labour

MP Gloria de Piero tells us why Mary Wollstonecraft is her favourite

political thinker. All that in the next hour. And with

us for the duration today, two of my favourite political thinkers. Well,

of those in this studio anyway. It is a Friday! Not everyone hangs

around. Steve Richards of the Independent, have you been sold yet?

Me personally? Or the paper? I honestly don't know. And Isabel

Hardman of the Spectator. Welcome to the programme. First today, you have

probably heard of "offshoring". That is when firms move manufacturing

abroad, usually to cut costs. But have you heard of "onshoring" -

that's the opposite process where companies move back to the UK?

That's exactly what the prime minister was trying to persuade his

audience of the rich and powerful at the World Economic Forum in Davos to

do in a speech this morning. In recent years, there has been a

practice where companies move production to low-cost countries. We

all know it will continue. But there is now an opportunity for the

reverse. There is an opportunity for some of those jobs to come back. A

recent survey of small and medium-sized businesses found that

more than one in ten as thought back to Britain some production in the

past year. Why is the prime minister making an

issue of this? It is so marginal. Some call centres have been returned

back to Britain because it was found that they were inefficient and not

economic. But why would major manufacturing return to Britain?

Well, he has found a phrase that is even more annoying than the global

race with reshore. But we don't have lower energy costs. Well, he is

trying to join up the fracking and the revival in during. This is

happening in America. Over there, they call it the homecoming.

Aluminium, rubber, Saran X, steel, also said heavy industries that

America thought it had lost have been coming back. The reason? Energy

costs in America are a third of in Europe. I assume that because it is

so small in practice, he gets quite political in Davos. Before the

election, he made a speech about corporate responsibility when he was

trying to be progressive. I assume this is going to be part of a

political message that Labour is a threat because of the burden this

will place on business. They want to create an environment where business

can wash. It is part of a broader message about business. As you say,

the specifics are so small. Manufacturing by definition is

energy intensive. We have 8000 -- 800,000 energy intensive jobs in

this country. We have lost your production. Unless you are prepared

to slash energy costs, they will not return, except maybe some very small

ones with very high value added. And he did not add the sentence, we are

going to slash energy costs to do this. It is government policy to

double in lectures to cost between now and 2020. So I assume it is a

party political point. As you were saying, the Chief Executive 's have

turned on labour this week. Exact any. For some reason, he chooses

Davos to make political manoeuvres. It would be interesting if he did it

at a press conference in this country. But he doesn't like press

conferences. He really doesn't. We are horrible.

Most British workers have seen their pay rise in the last year? Really?

That is according to new figures from the government. It is a

challenge to Labour, who claimed that despite the return to growth,

there is still what they call a cost of living crisis. It all comes at

the end of a week of positive economic news for the UK economy. On

Wednesday, new figures showed that the unemployment rate had dropped to

7.1%, exceeding expectations and back to levels last seen in 2009. On

Tuesday, the IMF revised up its growth forecast to 2.4%, saying that

Britain row would grow faster this year than any other country in

Europe. But that is not saying much. Earlier this month, it was revealed

that inflation as measured by the consumer prices index fell to 2% in

December. The Bank of England hit its target at last. It is the first

time it has been at or below the government target since late 2009.

Today the government has released data showing that most workers saw a

real increase in their take-home pay in the last financial year. That is

the one ending in April 2013. Mr say that take-home pay rose by at least

2.5%, wants tax cuts have been taken into account. For some, it rose by

as much as 4.8%. In the same period, CPI inflation was 2.4%. Labour said

the figures are highly selective, they are only for one year and don't

take into account changes to benefits. They said that families

are on average ?891 worse off as a result of tax and benefit changes

since 2010. Who is right and who is wrong, or is the truth in the

middle? Joining me now, Rob Joyce from the Institute for Fiscal

Studies. Let's begin with these latest government figures. They are

clearly part of a Treasury fightback to take on the cost of living crisis

mantra from Labour. What do you make of them? They are the right answer

to a question. There is more than one data source. So they have gone

to a perfectly reputable data source that tells you about earnings, and

they compared earnings in April 2013 with earnings in April 2012. And

over that period, earnings for most workers did grow somewhat faster

than inflation. There are a few caveats to put alongside that. One

is that it is a particular time period. If you look at another data

source which gives you month by month earnings, it looks as though

earnings growth was lower than that both just before that period and

just after. It is also true that this is a measure of pay. They

looked at pre-tax and post-tax pay, but they have not looked at the

border measure of income. So it is not a comprehensive picture.

