12/03/2014 Daily Politics

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. After months of internal

wrangling, Ed Miliband's given us Labour's policy on an EU referendum.

He has promised an in/out referendum in the event of any changes, but he

thinks that there won't be any changes, so it won't happen. You

could be forgiven for being confused.

The Prime Minister of Ukraine's gone to the White House to discuss the

crisis over Crimea. I've asked the country's ambassador in London what

he makes of the West's response. It's battle of the deputies at PMQs

today as the Prime Minister is on an official visit to Israel. Clegg

versus Harman, and all the rest of the action, will be live at midday.

And speaking of PMQs, we'll take a look at the top five ways to

confuse, distract and generally tick off your opponent in a noisy Commons

chamber. All that coming up in the next 90

minutes of TV so good it'll probably prevent BBC Two being closed down

and moved online. And joining us for the duration are two of the sharpest

minds in Westminster, and they're also two of the sharpest dressers.

Oh, yes. It's Shadow Leader of the House Angela Eagle, who says she

once went on an official visit without realising she was wearing

odd shoes. I know the feeling. It's happened to us all. Nobody noticed!

Just me. And Business Minister Matt Hancock, who's famed for wearing a

maroon V neck pullover under his suit jacket, a habit described by

one newspaper recently as "fogeyish". Welcome to both of you.

After that sartorial introduction, let's turn first to Ed Miliband's

announcement that he's ruling out a referendum on Britain's membership

of the EU - except in what he calls the unlikely event that we decide to

transfer further powers to Brussels. Here's the Labour leader speaking

earlier this morning. Today I am announcing that the next

Labour government will legislate for a new lock. Not simply a referendum

on any treaty change proposing the transfer of powers, because there

have been too many referenda like that in other countries which have

been ignored. But a lock that guarantees there will be no transfer

of powers without an in/out referendum. Without a clear choice

about whether Britain will stay in the youth.

Ed Miliband speaking earlier. He had already said as much in the

financial Times this morning in an article. Today's announcement is a

big deal, not least because it opens up a major dividing line between the

two biggest parties, and it has big implications for UKIP and the Lib

Dems, too. JoCo, remind us where they all now stand.

Yes, you could be forgiven for losing track of exactly what the

main parties are offering when it comes to a vote on our relationship

with the EU. Only last year Ed Miliband decided to back the

Government's so-called "referendum lock" - a law passed in 2010 which

would give the public the chance to accept or reject any major new EU

treaty if it represented a big loss of power to Brussels.

Today Mr Miliband has gone further. He's said that Labour will legislate

so that any new transfer of power triggers an in/out referendum on

Britain's membership of the EU. So is an in/out referendum inevitable

under Labour? Well, no, not according to... Ed Miliband. He's

said that it's "unlikely there will be any such proposals for a transfer

of powers in the next parliament". That marks a clear dividing line

with the Conservatives. If elected, David Cameron has promised to hold

an in/out referendum in 2017 after attempting to renegotiate Britain's

relationship with the EU. Instead Mr Miliband has edged closer to Nick

Clegg's position on Europe. In the 2010 Lib Dem manifesto, he promised

to hold an in/out referendum the next time there is a "fundamental

change" in the EU's treaty arrangements.

And then there's Nigel Farage. He would hold an immediate referendum

on Britain's EU membership. But now that the Tories are the only major

party guaranteeing a vote, how can he persuade people to vote UKIP?

Andrew. Thank you, JoCo! You covered that

very well. Angela Eagle, your position was that you would have a

referendum, but it would be an treaty change, and it would be

whether we liked the treaty change? Is that correct? We supported the

conservative legislation last year. Actually, it was 2011. And I believe

you abstained on it. It is on the statute book. And you supported

that? What we have done today... We will come to that in a moment. Until

today, your policy was to support coalition policy, which was that if

there are treaty changes, they should be put to a vote? Yes. The

change today in the policy, then, is that if there are treaty changes,

then it would become not a vote on the changes, but an in/out

referendum? What we have said is that if there is any further

transfer of power from the UK to Brussels in any future treaty

changes, we won't have a treaty -based referendum, we will have an

in/out referendum. That is Labour's lock, which Ed Miliband announced in

his speech today. But you also think that it is unlikely in the course of

a Labour government elected in 2015 and running for five years but there

would be any treaty changes that would take place? What Ed Miliband

said today is that it is unlikely but possible, because we don't have

a crystal ball in which we can completely predict what will happen

in the future. There are areas where EU members might want to continue

arrangement, particularly on the fiscal union for those in the

Eurozone, which might have implications. So what he has said is

that our priority is a Labour government will be jobs, growth, the

NHS, and not banging on about Europe. But if there were these

changes that happened in Europe which looked like they would lead to

treaty change and more powers to Brussels, first of all we would have

to agree them, and if we did agree them, we would give the British

people a choice in an in/out referendum. But you do think it is

unlikely that there would be the treaty changes, and therefore I'm

likely under Labour that there would be an in/out referendum? I think Ed

Miliband has been very upfront today. Our policy isn't to go for

the treaty change or to bang on about Europe. There are more

important things to do for a government. So he said we will

concentrate on them. But he also recognises and acknowledges that

people are worried about continuing drift of powers to Europe, and he

has given this commitment on a Labour lock which, if circumstances

are right, and he thinks it is unlikely, there would be this shift

of powers, there would be a guarantee, a legislative guarantee,

of an in/out referendum. Can we also established that they

couldn't even be a referendum on this and less and Miller band

government had agreed to treaty changes in the first place? -- and

Ed Miliband government. Yes. There could be reforms on access to

benefits, foreign criminals, things you could do to make Europe better

without treaty change, but if there were an agreement during the next

Labour government to treaty change, that would buy legislation be put to

the people in a referendum. And if there were treaty changes, and you

put these to the British people, which would then be an in/out

referendum, so the British people would be asked to vote to stay in

Europe, and to agree the treaty changes as well, how would you vote

if you didn't like the treaty changes but wanted to stay in

Europe? I think that the issue is that a lot of the people that want

to have a referendum are talking about out. I understand that, but

what about my question? It is entirely theoretical... A lot of

people might say, I don't want to give any more power to Brussels,

although that is what they have agreed to, but I don't want to

leave, I want the status quo. How would you vote? The issue about

Europe is that nobody wants the status quo. We want to improve the

way that Europe works. It is clear from talking to all our voters that

there are things that voters are worried about about Europe.