Finally, slightly messily, there are different measures of average

earnings. They should give you the same answers, but they don't always.

Just to make things easy for us! Under Labour mantra that we are on

average ?1600 worse off, that covers a longer period, takes us back to

the election in 2010. But in its own way, it is also selective. Yes. At

is capturing some of the very sharp falls in earnings that happened a

couple of years ago. It is also selective in the sense that it does

not account for benefit. If you are paying tax, a fall in your pre-tax

income of ?1600 is a fall of less than that in your post-tax income,

because some of that income would have taxed away anyway. But it also

would not capture the effects of some of the cuts to in work

benefits, so it is giving you a partial picture.

Let's talk now to the politicians. Treasury minister cited Javid and

the shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna. -- Sajid Javid. They make

quite a double act on this programme! You have the same tyres

and probably the same shirts! You ask for the shiny head, and you have

got them. Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Who said politics was converging?

Let me be clear what you have done here. You have taken one financial

year ending in April 2013. You have excluded the richest 10% and you

have said that when it comes to take-home pay, the average rise was

2.5 cent. At a time when inflation by the CPI was 2.4%. So there is a

difference of .1%, and you are claiming that she is living

standards are rising? That shows that our long-term plan is starting

to work. But we have also said all along that there is a long way to

go. Our country went through the deepest recession in 100 years. That

left the country a lot poorer. People are still suffering from

that. April were left poorer. But our plan is starting to work. Let's

get away from the rhetoric. You are saying in the end that you have

managed to find one year in which take-home pay was .1% higher than

price rises. That is the only year that this data series is available

for. Hopefully, it will represent a further increase in income next

year. As you say, with the exception of the richest 10% in this country,

take-home pay, after the tax cuts, is rising faster than inflation. But

by .1%. Do you use decimal points to show you have a sense of humour? Do

you think anybody out there feels" oh, last year, I was .1% better

off" ? If you look at another piece of important news, there are those

who are getting jobs. Employment rose by the fastest rate on record.

If you ask those people, are they feeling better off, they would give

a solid answer. Let's take your series and move it from April 2013

to the rest of 2013. What happens then? Wages rise by 0.9%, and the

CPI rises by 2%. So since your figures of April 2013, prices have

been rising twice as fast as wages. You are not comparing like with

like. Our figures are based on take-home pay after tax and national

insurance. Well, national insurance has not changed. I am just saying

what the definition of take-home pay is. If you take account of that,

with the increase in personal allowances about to take race in

April, it shows that take-home pay will continue to rise. What do you

make of these figures? They are slightly misleading. Granted, we

have just heard what the ISS were saying about where you take your

figures. -- the Institute for Fiscal Studies. One of the claims was that

people in the top 10% are the only ones who have lost out. Of course,

that ignores the tax cut for people earning over ?100,000 got in April.

Because that did not come in until this financial year. That is right,

and it references by weekly earnings measures as opposed to annual. We

can talk about statistics all we like. But what matters is how people

feel on the street. In my constituency in Streatham, I have,

surgery this evening and I would be flabbergasted if it is not raised

with me that "I am working harder, I am earning less and things are

costing more". This debate tends to ignore that we have a bigger issue

here. We need to refashion our economy so that we actually have, as

a percentage of our labour market, less low-wage, low skilled jobs. If

you look at the OECD, the Western developed countries, we rank fifth.

So of course we need to do things at one end of the market, with tax cuts

and strengthening the national minimum wage and living wage. Ed

talked about a squeezed middle from the beginning of his premiership -

premiership! I meant to leadership. Slight slip there. But if you let me

finish, you have got a hollowed out middle as well. He talks about his

own constituents. In his constituency the claimant count is

down by 22%. He should ask those people whether they feel better off.

I am pleased that more people are in work in the constituency. Week after

week, the measure of living standards is earnings versus

inflation. We have seen today that one of those measures shows that

earnings are rising in real time. I also accept there is much more to

do. Many families are facing hard times. You need a plan that works.

Do you act sets that, on average, people are worse off than they were

in 2010? -- do you accept? Our economy is smaller. The economy is

smaller. The story for different people will be different. Those who

have found jobs, 1.6 million. There will be some people that are still

facing very difficult times. I have met them in my own constituency. We

need a plan that deals with those concerns. Some people are worse off.

On average, the figures are clear. People are worse off. Some are worse

off by around ?891. The reason people may be worse off is because

of the great recession. We have had that to deal with. I wonder if the

terms of trade of the argument are not going against you. You have

moved off a little bit on the cost of living. There is obviously no

question that living standards have been squeezed and squeezed. The

squeeze started under Labour and has continued under this government. If

it is a crisis, as opposed to a squeeze, white and retail sales

rising by 5%? You have quite a mixed picture. On average, you are right.

People are earning less. The point of this gentleman is trying to make

is it is a mixed picture. This we emphasise the point that we need to

rebalance the economy. -- this emphasises a game the point. I am

pleased that in my own constituency and implement has gone down but the

squeeze is still there. Unemployment on average is 7.1%. In London, it is

8.1. We need to rebalance the economy geographically. We need to

make sure we have a better range of sectors contributing to growth. We

have terrible statistics in terms of the trade deficit. We need to

increase business investment. Have we gone from flat-lining and double

dip to rebalancing? I have been talking about this since you were in

short trousers. You may well have. It never happens. It is absurd to

think you can rebalance the economy when you are both committed to

rising energy prices. Let me come back to that after you patronising

by saying I was in short trousers. I think it was patronising. I think it

is possible to rebalance the economy. You may not agree but we

need an industrial strategy. To some extent, there was a degree of

cross-party consensus. Lord Heseltine was talking about

fashioning industry back in the 80s. One thing I would say is that, often

we do say, I do think one thing, we do need to celebrate some things we

do have. We at the eighth or ninth largest manufacturing nation in the

world. We want to be doing even better. Can I just come back again?

Can you address the question I ask? If there is a cost of living crisis,

not a squeeze, why are retail sales rising by 5%? One of the things we

have seen, and there is a range of reasons as to why retail sales have

gone up, we have just come out of the Christmas period. One of the

worrying thing is that people are beginning to dip into personal

savings to buy things. If you looked at the Office for Budget

Responsibility 's Autumn Statement, and if you look at economic

reports, the problem we have in many respects, we cannot go back to

business as usual, which is a model where you have growth coming from

private consumption, finance and house price inflation. The problem

is that growth has been primarily fuelled by private consumption.

Actually we want it to be coming from a greater, more long-term,

sustainable economy. How can there be a squeeze on living standards? I

think this debate, politicians need to tread quite wary on it. I am a

pro politics journalist. I know what both of them are trying to do. On

this, you could debate for the next 18 months, exchanging figures.

Politicians have to lead debates on Europe as all the rest of it, on

whether voters are feeling better off or not. I think voters will have

a better idea as to whether they are feeling better off or not. My sense

is that in 2015, and it is only a guess, is that most of them will

still be feeling insecure and worried, even if they are in work.

That feel-good factor, which famously came about in the 80s, will

not be there. We can exchange as many statistics as we like but that

is my sense of what they will be feeling. I see the word, security,

is increasingly appearing in speeches by government ministers.

They want to suggest you may not be in the sunlit uplands. If you stick

with the Conservatives, you can have the security of knowing the economic

recovery is finished. Some of these statistics are not very good and

some are better. This will undermine the economic tracks by Labour. You

have just mentioned employment figures in your constituency. It is

very difficult for Labour to respond to good economic needs. You can

understand why the Tories want to try to undermine opponents. I always

want to be clear about this. Some people will say, this is a bad

thing. It is about people. Even as a constituency MP... It means I get

less people coming in to see me who are worried and anxious about

putting food on the plate. I have less worried people that I

represent. Sometimes we do not always see things like this. I am

going to give you the last word. To stick to our plan is the most

important thing. To continue to address living standard problems,

you need to have a plan to deal with it. That means cutting the deficit,

giving people the skills they need and cutting taxes they pay. What

about raising minimum wage? We have made recommendations and I hope they

can come out in agreement with us. That is an important part of having

a plan that will work. On that, we will leave it there. Thanks to both

of you. Now, if you were watching yesterday, you will have seen our

interview with the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage. The party have been

prominent on the issues of Europe and Immigration but we asked him

about some of the party's policies. You want a compulsory dress code for

taxi drivers? Do we? That is news to me. That is not on your website,

that is on one of your documents. Under the last leadership, we

managed to produce a manifesto that was 486 pages long. I will not know.