Especially on issues like access. How would that person vote? You make

changes that require a referendum. But if somebody wants to stay in

Europe but not doesn't want the changes, how would they vote? It is

entirely hypothetical. We don't know what that would be. What is wrong

with the position? It is utterly incomprehensible, as we have just

seen. There is a perfectly reasonable argument for lots of

people who would say, we don't want to give more powers to Brussels, but

we don't want to leave, either. I happen to think we want to get

powers back from Brussels, so we have a very simple proposition at

the next election, which is that the Conservatives, we now know, are the

only party that can deliver a referendum. UKIP say they want a

referendum but can't deliver it. All that a vote for UKIP will do is

increase the chances of Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister. The Lib

Dems say they don't what a referendum at all. It is dead

straight at the election. If you are in favour of a referendum, the only

party that can deliver that is a vote for the Conservative Party. And

your own Conservative Party chairman told us that only 6% of the British

people think it is the most important issue facing Britain

today. You are banging on as a Tory obsession on an issue of which the

British people don't regard it is that important. Of course, it is one

issue among many that are important for the future of the country. You

are not giving us a referendum on the 17 issues above it in the list

on the pole. -- the poll. But this is the sort of issue that you would

put to a referendum, in the same way that independence for Scotland is

the sort of issue you would put to a referendum. The Scottish people

voted for a national government, so that is clearly important to the

people of Scotland. Even UKIP, who wants to leave Europe, their policy

is not just to leave Europe, it is immediately to have a referendum. So

there is a perfectly reasonable argument for referendum. Lord

Ashcroft says that the promised referendum is a sideshow. You are

going to give us a referendum anyway. I think that resolving our

relationship with the European Union is a perfectly reasonable task for a

government to do, amongst many other tasks. And that is what an elected

majority Conservative government will do. Of course we have to

continue turning around the economy, and of course there are

many other areas of work that we have been working very hard on, that

are as yet unresolved. Youth unemployment is coming down, there

is further to go. But a referendum on Europe, you could be guaranteed

that we are the only party that can deliver that. You might hear a bit

more of that point over the year ahead! Finally, Angela Eagle, on the

matter of a referendum on Europe, there is, I'm right in saying, no

difference between you now and the Lib Dems? I think there is a

narrower... We have always agreed with the Liberal Democrats that

Britain's future is best in Europe for strategic reasons, reasons of

the economy. But you are now the same on how and when and under what

circumstances we would have a referendum? I think that we are

closer together with the Liberal Democrats on that. There is no

difference. But what we are not doing is putting in a huge amount of

uncertainty, banging on about Europe, uncertainty for business, by

having an arbitrary date for referendum. There is uncertainty

because your policy is incomprehensible. It is absolutely

clear. There is no difference between you and the Lib Dems now on

the matter of a referendum? No. We are clearly both pro-European

parties who want to give the British people a say.

Thank you all very much. The interim Prime Minister of

Ukraine is travelling to Washington today to discuss the ongoing

stand-off with Russia over Crimea. Moscow is showing no signs of

backing down despite pressure from the West. David Cameron warned this

week of further consequences if Moscow tries to use an independence

referendum in Crimea this Sunday to strengthen its hold over the region.

Yesterday I spoke to Ukraine's ambassador to London, Volodymyr

Khandogiy, and asked him if he accepted that Crimea was on the way

to becoming part of Russia. We are determined to continue our

efforts with our partners and friends to prevent Russia from doing

this. Angela Merkel and David Cameron have

said that if the referendum which looks highly likely seals the

annexation of Crimea to Russia, there would be consequences. What

would Vladimir Putin listen to in terms of consequences?

Putin and Russia is a nuclear weapon state and posturing itself as a

super power so it's difficult to draw a list of the actions which

Russia will be willing to take, but we still have to exert pressure on

Russia, not only in the economic area, but there are other,

political, diplomatic and even military, the use of force should be

considered at this stage. Military action seems unlikely. The

consequences, the West seemed to have made it clear that that would

be probably off the table or at least a last resort, but in terms of

economics, David Cameron famously once said in regard to the Georgia

conflict that if Russians marched into Georgia he would stop them

marching into sell bridges. Do you -- Selfridges. Do you think David

Cameron is prepared to put his money where his mouth is in regard to

Ukraine? It would make the West to realise that without targeted, but

very strong economic pressure, Russia would not stop what it's

doing. But as you mentioned, military response, of course, this

is a very lylikely thing and no-one would like it. No-one. In the first

place in Ukraine, no-one would like it. But, again, what we are facing

now is the blatant violation and very serious situations, which

amounts to aggression. If Russia continues to ignore the West what

happened? -- what happens? Do you end up with some sort of stand

gorilla we're -- guR Rhyl la -- guerilla warfare? There is a real

poght of further escalation of the -- possibility of further escalation

of the troubles in Crimea and we would like to avoid that escalation,

but the country that has to stop it and that has to avoid it in the

first place the further escalation is Russia. All of us, western

countries, EU, has to work very hard and demonstrate strength in face of

the Russian invasion. On that basis, Matt Hancock, how much strength

should the Government be showing? He talked about the military option. Is

that true? I think it's absolutely vital to try to de-escalate this

crisis and that's been the goal of the Government throughout. That

does, of course, involve considering economic and targeted sanctions.

Military is off the table? There is no way that will happen? We have

been trying throughout to de-escalate the crisis. Terms of

economic sanctions, how far should the Government go, because so far

it's proven totally useless in terms of persuading Vladimir Putin to back

down? Think one of the -- I think one of the moments at which he took

a pause was when the stock market opened and it fell 10% last Monday.