That is why I have said none of it stands today. Nigel Farage, talking

to me yesterday. Well, he's been doing the media rounds again this

morning. Earlier, he was on LBC and asked again about the party's 2010

election manifesto. He did not know the manifesto because it was 486

pages of excessive detail. I said, we reject the whole thing and we

will start again with a blank sheet of paper. There is nothing new in

that story. I did not read it. Nick, I did not read it. It was drivel.

Good to see LBC following up on the daily politics. Does it matter? Does

it matter? Not immediately. The focus is so much Nigel Farage and

this very appealing public projection but, I think, over time,

UKIP are incredibly fragile and foldable actually. Perhaps not up to

the European elections, where it will be all Nigel Farage. He is a

brilliant TV advocate. Afterwards, the level of scrutiny could be so

much they could implode actually. In the long-term, that is probably

likely to happen. The long-term get them through 2015. All people care

about is what they say about Europe and immigration. In some cases, they

do not care about those policies. If you talk to even the Lib Dems, who

have done focus groups around Lib Dem voters, they quiz them and ask

them what it was they liked about Britain. They could not think about

anything but, in the end, once said, its past. That shows how difficult

the squeezed message will be. You cannot say, what a load of Tosh this

was! The voters do not really care. People look at the polls. Mr Cameron

is more popular than the Conservative party and Labour is

more popular than Mr Miliband. That will suit Nigel Farage, went it? He

is in a really strong position if it is about the leaders. I wonder if it

also becomes about the credibility of the party behind him. I take your

point completely, it will be Cameron versus Miliband. To some extent, he

is brilliant that he cannot be a solo performer. I wonder whether

pre-2015, that becomes a problem for him will stop however brilliant he

is as a public performer, there is a connection between party and leader

in Britain. I suspect posts the Euro elections, some of the stuff that

you challenged him on yesterday, and all the other things that erupt

every month or so, will add up to a problem for him actually. We will

leave it there. Maajid Nawaz, the Lib Dem PPC for Hampstead Kilburn,

and founder of the anti-extremist think-tank Quilliam Foundation, has

found himself at the centre of a controversy after tweeting a cartoon

featuring Jesus and Mohammed. There's been a petition calling for

him to be deselected. But, much more seriously, he's faced a campaign of

online abuse, including death threats. Here is talking about the

cartoon during a debate on the BBC's Big Questions. He is debating people

's rights to wear T-shirts with the cartoon on them. When you do wear

something that threatens our religion and our rights, that should

be a concern for Muslims and others. Human rights are very important.

When you do threaten our religion, we are not sitting here, mocking you

in any way. That T-shirt does not threaten me whatsoever. It does not

threaten my god or my fate. It does not threaten the Koran or any aspect

of my religion. I do not feel threatened. Maajid Nawaz himself

isn't here to talk to us. He told us he's been advised by the police not

to come on the show. That is how serious it has become. But Liberal

Democrat Mohammed Shafiq is in Leeds. He's one of those leading the

campaign to deselect Nawaz. Kenan Malik writes about multiculturalism

and free speech. A prospectively Dem candidate tweets a link to the

cartoon, does not endorse it all show the cartoon, but just says he

does not find it insulting, and you want to get rid of him? It is

important to recognise that where he has the right to tweet that cartoon

and tweaked the link to that offensive website, equally Muslims

have the right to challenge that. Freedom of speech cannot be

selective. We do not have the right to respond. Over the last few days,

I have received death threats, racist abuse and have received a lot

of hate from people who support the stance. I am not going to blame him

for that stands. We are where we are now and the Liberal Democrats

recognise it is a very serious issue. Potentially, there are a

number of seats with a strong Muslim presents, where we could suffer.

Therefore, it is right that the party looks in a serious way with

negotiating and discussing this with the party. The party is absolutely

right to recognise this. You call yourself a liberal. You want to hang

out to dry somebody who simply publishes a link to a website. You

have to recognise that where there is freedom of speech for an

individual to express his views, when he is a parliamentary

candidate, standing in an election, he had to behave in a responsible

way. That is my view. We need to allow those discussions between

ourselves and the Liberal Democrats to take place.