I think you can see the impact of economic consequences, even though

that wasn't as a direct consequence of action. It was temporary, because

it pulled back and recovered? Who knows what the reasons for that are,

because they may have seen at that point the conflict

December-escalating. It wasn't direct action from the West or

Government that forced his hand. What would? We have been absolutely

clear that we are happeny to consider and meet -- need to

consider further consequences, not least as the ambassador said, should

this - What are they? What would do it? You've got the referendum on

Sunday and after Sunday unless things change dramatically, Crimea

goes back to Russia. As you said in interviewing the ambassador, there

are targeted interventions and you will understand why we don't want to

show our hand too early. Should the Government be tougher? Would Labour

be tougher? We supported what they've done and said in the

statement that we had on Monday after the EU council that we were

supportive of what the Government had done, but we don't want them to

take things off the tail. We want them - You would have some sort of

military action? It doesn't help to speculate in diplomatic terms about

what consequences might be. What you have to do is do the work to ensure

that you can create a proper united approach among NATO and the allies

around and that's going on, but I think that Putin isn't going to be

worried by us stopping indulliging in -- indulging about talks or not

going to Sochi or the G8. It's not going to do it, so I think we need

to put in place a situation where the crisis can be de-escalated, but

at the same time we have to ensure that the NATO allies are in step

with each other. It's a gross violation of international law and

the treaties that they've signed with the Ukraine. It can't go

unpunished and I think the Prime Minister's going to have to think

about other actions that are slightly more serious than stopping

talks about visas. It's clear that's not going to make a difference. We

had a Russian journalist on yesterday. He said Putin doesn't

care. I don't think the leak from Downing Street saying we wouldn't

consider sanctions, that photograph of the briefing paper that went into

the National Security Council was very helpful. That did weaken us,

did it? I don't think a part of a photographed piece of paper is an

indication of the Government's position. Well, is it not? It's very

clear. William Hague is very clear in response to questions about that

that half a photographed piece of paper from one official, no matter

how senior, is not an indication of the Government's position. You'll

understand why, when considering what further action to take,

especially because of the importance to get the international dimension

of this, linking with the Germans and the French and the Americans in

terms of response, in particular and others, that's why we are not

speculating about what further action is and could be taken.

Actually, we are getting on with getting to a position when we can

make sure that those consequences do follow. A lot of German members of

Parliament in Angela Merkel's party made it clear they were worried

about the economic impact. How nervous is the City here about

action that might harm interests? Obviously, there has been volatility

in the markets. We have had poor diplomatic relations in the past

with Russia and traders have continued. The question is how

targeted too. Targeting individuals as opposed to trade across the board

and how to strike that balance is an important question. Of course,

that's one consideration, especially for some of the other countries

involved, as you mentioned. We have to make sure that it is absolutely

made clear to President Putin that this is un cceptable behaviour and

the cross-party consensus on this is strong. Happy birthday the interweb.

Yes, it's been over 25 years since Tim Berners Lee hooked up the

fastest-growing medium of all time, the World Wide Web. He didn't

actually invent the internet. That's apparently entirely different, but

without the web there would be no Twitter, Facebook or talking cats

and worst of all, you would have to write in with your Guess the Year

entry instead of emailing. To a tribute to the invention that

changed the world we are going to transmit to the winner an

interactive 2D version. Mug. It will be beamed straight to your desk top.

We are going to e-mail you a picture of one and we'll chuck in the real

-- real one in the post by snail mail. We'll see if you can remember

when this happened. # Your eyes have promised sweet

love... # We do not retreat. We are not

content to stand still. MUSIC

# He was a top man at his craft # But then his number came up with

the draft... # # Pardon me boy is that the

Chatanooga... # They've declared they're making war

upon you. Taking us back a bit. To be in with

a chance of winning the mug, send your answer to our special quiz

e-mail address: You can see the full terms and conditions on the website.

Coming up to midday. We'll look at Big Ben. It's behind me. There it

is. Prime Minister's questions is on its way. If you would like to

comment you can e-mail us. You can also tweet your thoughts. What's

that I hear you cry, where is Nick Robinson? The whole nation wants to

know that. He's taking advantage of the spring sunshine and he's with

the daffodils in St James' Park. We are joined by another big man, The

Telegraph's Ben Brogan. He's never been seen with the daffodils on a

spring morning. Where we come on to questions today, what so far has

been the immediate fallout of Mr Miliband's new policy on the

referendum in Europe? It seems to be a degree of argument whether it's a

policy and clear and precise, or whether there is confusion to it.

Whether there will be a referendum or there isn't if Labour win. I

think he's having to manage his way through that. There will be if

there's going to be treaty change, there won't be if there isn't treaty

change? It seems to be a policy that's cake and eat it. He bants to

sound -- he wants to sound like he's going to have a referendum and also

reassuring everyone he wouldn't have a referendum. He has set the exam

question and provided the answer. He wants those who might be thinking

about whether or not to vote Labour to be assured he does believe in a

referendum. It sounds a bit opportunistic. It doesn't sound

clear. Really? Triangular, that has never happened before! Hard to

believe! The Mirror had a strange headline this morning. Almost

implying he's going to give you a referendum, which is very different

from the FT headline, in which the article appeared - surely, it was

the Mirror headline that was the misleading? I wouldn't dare to

suggest that the Mirror is into misleading headlines. Ed Miliband is

trying to develop a policy that can be all things to all people and

suits him given the moment. He wants us to think that he might offer a

referendum, while also saying there won't be a referendum. That doesn't

sound clear. It's perfectly clear as I explained before, if circumstances

arise in which powers are transferred to the EU and the then

Labour Government agrees with that, there will be an in/out referendum.

Only a vote for the Conservatives can deliver you a referendum. Did I

say it before? I'm going to say it again. We'll give you a tenner every

time you say it. We'll be rich. I would suggest that that means to use

Mr Miliband's own words, a referendum under Labour is unlikely?

Because I think it is unlikely that Mr Miliband is going to agree to

something that would be deeply unpopular in this country, which

would be the further moving of powers from the UK to Brussels?

Indeed. He seems to be posing a hypothetical question, because he

says it's unlikely to happen. What is more telling is that it indicates

to us the extent to which party policy for all is being driven by a

view of Europe that wants to put Britain in a position to be able to

opt to leave Europe. It's the euro scepticism of politics which is

driving all the political leaders and UKIP is contributing to that,

which has forced Labour's hands and David Cameron's hands and Nick

Clegg's hands. It is true that in the last election the Labour Party

stood on a referendum only on joining the euro. Not anything else.

Doesn't what he said this morning, the Conservatives I understand are

quite happy with it, because Mr Farage has said that Ed Miliband

would promise a referendum too, similar to the Tories. The box has

been -- Mr Farage's fox has been shot. Only the Tories will deliver

now? That policy applies and it is the case at the moment. It's only

the Conservative Government that is guaranteed to deliver a referendum

on whether or not Britain should continue to be a member of the EU.

There's no doubt about that. What we need to keep remind ourselves is

about, on the current polls the chances of the Conservatives being

in office is still a matter for debate and the fact is we can talk

about a referendum all we like, but the statistical outcome suggests we

are not going to get one. That's why we are pouring over what Ed Miliband

has to say, because if it isn't the Tories it will be him, so we like to

know what he's going to do. What is Harriet Harman going to say? Don't

answer that, because we're going over now.

I wish to congratulate Team GB at the Sochi Games. I have had meetings

with ministerial colleagues and others, and I will have further such

meetings today. Our congratulations to Kelly

Gallagher, from Northern Ireland, who won the first medal. Mr Speaker,

given rising racism and xenophobia, including recent racist attacks in

my own east Belfast can is chintzy, what more can Government do to

ensure that the public debate on issues such as EU membership and

immigration are more balanced and celebrate the positive contribution

of immigrants in the run-up to the election? I agree with her, we need

to strike the right balance between explaining to the public that we are

running a tough but firm immigration system but also open to those who

want to come here and make a contribution and pay their taxes and

contribute to our way of life. I was deeply saddened and shocked to hear

about the incidents that happened to members of the Polish and Chinese

community in her constituency, and even more so what has happened to

her colleague. I understand that the first Chinese Minister in Europe is

being subject to racist abuse, and I rang her a few weeks ago to express

my support. Since a ?700 tax cut, free school meals and the pupil

premium will improve the opportunities and lives of many of

my constituents, even though these ideas were not entirely welcome to

some among our coalition partners, will he welcomed the fact that

coalition Government and the compromises that go with it can

deliver sound policies? I strongly agree with him,

especially on those policies. And one of them, as he will know, is in

the papers this morning because of the slightly in X bookable views of

an entirely unknown if highly opinionated -- inexplicable views of

a former member. Free school meals from September will save families

money and improve education for children. We should be celebrating

the policy. I would like to join the deputy and

in paying tribute to sap that either morally from 32 engineer Regiment --

Adam Morely, and pay tribute to his family and friends who mourn him.

And I also congratulate our Paralympic medal winners. Mr

Speaker, at the last general election, the Deputy Prime Minister

said that local people should have more control over their health

services. Can he explain to the House and the public while last

night he voted against that? Actually, we voted for measures to

make sure that there is local consultation. I am intrigued by her

line of enquiry, given their record in the NHS. We don't seem to get any

further than what is happening in Wales, where they haven't met their

target since 2009. I really don't think after the Francis Report and

all of the other revelations of what happened in the NHS under Labour,

they have much to stand on. He is not even prepared to justify what he

spoke about last night, when the Lib Dems could have stepped in and stop

it what happened. First they said they were against the change, then

they put down an amendment, then they sold out to the Tories, and the

Tories got their way again. Is there any logic to how the Lib Dems vote

other than self-interest? Mr Speaker, this from a party that

spent a quarter of ?1 billion, ?250 million, on sweetheart deals for the

private sector, which alleged operations and procedures which

didn't help a single patient. A party which ranks in Wales against

competition in the NHS, a party which suffers from collective

amnesia about the terrible suffering of the patients in Mid Staffs and

other parts of the NHS mismanaged by them. Hospitals are under threat and

they want people to remember what the deputy prime ministers said in

the House today. Last week Lib Dem ministers were falling over

themselves at their spring conference to denounce government

policies and even their own departmental colleagues, describing

them variously as unfair, absurd and hated. Yet they keep supporting

them, take the bedroom tax. His own party president says the bedroom tax

is wrong, unnecessary and causing misery. But they voted for it. Now

they say they want to abolish it. Are they for the bedroom tax against

it? Which is it? Mr Speaker, there are 1.7 million

people on the housing waiting list in the country, and 1.5 million

spare bedrooms. That is a problem we inherited, like so many problems,

from them. On this side of the House, we are trying to sort out the

mess that they created. If they are incapable of taking any

responsibility or expressing any apology for the mess they have

created, why should we take any of their questions seriously at all?

They are for it, and only Labour will scrap the bedroom tax. The Lib

Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury said cutting the top rate of tax

would be cloud cuckoo land. If the Lib Dems were against this tax cut,

why did they vote for it? Guess what the top rate of tax was under

Labour. Anybody? Anybody? Was at 50? Was it 45? 40p for 13 years! And

now she is complaining it 5p higher. If she is going to try to make

consistency of virtue, how about this? This week the Labour Party has

been talking about the need to give young people jobs opportunities.

Last week they tabled an amendment to the Deregulation Bill which will

tell half a million young apprentices that they are no longer

apprentices. And worse than that, they issued a report a few months

ago that says that hundreds of thousands of youngsters on level two

apprentices are dead weight. What a kick in the teeth for the young

people we should be helping onto apprenticeships. We will have a

bankers bonus tax for youth jobs, because youth unemployment has

doubled. THE SPEAKER: There is far too much

noise. People ought to be able to hear the questions and hear the

answers. Whether members respect each other, they ought to respect

the public. Harriet Harman. Long-term youth unemployment has

doubled under his government, and with so many people struggling to

make ends meet, and many driven to relying on food banks, it is an

absolute disgrace that the Lib Dems voted through a tax cut for the

richest. Mr Speaker, on Sunday, the Deputy Prime Minister shared with us

everything he loves about Britain. He loves his cup of tea. He loves

the shipping forecast. And he loves flip-flops. Not so much footwear for

the Debbie Prime Minister, but certainly a way of life. -- the

Deputy Prime Minister. With his posturing... With his broken

promises and posturing, doesn't he relies that he might love written,

but Britain doesn't love him back. The punch line was a long time in

the delivery, and it wasn't really worth waiting for. I know she

doesn't want the facts to get in the way of a preprepared joke, but how

about this? Youth unemployment is lower now than it was in her last

year in office. 1 million more people in relative poverty then than

there are now. 150,000 people more employed now. What we know is that

they are the party of 40p. They are the Porteous sweetheart deals for

the private sector and the NHS. They are the party of Fred Goodwin. And

now they are the party against apprenticeship Crewe. Mr Speaker, he

is siding with the Tories and totally out of touch. So whatever

was said last weekend, no one is going to be fooled by the Lib Dems'

phoney rows with the Tories when they are trotting through the

lobbies with them. They used to dog about two parties

coming together in the national interest. Now they are two parties

bound together by mutual terror of the electorate.

Mr Speaker, however she wishes to characterise things, she has a

record which she needs to defend room and bust, of sucking up to the

City... THE SPEAKER: Order! The deputy prime

and as to's response must be heard. A record of increasing youth

unemployment and bequeathing to this generation the country's worst

peacetime deficit ever. Is that really a record that she is proud

of? As ever, we are clearing up the mess that she left behind.

Mr Speaker, the Government's response to the recent storm damage

to help fishermen and restore the link to Dawlish is appreciated, but

the vital transport links to the Isles of Scilly and its damage has

largely gone unnoticed, not something local authorities can

resolve on their own. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that

delegations can meet the appropriate ministers so that we can seek to

support for a long-term and resilient solution to this problem?