But on Twitter, you said "we will notify all Muslim organisations in

the UK of his despicable behaviour" . You will also notify Islamic

countries. You are organising a lynch mob, and you? It is offensive

of you to suggest that, Andrew Neil. You can't link anything to me that

says I have advocated violence. Why are you notifying other Islamic

countries? This is about freedom of speech should. What has it got to do

with other Islamic countries? If we were going to have a discussion, it

would help if you let me answer your questions. What is the answer? A

Parliamentary candidate who represents the Liberal Democrats has

tweeted a cartoon is offensive to Muslims. There is a petition out

there. A number of people find it offensive. I think we have made

progress over the last few days. Maajid Nawaz has expressed his

regret for tweeting this cartoon. And their discussions between the

Muslim community and the Liberal Democrats. But what has it got to do

with other Islamic countries? I am not going to negotiate with the

Liberal Democrats to the Daily Politics or through you. We will

have those discussions. Try and answer the question. What has it got

to do with other Islamic countries? It affects every Muslim around the

world when a cartoon depicts the holy Prophet. If you will allow me

something without interrupting, we as Muslims find the depicting of the

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, offensive and unacceptable. It is

offensive to Muslims in this country and around the world. My language

that I have used over the past few days has been clear. We are engaged

in the political process full is politicians in this country tell us

that Muslims have to engage in the political process. We have engaged

in the process. For anybody to suggest that I am advocating

violence is deeply offensive. But he has already been threatened with

beheading and so on as a result of your tweet. I am bringing in Kenan

Malik now . What do you say? Some Muslims are offended by the

cartoons, others are not. I am not. I don't consider myself a Muslim, so

it is no good asking me. This is not a question of offence to a

community. It is about a debate within a community, and there are

many Muslim communities. The reason we imagine it is about offence to a

community is only because those who see it as offensive are seen as the

authentic voice of the Muslim community. It is about time we saw

this not as an offence to a community, but as an open debate

with that community which we should have. The trouble with seeing only

those who see it as offensive as the authentic voice as the Muslim

community is that that is the interest defence league few, the

racist view. We should be challenging the idea that all

Muslims are offended by the cartoons, that all Muslims would ban

such things. We should be confronting that and putting forward

a liberal view of what the Muslim community are like, rather than

laying along with a racist view of the Muslim community. I am not

suggesting that all Muslims are offended by that. I am saying that

significant numbers who signed the petition are offended by it. You

talk about freedom of speech for the rest of society to tweet offensive

cartoons against Muslims and Christians, and then you say to us,

you can't have the right to be offended. We have been

constructive. I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats in the way they

have dealt with this in the last 24 hours. We want a positive outcome.

To be fair to Maajid Nawaz, he has recognised his mistake and his

regret. Has he? This whole thing has been hijacked. Critics say, we are

offended by it. That is part of free speech. If we prohibit things that

offend some group or another, there is little we can say to each other.

For example, the petition opens with the phrase of Jesus as a prophet.

Most Christians would find that offensive, because for them, Jesus

is the son of God. Are we going to say the petition should be removed

because it is offensive to some Christians? It plays to populist

petitions like the one in Holland who wants to ban the Koran on the

grounds that it is offensive. Presumably, Mohammed Shafiq does not

agree with that. What is fundamentally different between

saying that some cartoons should not be shown because they are offensive

to Muslims and saying the Koran should not be allowed because it is

offensive to Christians? The point is that we need free speech, and

that is free speech 41, not a particular group. -- free speech for

everyone. People would be surprised that you are Liberal Democrats,

because their ideological basis is John Stuart Mill. He would be

turning in his grave at what you are suggesting. Andrew Neil, the Liberal

Democrats are a Broadchurch. Within that broad church, there are people

like myself who believe that freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