I visited his constituency to see for myself and here for myself the

damage done to many communities by the terrible floods and the extreme

weather in recent times, and I know how long he has been campaigning on

this issue. I will ensure that that meeting does take place with the

relevant Minister. We should also extend condolences to

the family and friends of Bob Crow. The Secretary of State for defence

has issued a ministerial correction where he corrects the full third

that there was no measurable change in the radiation discharge at HMS

Vulcan near Dounreay. Does he agree that the Ministry of Defence should

be fully answerable to the Scottish environmental protection agency? I

would also like to express my condolences to the family and

friends of growth. Whether you agreed with him or not, he had

forthright views and worked tirelessly for what he believed in

and the people he represented. On the issue of Dounreay, the Ministry

of Defence sought to be as open as possible. It is important that all

of us work together in order to ensure that the nuclear deterrent is

managed and maintained safely, and that is exactly what everyone is

seeking to do. We now know that the Leader of the Opposition is opposed

to an EU referendum and won't deliver one. The Deputy Prime

Minister is opposed to an EU referendum and won't deliver one.

The leader of the UKIP party wants an EU referendum, but can't deliver

one. The Prime Minister wants an EU referendum and will deliver it by

2017. Would the stand-in Prime Minister tell the House which of the

party leaders trust the British people and is a real Democrat? As

ever, a pleasure. I'm glad to see he has fans on the other side of the

House too. Since he mentions my right honourable friend, the Prime

Minister, let me quote what he said a couple of years ago at this

Despatch Box when we voted together. "My clear view it is when this

Parliament proposes to give up powers there should be a referendum.

That is the guarantee we have written into law. It is important we

establish clear use for the -- rules for the use of referendums." That is

remains my view. That's what we legislated on. A recent survey of

the TUC reckoned that 67% of hard-working people working in the

private industry will not get a rise this year. How does that square with

the fat cats in the banks getting the big bonuses? The richest in

society are paying more in every year of this Parliament than they

did under any year under Labour. It was his party that let the bankers

run amuck and the party of Fred Goodwin that went on a prawn

cocktail offensive to suck up to them and they wiped off so much of

the value of the British economy it amounts to ?3,000 lost to every

household in the United Kingdom. Is that a record he's proud of? Does

the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the measures that have been

announced so far have had no impact on President Putin? They are

refusing to negotiate with the Ukraine Government and continue to

strengthen their hold on crime? Will the Government press the targeted

economic sanctions against senior members of the Government there and

their supporters in order to reinforce the message that the

annexation of Crimea is unacceptable and is wholly in breach of

international law. I'm sure my honourable friend speaks for

everybody on all sides when we says that we should seek to do everything

to deter the Russians from making the situation any worse, but also

de-escalate and that is why it's terribly important we work together

with our American allies and with countries across the EU and to use

the collective clout of the EU, political and economic, to set out

as we have done a ratchet of sanctions which can be and will be

deployed if de-escalation doesn't happen. Starting, I stress this, I

hope have soon with Russian agreement to enter into contact

talks. On his party's recent defeat by the bus pass Elvis candidate can

his message be summarised by par phrasing the words of a song, "You

ain't nothing but a lap dog." ? Mr Speaker, at least we are not the lap

dog of the bankers, which is what Labour was in office. At least we

didn't crash the British economy. At least we didn't cost every household

?3,000. At least we didn't preside over an increase in relative poverty

and youth unemployment. We are creating a stronger economy and

fairer society that his party failed to do. The Deputy Prime Minister

will be encouraged that the economy is growing faster than expected,

showing the value of this Government's long-term economic

plans. Does he share my satisfaction that it's been achieved through a

resurgence in manufacturing, with companies such as those in my

constituency who have more than doubled in size over the past three

years and are investing in a new ?65 square foot factory in Rugby? I

strongly agree with him. By sticking to the plan, despite all the

overtures from the members opposite to abandon it, we have provided

growth that otherwise would not have taken place. In the car sector we

have seen spectacular success. There is now a vehicle rolling off a

British production line every 20 seconds. We are producing more cars

than ever before. The party opposite presided over decline in

manufacturing, three times as great as what happened in the 1980s. Last

week, my constituents elected a new Labour councillor. Does the Deputy

Prime Minister think it was his party's support for the bedroom tax,

the trebling of tuition fees, unfair cuts to the poor families or

betrayal of the NHS which led them to put bus pass Elvis ahead of the

Liberal Democrats? Putting bus pass Elvis aside for one moment, which I

admit was a novel experience for us as it was for the people of Clifton,

I am wondering did the Labour candidate admit to how much they had

cost every household in Clifton? Did they admit they allowed the bankers

to run amuck in 2008? Did they admit to the fact they were the party that

crashed the British economy? Did anyone on the doorstep apologise to

the people who are the -- for what the Labour Party did to this

country? The Cotswolds is a very special place because of the

stewardship and planning, yet in the last year this is threatened because

of the number of applications for new houses amounting to thousands.

What can my right honourable friend friend do to help resolve this? I

know he feels very strongly about this and there are of course strong

planning protections in place for areas of outstanding natural beauty

and it's some of the country's most important treasures. The framework

makes clear that great weight should be given to conserving areas of

outstanding natural beauty, which have the highest levels of

protection and we announced last week, that areas of outstanding

beauty and national parks will be excluded from new legislation

allowing agriculture buildings to be converted to housing without the

need for application. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that if the

independent review body on Health Service staff pay recommends an

increase the Government will accept that advice or will they freeze the

pay of some of the lowest earners in the NHS for yet another year? We

will make the announcement shortly about the views on the pay review

body recommendations. We want to protect what is the highest number

of nurses employed in the NHS since the NHS was founded. We need to make

sure the NHS continues to employ more rather than the few you are

clinical staff that are employed under Labour to ensure that patients

get the best possible treatment under the NHS. On Monday South

Korean newspapers said that North Korea was due to execute 33 people

for having had contact with a Christian missionary. Given that

there are 250,000 people in prison camps, would the Deputy Prime

Minister urge the BBC World Service to use its existing transmitters to

broadcast into North Korea, especially as more and more North

Koreans have access to radios? He raises a very important issue and as

he knows our embassy in Pyongyang continues to engage critically with

the regime to ensure that there are as many opportunities for dialogue

as possible, including information coming into the country. The BBC

World Service is operationally independent and I understand at the

end of last year they decided that they couldn't continue to offer an

effective and affordable Korean language service. That is a matter

for them itself. One of my constituents died after GPs failed

to uncover her cancer. There are many other who are trying to get

appointments and they are victims too of the dep Prime Minister's

shameless, spineless cap titchlation to the Tories on the NHS? It was his

party that wasted a quarter of a billion of money on deals with the

private sector to undermine the NHS on tariffs which the NHS could not

meet for operations which weren't delivered. Why can't he tell the

House why he tabled the amendment just last week to tell 500,000

youngsters that they can no longer be called apprentices. We stand up

for fairness, we stand up for a strong NHS, he doesn't. Has the

Deputy Prime Minister read the testimony in yesterday's tribunal in

Wales? Does he has sympathy with people with less access to drugs and

does he agree it's the time to give them the opportunity to access the

services. I was appalled and I'm sure everybody would be about the

experiences of one of the honourable gentleman's constituents. In Wales,

the NHS run by Labour, 33% of patients wait more than eight weeks

to access dying no, sir ticks. -- dying no, sirrics. In England it's

only 1%. I think the comparison speaks for itself. This week marks

three years since the bloodshed began in Syria. More than 2.5

million people have fled the country and the dead can no longer even be

counted. We must all bear responsibility for or shameful

famure to intervene, but they are the ones running the country. What

we -- what renewed effort will his Government make to end the slaughter

before all hope fails? He knows my own views. I felt there was a case

for intervention at the time when we voted on this. His party voted

against it, but if he wants to speak with his own party leadership on

that matter he's more than welcome. I agree, the humanitarian

catastrophe there is of an unimaginable scale. We must do

everything we can to help. That is why I think I'm right in saying,

that our humanitarian effort is now the largest this country has ever

delivered. Why also the Home Secretary and others in Government

are now administering in conjunction with the UN a new programme where we

allow the most destitute and desperate refugees some refuge in

this country as well. During the recent floods, the Prime Minister

announced grants of ?5,000 for those homes flooded to put in flood

defence measures in their homes. You can imagine the disappointment then

of people from the 1,000 homes in my constituency who were only flooded

18 months prior who got no such support. Will he look at this policy

with the Prime Minister to see whether the same grants can be made

available to those people who were flooded too? Of course, I will do

so. As someone who witnessed the terrible flooding in my own

constituency some years ago, flooding can hit different parts of

the country in different ways and we must, as we adapt to this new very

difficult reality, we must make sure we build up resilience in all parts

of the country and provide assistance as fully as we can across

the country too. The honourable member for Westmorland agrees with

me that the hated bedroom tax is caing misery for those affected.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the President of his party or

is friend -- or his friend the Prime Minister? I think and everybody

thinks that we need to deal with this mismatch between large numbers

of people on the housing waiting list, something her party never did

anything to address in 13 years and the fact there are a large numbers

of spare bedrooms which are not being used. Her Government presided

over the change which we are now delivering in the social rented

sector in the private sector. She needs to explain why they want to

support the change in one part and not the other. Portsmouth FC made

history by becoming the UK's largest 100% community buyout. Today, many

clubs face an uncertain future due to lack of financial transparency,

opaque F rules and a structure that promotes irresponsibility in

business and doesn't promote sporting excellence in a woman's

team. We need to lessons, the Select Committee's report and the work of

Supporters Direct and act to protect the interest of clubs, their fans

and ultimately the national game? I certainly agree. I think fans across

the country feel this is a really important issue. We can't just have

big-money hollowouts of the game that everyone loves. I know somes

something that the Secretary of State for culture, media and sport

is looking at on an on going basis and I urge her to take up this

issue. I think it's something we need to keep a close eye so that

sports clubs large and small can thrive in the country. There are

reports that the Department for Work and Pensions is proposing stopping

paying benefits into the Post Office card account. Does the Deputy Prime

Minister support that policy? I don't think it's true and I will

certain confirm it with him, but that's not something which I'm aware

of. Last Thursday 16-year-old Sam from Romsey collapsed in a school PE

lesson. One of the reasons he's still alive is bought the excellent

school already had a defibrillator. They've ordered two more. What steps

is he prepared to take to encourage more schools to have them and will

he command the work of the foundation who have been leading the

way on this issue? I certainly and I'm sure many honourable members

across the House have also come across this issue in schools and

sporting clubs and other recreational facilities in their

constituencies. There are some great organisations. They promote the need

to make them more available and I certainly think we should all work

with the campaign groups to raise the profile of this important issue.

The average nursery cost is now higher than the average mortgage.

Childcare costs have risen five times faster than wages since the

election. Given that we are expecting his long-awaited tax-free

child scare scheme to be announced, can I ask him what discussions he

has had about relationships of this scheme with universal credits and

the cliff edges it creates? What assessment he has made of this

scheme and its impact on price inflation? She raises a very

important issue. As it happens, childcare costs have come down in

England, but they go up in Labour-run Wales. We must do all we

can to help parents and families with the costs, that's why we are

delivering 15 hours of free childcare to all three and

four-year-olds in the country and for the first time ever to

two-year-olds for the most deprived families. You are right, we need to

do more, that's why we will announce the details of the tax-free

childcare offer which will benefit many, many families with the very

high costs across the country. The study end of Deputy Prime

Minister's Questions. Harriet Harman chose areas such as the closure of

accident and emergency, taking away local control from hospitals. She

then moved onto the bedroom tax, which she thought wasn't that

popular among Lib voters. She then moved on to why the live donors had

agreed to cut the top rate of tax to 45p. -- why the Lib Dems had agreed.

Many of you have been saying that Nick Clegg sounded just like David

Cameron when he answered these questions. Viewers were not overly

impressed by the performance on either side. This from a viewer:

Harriet Harman didn't answer a single question, she just made short

speeches. Helen Manning said, Harriet reads the script and Nick

Eaves the answers. I never thought I would want David Cameron back. Alan

says Mr Clegg will need a much better show when he meets Nigel

Farage in April's debates. Poor performance, says Geoffrey J. I hope

this isn't the future of the Nick Clegg /Nigel Farage debate.

Given that we have that debate coming up, what did we learn that of

Mr Clegg's performance? He faces a continuing difficulty, which is, is

he proud to be part of the coalition or angry or embarrassed about it? He

has always argued that come election day, voters would give him credit

for doing things that were unpopular as part of a coalition. Of course

his party are very anxious about that, and you often hear them

complaining about the Tories because they want to create distance. What

was telling was the way Labour MPs clearly had a strategy for the half

hour which was to stick it to Nick Clegg at every opportunity the idea

that he is a friend of David Cameron and is collaborating with him.