We have to behave in a responsible way. The idea that you start to

restrict the rights of Muslims to be offended by this is deeply

patronising. We have seen ex-Muslims, cuteness, atheists, the

EDL and the BNP supporting the stance of my colleague in the

studio. I am not good to take any lectures about freedom of speech

from those with an agenda against Muslims. We seem to be moving in a

world where witch Finder General 's pop up every day now, offended at

something that body has tweeted. I find the idea that you have a right

to take offence at one else expressing a view quite baffling. I

am a Christian, but I don't take offence at the idea that other

people disagree with me. It also seems personally like me -- to meet

to take too much of an effort to get annoyed because somebody disagrees

with you. You might as well get on with the more important things in

life than trying to get someone silenced, which is what this is. You

are effectively saying he should be deselect it because his views are

not valid. The death threats should be no reason to stop him from saying

it. That we are in a society where if you cause offence, you are

expected to close the offence down rather than move on. I have one

qualification, in the sense that when you are a candidate for a

party, are you tweeting as an individual, free to say whatever you

want, or are you there on behalf of a party? Candidates need to be a bit

more careful than the rest of us when they are tweeting. But he

simply linked a tweet -- tweeted a link. Evidently, it has caused a

furore. I am not justifying that, but I think that politicians, as

candidates, have to be more careful. What is wrong with tweeting to a

link? Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, even as they can do

that. But the fact that it has caused this row, with poor old Nick

Clegg, having dealt with the Rennard affair. He leaves this like a hole

in the head! Evidently, it has caused a row. Kenan Malik, I will

give you the final word, because Mohammed Shafiq has had a good say.

What does it say about a party or a society if a political candidate is

not allowed to offend anyone or even to say, I am not offended by this

cartoon or this book? What does it say about a party or a society if a

small group from within a particular community is allowed to dictate what

is or is not acceptable to be said about that community? Thank you both

for taking part in a spirited debate.

Now, David Cameron apparently have a woman problem. Nick Clegg is in

allsorts of trouble with Lib Dem women over the Rennard affair. The

status of women in public life could not be more topical, but it is not

new. In the latest of our series on political thinkers, Labour MP

Glorietta Piero has chosen an 18th-century political philosopher

claimed to be the world's first feminist.

It is unusual, isn't it? A modern portrait of an 18th-century

philosopher. This is Mary Wollstonecraft, a campaigner for

women's's writes, equality and education, who was well ahead of her

time. I am in London to meet an MP who was a fan of hers long before

the party made her a spokesperson on just those kinds of issues.

For someone who questions so much about the norms of the society they

live in, it is odd that we should start her story in a church that she

regularly attended. Gloria, here we are in the pews she sat in in the

church she worshipped in, that hosts to be the birthplace of feminism.

Why do you like Mary Wollstonecraft? I remember first

reading about her as an undergraduate at university. She was

the first feminist, the first person to say actually, women are not

inferior to men. She was saying this at a time in a century when

political writing and philosophy were totally dominated by men. She

was a pioneer in a man's world. And I work in politics, so I know what

it is like. Thank you, Mary Wollstonecraft. You started us off.

But our expert, Doctor Elizabeth Fraser of Oxford University, is

clear that there is even more to thank her for. She is a very

important philosopher of education. If we think of the field that we now

know as cultural is buddies, -- cultural studies, opening up the

relationship between culture, society and state, it is there in

her. Gloria, I have brought you to London's oldest brick terrace. This

was the home of the minister of the church. He is an Enlightenment

thinker. He also host 's lots of Enlightenment thinkers at this

house. Mary Wollstonecraft writes in her work, the vindication of the

rights of women, just a year after Thomas Paine has written his right

of man. And he was talking about the rights of men. This was the

Enlightenment, and age when thinkers were turning their back on religion,

tradition, folklore and saying, it is actually about science, reason,

logic. Mary Wollstonecraft 's point was that if reason is where it is

that, how come women are confined to their judicial normals? They should

be able to use their talent in the same way as men. But we are not,

because we are not educated. She said, I want women to be taught to

think. And she packed in what she preached. -- sheep practised what

she preached. So it was just around here that she set up a girls'

school. There is a plaque over there which commemorates it. It was during

her time at the school where she writes her first book. Thoughts on

the education of daughters. Yes, which was a guide to female manners.

Nonetheless, she earned ?10. She was very pleased about this. In letters

which have been published subsequently, she wrote a letter to

her sister saying, I hope you have not forgotten, I am an author.