Kingussie Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman sitting around the same table

after that? -- can you see? The obvious answer is that we are going

for a majority! I am glad to be so boring and predictable. But why did

Harriet Harman not say anything about Bob Crow? I have no idea. I

tweeted yesterday about Bob Crow when I found out the sudden news. He

wasn't a Labour person. He wasn't a Labour member. He was a very

effective trade union leader, and I think Ed put out a tribute to him

yesterday. Due think she just forgot? I have no idea. And it fell

to a Scottish National Party raise it. I think everybody was shocked

with Bob's sudden death. What did you make of Nick Clegg's

performance? He spent a lot of time pointing out the flaws of the last

Labour government, and explaining that the argument at the start, two

parties coming together in the national interest. But he also

pointed out all the things that have been achieved on the things Harriet

Harman asked about, the fact that there waiting list times are down,

more nurses and doctors. But in the chamber, especially if you are the

Lib Dem leader, you have got to make the coalition argument, because you

have a bank of Tory MPs behind you, and you need that support. The funny

thing was watching George Osborne's face, because he didn't know where

to look, and he wasn't necessarily agreeing with what the deputy was

saying. Especially the bus pass and Elvis stuff. He was going to

explode. But everybody was laughing, because they did come fifth behind

the bus pass Elvis party. Hasn't Nick Clegg with that performance

flown in the face of everything that his tactic has been in recent

months? The tactics of the Lib Dems from Mr Clegg down has been what

they call aggressive differentiation, that they go out of

their way to pick issues where they are different from the Tories, and

they attack the Tories. Danny Alexander at the weekend said there

would be no increase in the threshold for paying income tax if

it hadn't been for the Lib Dems. We had Iain Duncan Smith on immediately

afterwards who totally denied that. But today on PMQs, on network

television, no differentiation at all. It is Deputy Prime Minister's

Questions, not Lib Dem leader's questions. So he is there to

represent the government. And the labour questions will be hostile,

and statistically he gets mainly Tory questions from that side of the

House. What was telling was that he never found a way of turning his

answers into statements about what the Lib Dems have done and what they

hope to do. He never found a way to politicise them, and instead went on

the attack against Labour, and that didn't work. He did have a go at

Dominic Cummings, the special adviser to Michael Gove. And he was

quite personal about it. We are going to have at the election the

unusual position of two parties standing on the same record.

Whatever we set out for the future, the point is that both the Lib Dems

and the Conservatives are going to stand on a record in government. You

support what you have done in government. From our point of view,

the record is increasingly strong. So are there things you are not

proud of? I am proud of everything we have done. And as a government

Minister, I take full responsibility. Fight and fight and

fight again to get you locked to agree to raise the income tax, he

said. I remember reading the pamphlet in 2001 arguing for an

increase in the tax threshold for a Tory manifesto. But it wasn't George

Osborne promising it. Mr Cameron said in 2010, we can't afford it.

No, he said he couldn't afford to promise it. That debate was all

about how you deal with the deficit. Did you resist it or didn't you? I

wasn't in those discussions, but is -- as far as I know, we didn't

resist it, and we are thrilled to put it through because it is a tax

cut for 24 million people. We believe in people having more of

their own money, so to try to argue that people resist a tax cut for 20

formally in people is never going to fly. It was a Lib Dem policy, you

will give them credit for that, surely? Remap it was a coalition

agreement. So Danny Alexander was being economical with the truth when

he said he had to fight it through opposition from the Conservatives? I

don't know why Danny said that. What I do know is that at the election,

we will have cut tax for 25 million people, put more money in their

pockets, which wouldn't have happened under a Labour government.

Increased poverty. There will be a united record on which... Nobody

ever tells Matt finish a sentence, do they?

He is arguing for the coalition to be standing at the next election. I

am saying, no matter what the two different future offers, and ours

will be better, we stand on the same record. But we are the only party

who can deliver a referendum on Europe. Is it not the case that a

lot of conservatives, if there was money around the income tax cuts,

and clearly there was, because raising the threshold cost a tonne

of money, if there was money around to do it, a lot of Tories would like

to have seen the threshold where the 40p rate clicks in raised, because

this is a threshold that originally took in only 1.5 million people, and

has now risen to almost 5 million people. A lot of conservatives are

troubled with the way George Osborne approaches this. They are very

concerned about cuts at the bottom of the income scale, and they are

very concerned about more people being drawn into the 50p rate of

tax. Lets not forget the tax cuts for

millionaires. But it benefits people on the 40p rate as well, because the

change more than offset... More people are paying a higher rate of

tax under the Conservative government, that is one of your

achievements. If you look at national insurance as well, then

adding in the national insurance contributions, as soon as you are

into paying tax at 20p, you have to then adding the national insurance

as well, so the change in the gap between what your employer pays you

and what you take home in your pay packet, there is not much change.

But the focus of the tax cuts has been on people who are working hard.

But do you accept now that the first ?10,000 or so is tax-free, any rise

now doesn't help the poorest any more, because they are not paying

tax. Any rise in that tax threshold is not designed to help the poorest,

and if you really wanted to help the working poor, you should raise the

level where national insurance start, which at the moment you only

have to earn ?5,000 a year before you start paying it. ?10,000 is

still not well paid. The minimum wage, full-time, gets you about

?12,500. So that area is still very much targeted. For millions of

people who are working part-time who would love to earn ?12,500 a year,

they can't get the extra hours. What we need to do is have an economic

recovery that works for working people, not just for those few at

the top. They say they have the fastest recovery of the G-7 country.

And a million more jobs. You are talking about the numbers, but what

I am talking about is underemployment. There are millions

of people who are having a real struggle in this country to make

ends meet who want to work more hours and can't get them. Your tax

cuts are doing nothing to help them. I am talking about the millions of

people who are getting more financial security because of the

way that this works. I am talking about moving on, because this is a

foretaste of the debate we will have next week when it is budget day.

Working forward to it! Ben, thank you very much.

Now, politicians seem to have a rough old time of it. No one likes

them and many voters just can't be bothered. But Kevin Meagher from the

Labour Uncut blog isn't blaming politicians, he's blaming you - yes,

you, the electorate! So should we be dragged kicking and screaming to the

ballot box? Here's his soapbox. Politics and pliions have taken a

bark from the public. For me, it's not always their fault. It's not

just a new politics, but a new electorate. We have become a nation

of the wilful ignorance. We don't understand the decisions taken or

the alternatives and sometimes it feels we don't want to. We don't

follow current affairs like previous generations did. Ignorance isn't so

much bliss as standard these days. According to a recent poll, 47% are

angry with politicians. While 25% of us are bored with them. Only 2% are

inspired. It wasn't always this way. Labour's 1945 election landslide has

been eS described to politically motivated servicemen casting their

votes on behalf of a better world. The idea of voting for a better

world doesn't compute. Politicians therefore try a different tactic.