Whatever Mary thought of herself, what others have thought of her has

changed over time. She was vilified as a feminist full she was then

saying did as a figure of the radical romantic movement. She was

understood to be the founder of liberal feminism, with her emphasis

on right. I now think we are coming to a point where scholars and

historians are able to get to grips with the complexity of the work.

Gloria, this is the memorial to Mary Wollstonecraft. She is not buried

here. She dried -- she died at 38 after giving birth to Mary Shelley,

the author of Frankenstein. What seems sad about her is that her

reputation gets buried with her. Her reputation was trashed as some kind

of moral fanatic, because of decisions she made in her personal

life. She had an affair with a married man. She had a child out of

wedlock, which was big news in those days. And these things were used by

many as a stick to beat her with. And that attitude seems to last for

almost a century. It is relatively recently that academics have said,

hang on, let's look at what she was saying. The issues in her personal

life are still the challenges we talk about as women today. Earning a

living, having a career, falling in love, raising children - the same

challenges. And that makes her special. She knew she was special.

She once said" I was not born to walk on the beaten track". She was

not short on self-confidence. Now in a masterpiece of political

planning and programming, one of our guests today has actually written

about her at university. Is she everything that Gloria makes her out

to be? I am not a massive expert but I loved her book. She is one of my

favourite writers. Women have education now. We are not being

infantilised by men or educated purely for the entertainment of men

but there is a sense culturally that women are encouraged to think about

appearance and other aspects of behaviour. We buy women's magazines

that make women feel guilty about their bodies and sex lives. It makes

them feel less about their minds than appearance. There are many

issues that are relevant to what she was writing about a long time ago.

What she wanted, a lot of that has been achieved that her work is still

unfinished. This is a neat balance and lapses into terrible

stereotypes. I have not read her. I am going to now! It is very

interesting what is going on at the moment. In terms of political

representation, there is still a huge way to go. In a way, the only

way that people like Gloria got into the House of Commons was through the

positive dissemination that Labour has and the other parties do not

dare quite do. Culturally, we are discovering, in a way I had not

quite clocked how much further we have to go with all of these things

going on at the moment. That is quite extraordinary and will bring

about profound change. A huge leap, actually. Now time for our regular

Friday Referendum Bill slot. It's a feature that we've been running for

the last couple of months as the Private Members Bill paving the way

for a referendum on our EU membership wends its way through

parliament. Today it's back in the Lords where more than 70 amendments

had been tabled, including ones in Gaelic, Cornish and Doric. A

filibuster designed to make sure the bill runs out of time? Surely peers

wouldn't be so cynical? Our political correspondent, Louise

Stewart, spoke to Labour peer Lord Foulkes a little earlier. I am

joined now by Lord Foulkes. This is pretty cynical politics, isn't it?

You are trying to scupper the bill. There are other private members

bills which have had much more amendments in the past. The bill

from David steel about improving the House of Lords had over 160

amendments. This is not unusual. What we are trying to do is examine

carefully a bill that has been very badly drafted, is totally

inadequate. There are no schedules outlining the arrangements for the

referendum. This is a very bad bill which needs careful scrutiny. What

has happened is we have been given an artificial timetable, an

artificial deadline, to complete the bill. If we do not get it through

without amendment by that time, we are scuppering the bell. That is not

the way that legislation should be dealt with in the United Kingdom.

Unelected peers, if you do go ahead and manage to do this bill, you are

preventing the public having it safe. You are talking about

unelected peers. We deal with this all the time. This is the structure

we have. We are not against the principle of a referendum. This bill

is totally inadequate. The question is wrong. The timing is wrong.

Arrangements are wrong and it needs to be improved. After all, we cannot

bind the next Parliament. If David Cameron wins the election, and I do

not think he will, if he does, he can decide to have a referendum

whenever he wants. It looks as if you do not trust the public. Most of

them are drawing pensions now. It is 60 years ago since he had his

chance. I did campaign on that occasion. There is actually an act

on the stamp duty -- on the statute which is, if there is a major change

in the competencies of the EU and any transfer of power, there has to

be a referendum. There are provisions for a referendum. Thank

you very much for joining me. And peers are still debating those

amendments. Here's the scene in the Lords now - busier than normal for a

Friday. The Conservative peer Baroness

Browning has been taking part in that debate but has left the chamber

and joins us now. Welcome. Is this going to get through? Looking at the

number of people in the House of Lords, I voted not content to this

amendment before I came here. I am not sure how it will go. I think

this bill could be killed on the numbers of Liberal Democrats and

Labour turning out to spike it. What would then happen? What with the

Government do? Unless the Government bring something forward in the next

session, the last session of this Parliament, clearly they can put a

manifesto pledge forward. One of the strengths of this bill is that the

body politic has let people down of all parties. People want a

referendum, we know that. People have promised a referendum for many

years. Every time there is a reason why not to. If this bill was passed

and it had all-party support, as it did in the House of Commons, at

least the public would know that whatever the outcome of the next

general election they will get their say. In a sense, has it not been a

public relations exercise for Mr Cameron? He wanted to do something

to show I really, really mean we are going to have a referendum, so he

wanted to get this through this side of the election. You will know this

Parliament cannot find the next Parliament. It could easily have

been repealed by the next Parliament. It could. I would not

say I do not envisage that if it did get through, when it came to putting

it into practice, there would not be some slight revision of it. The date

needs to be set. There is quite a lot of tweaking needed. It is the

underlying principle to the people of this country that what they have

clearly stated they want, and that is a say on the EU matter. When it

went through the House of Commons, there was no opposition to it at

third reading. There was no opposition to it from the Liberal

Democrats and Labour at second reading. You would believe both

those key parties were in favour of it. Now it is in the House of Lords,

over 80 amendments are down. I think we would be better still tomorrow

morning should we do it today. There is now an attempt to frustrate and

kill it. The difficulty is, Labour and Lib Dems do not want their

fingerprints on it. They get good old timers, who is a past master at

the filibuster with a very straight face, and others who do not really

want a referendum, to try to kill this off in the House of Lords. Are

you going back to vote again? I am going back to bed many times, I

suspect, today. Now, feel you've missed out on the big political

stories of the week, don't worry. In the true spirit of public service,

we've condensed the important stories and some of the trivial ones

down to just a minute. Here's the David Thompson with the week in 60

seconds. Double trouble for the Lib Dems. Thus the party teetered on the

brink of civil war over the Lord when aunt affair and then Mike

Hancock was suspended over claims he made unwanted sexual advances

towards a female constituent. David Sonesta claimed recent floods where

divine retribution and legalising -- over legalising gay marriage. They

mocked up these pictures of the UKIP leader doing some cleaning in his

pants. Good luck getting that image out of your head? David Miliband

reinforced claims. Fellow conservatives were called upon to

hate less. Eric Pickles declared war on biscuit munching ministers. He

has been banned from tucking into taxpayer funded snacks in an attempt

to cut costs. A quick word from you on this

immigration Bill. It is another embarrassment for Mr Cameron. There

are more amendments on the way. They had crisis talks this week in

Downing Street with Nigel Mills, the backbencher who tabled this

amendment. He refused to back down. They have tabled other amendments to

help siphon off support. I am going to come to you on immigration. Nick

Clegg has been talking about the trouble surrounding the Lib Dem MP

for Portsmouth, Mike Hancock. Let's see what he had to say. I was

appalled at those revelations. When I was given the specific allegations

at the beginning of last year, for the first time, I immediately asked

the Chief Whip to investigate. As a result, he ceased to be a Liberal

Democrat MP. When the allegations were supported by the QC 's report

which have come to light this week, we acted immediately and he has been

suspended from the Liberal Democrats altogether. We have had a little bit

of fun about the Lord when I business but there is no fun to have

about the Mike Hancock business. Psion I have a degree of sympathy

for him. He has very limited levers to pull. He has done what he can. He

originally got suspended from the Whip but now he has been suspended

from the party. He has done what he can. The image is, the Lib Dems have

always had an image of being eccentric and so on. When you have

all the stuff you willing around and Nick Clegg popping up and saying, I

have tried to do what I can. It looks really bad, as they are

acutely aware. It does not look as if it will get better quickly. There

is this row we have discussing -- been discussing which is rumbling

on. That's all for today. Thanks to all our guests. The one o'clock news

is starting over on BBC One now. I'll be back on Sunday with the

Sunday Politics on BBC One where I'll be speaking to the Transport

Secretary Patrick McLoughlin. Do join me then. Bye-bye. Have a

nice weekend. Our number-one priority

is moving the child or baby.