There is a limit how to dumbed down the system should become. Remember

Gordon Brown proclaiming his love of the Arctic monkies, why can't they

respond by real people? Why not say, "I'm a middle-aged man. I prefer

Radio 4." Then there was Tony Blair dropping his Hs and who can remember

David Cameron on Jonathan Ross's sofa being requested a question I

can't repeat on the BBC. It doesn't work. It's not that I'm not voting

out of apathy, but it's indifference and exhaustion from the political

class that has been going on for generations now. My answer to fixing

this is greater compulsion, or duty is a defining characteristic of

adulthood. Pay attention because it matters, contribute because it adds

to the common good. Vote to put whoever you want in here or face a

fine. Brave words from Kevin. He's with us now. What has been the

reaction to your proposal? We'll come to that of a fine, but first,

saying the electorate is ignorant and not into current affairs. It's

slightly more nuanced. I've had an interesting reaction this morning.

It's ranged from he's right, to the man's a complete idiot and

everything in between. It's good. That's what it should be about.

People are interested in issues and debating things, but they've turned

off party politics and I think it's really bad because there are - there

are limits. There are only other limits. People are interested in

issues, but not in party politics. Isn't that the fault of the system

and politicians who are in it than the people? We the public have got

to take the culpability. We need to do something about it. You look at

membership of political parties. It's fallen off the Clive. We now

have four out of ten adults routinely not voting in jexes. There

is something going wrong. We have -- general elections. There is

something going wrong. We have to look at the way it is practised.

Labour and Ed Miliband think they are going to entice loads more

people to sign up in this era We have the aspiration. Whose fault is

it? I believe that the people are right and when they give us messages

we have to listen and try to change the way we do things. I've been

doing a thing called the People's Politics inquiry where I've talked

to people who have stopped voting and the really interesting thing is

they are engaged in the local community. It's like someone has

unplugged them from party politics and we have to find new ways of

actually engaging with them. I also think it's part of the cynicism of

our age. It's part of the fact that we aren't having big philosophical

arguments about the nature of politics and I also think some

people don't think that they can affect things any more. We have to

re-engage people by having them develop the self-belief that

politics is about changing the way the country works and if you

contribute and you get involved then you'll be able to help. The message

is not getting through. Do you think a level of conpull shun would turn

it -- cople pull shun would turn -- come plunges turn it around? I don't

think so. If people have a strong view one way are the other and vote

to express that view, that is different to abstaining, by staying

at home. The world has changed in so many ways, especially to allow

people to pick and mix in many parts of their life and a party political

system inevitably presents packages rather than individual sections. I

strongly agree with the point that people aren't engaged. They are

engaged in issues and wanting to change individual things, but where

that traditionally would have led to engagement in a party package - The

choice isn't there. If they don't like the three parties or the five,

they don't vote? There are hundreds of parties. There is an abundance.

The day after the general election either the leader of the

Conservative Party or Labour Party will be Prime Minister. That is just

a fact. We can talk - perhaps we should change the system, but to

paraphrase Churchill this is the least worst system that we have. The

issue is we can reform politics and we should have weekend voting and

electronic voting. Shut the country down for a weekend and say it

matters. We should stop running elections on a Thursday to suit

Civil Servants. It came out strongly in my inquiry. Lots of people said

this morning there should be a box on the ballot paper saying, "None of

the above." I agree with that. That is a kind of informed opposition to

the system. There should be a suggestions box too. Do you accept

that compulsory voting will not happen here? The parties don't

embrace this, but all we are seeing is a system that is diminishing. We

have to revive the way that we reach out as political parties to

communities and that's what we are doing in the Labour Party. We are

doing it with the community development work we are doing, and

we are the only party that has put members on since 2010. We have got

big aspirations to do so with the changes we made last week. Thank

you, Kevin. Imagine you are an MP. I've done it. It's Wednesday. It is,

you know. You've slipped on your tie, your marine jumper and suit

jacket. You've got - I'm not wearing a tie. I'm talking about him. You

check your phone and you realise you've not been invited on to the

Daily Politics, so you truth off to Prime Minister's questions, but with

all the noise in the chamber do you annoy the MPs on the other side?

Here is Giles with our top five tips for getting up the opposition's

nose. There's always the good old-fashioned heckle which isn't

picked up by the microphones, but can be by a bat-erred Speaker. If

one minister is heckling another you yourself Mr Hancock are undergoing

an apprenticeship to become a statesman but I think there are some

years to run. Order, order. If things get really Badu can always

walk. The Lib Dems followed Ed Davey when he was eventually kicked out of

the chamber back in 2008. Why, because they wanted a referendum on

the UK's membership of the E. How times change. Just like in space,

no-one can hear you scream. Why not adopt a visual gesture to wind up

your opposite nun, but be careful you don't strie to a salute and you

are left high and dry when the economy isn't flight lining at all.

Or you can take a tip from your colleagues from the House of Lords

and opt for another type of hand gesture altogether and they say the

Lords is a more gentile sort of place. Or, adopt a form of attack

that's both silent and deadly. Yes, it's Angela ekele and her chilling

combination of a pointed finger and a paralysing death stare. She later

tweeted, "Hashtag power of silence." Do it again. I can do it again. Who

were you staring at? The Prime Minister's PPS who was yelling nasty

things at Ed during his questions and we were all trying to be quiet.

He shut up. Was he frightened? I think he was very frightened. Be

very afraid. That lasted 12.6 seconds. I think it trended on

Twitter. You must have done it intentionally? Yes. I'm a chess

player. I grew up being able to stare at things for long amounts of

time. How long have you been practising? 53 years. Is the PPS

still alive? , but he has never yelled at heed. Why were you

heckling one of your coalition ministers? I Wayne. I was -- I

wasn't. I was making a comment at the member wanting to be a Shadow

Chancellor and I obviously got - I wasn't saying that Joe Swinson

didn't want it. How did you feel when you were ticked off by the

speaker? I thought it was an amusing put-down. You have to take the rough

with the smooth. And you weren't shouting at Joe Swinson? I wasn't,

no. She thought you were. Really? I was having a go. Where is the

jumper? It's warmed up. Just time before we go to give you the answer,

1941, the year FDR was sworn in for a third time. He won a peace ticket

and of course by November he was at war with Japan and then Germany.

Westminster damaged by a bomb that year. Press the button. Hans pB

lesage from Wirral. That's it. Thanks to our guests. The news is on

BBC One. Joe will be back tomorrow at noon with all the big stories. I

am. :