12/05/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Gary Barlow has been

ordered to pay back millions of pounds worth of tax, but should he

be stripped of his OBE for his involvement in a tax avoidance

scheme? Nigel Farage says his party is being

targeted by antifascist groups, but is there really a campaign of

violence against UKIP? We will bring the two sides together in the

studio. Roll over Das Kapitall. Is the new

bestseller Le Capital au Vingt-et-un Siecle a new manifesto for the left?

Come on, these are the issues I know. It is not a leader's voice, is

it? And it might make for a few laughs, but does it matter what

politicians look and sound like? All that in the next hour and with us

for the first half hour today is the comedian Matt Forde. You saw him in

the clip and he used to be an adviser to the Labour Party, so he

knows his political onions. And we won't be making fun of your voice.

Welcome. First the case of Lord Hanningfield who faces a ban from

the House of Lords until the next election and being ordered to pay

back over ?3000 worth of allowances which were wrongly claimed for. This

latest case comes after the once Conservative Peer was sentenced to

nine months in prison in 2011 for fiddling his Parliamentary expenses.

Let's speak to our political correspondent Eleanor Garnier. Let's

talk about the reasons for the wrongly claimed amount of expenses.

Lord Hanningfield was basically caught clocking on to the job,

claiming for his expensive, but not doing any Parliamentary work. This

has come about because of an investigation by the Daily Mirror

that followed the peer around. It wanted to find out how much time he

was spending in the house of lords. In essence you don't get a salary if

you are a peer, but if you turn up and clock in, you can claim ?300 a

day. The idea was to reduce fraud on expenses, make the system more

transparent and honest. But the Daily Mirror found out that

sometimes disappear was turning up for less than 20 minutes a day,

clocking in, turning round and going home. He has tried to appeal this.

But the house of Lords watchdog has said, no, the 11 days they

investigated Lord Hanningfield was only in the House of Commons for a

total of 40 minutes, not enough to make these claims. They asked him

what work he had done across those 40 minutes and he could not point to

any specific work he was meant to have done. They suggested he be

suspended for the maximum amount of one year and he pays back ?3300.

Once he has done that and it comes to 2015 he will be able to return to

the House of Lords? Is that right? That is right. Peers effectively

cannot lose their job in some respects. After the general election

he will be entitled to take his place back in the house of lords.

Today Lord Hanningfield said he admitted it was thoughtless to claim

for the full amounts on those 11 days, but he maintains he thinks the

allowance is basically a salary. He added he only claims for 100 claims

a year, but he says he works every single day of the year. He will

repay some money and go away for a little bit and he will be back in

2015. It was thoughtless, he said, but otherwise this is a salary he

can rightfully claim. If we all turned up, went on the Internet and

then went home, that would be the end of it. He has got a

constitutional role and he is messing about. We are talking about

getting rid of some MPs, why can't we do that with the House of Lords?

People will find it amazing that in this particular instance this man is

going to be able to come back into the house of lords after the next

election and presumably be able to claim that daily allowance again. It

is beyond ridiculous. But think of Lord Archer and others who have even

been to prison and two are still allowed to take their place in the

House of Lords. It would not apply to the House of Commons. The damage

this does to politics in general just reinforces the idea that it is

now in the trough. You would want him kicked out? Yes, if he had any

dignity, he would leave. What about reforming the House of Lords? If it

were elected, people would be able to have a say in it. I'm not

convinced about having an elected house myself, really. The time has

come to elect people in a different way, but the danger is you would get

one party dominating the Commons and also the Lords, so it would not

provide the function it is meant to provide. I can't understand how you

would get neutrality. What about the allowance? Would you keep this daily

allowance that you get literally for turn it up? Absolutely not. It

should be like an MP's wage. Pop star Gary Barlow found himself

taking a few hits rather than making them after a tribunal ruling that an

investment scheme he had put money into was actually used to just avoid

tax. Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Commons Public Accounts

Committee, called for a bit less take that and a bit more give back,

saying he should show some contrition and return his OBE. This

morning the Prime Minister was asked if he agreed. Margaret Hodge has

suggested Gary Barlow may want to give back his OBE as an act of

contrition, would you support that? I do not think that is necessary. He

has done a huge amount for the country and has raised money for

charity and I am not sure, because the OBE was in respect of that job

that he has done, but it is right they pay back the money. We're

joined by Mark Littlewood from the Institute of Economic Affairs, a

free-market think tank. The Prime Minister said he should pay back the

money. Why shouldn't people who abuse the tax system have the honour

is stripped from them? If he was refusing to pay the money, that

would be different. A lot of the problem is about how complex the tax

system is. I have been looking into what this tax dodge was. It is

because we have got an unbelievably complex loophole that allows you to

invest money in creative industries and right of those losses in tax,

that would encourage this behaviour, it is designed to encourage people

to make losses by supporting movies, and it seems that Gary Barlow and

others are only running losses. He has been found guilty in a court and

it has been found the system went too far, but the only reason the

system exists in the first place is the ridiculous complexity of the

British tax code. It is legal, and I know he has been told to pay back

the money, but this is not an issue of avoidance. What he is doing is

deliberately avoiding tax, he has deliberately run losses in order to

escape paying. Gary Barlow burns tonnes of money. In an era where we

have always had normal jobs and you cannot avoid tax when it is

compulsory to pay it. It is baffling. I avoid tax, I have got an

Isa. But you pay income tax in that. I put more money into my pension

than I otherwise would because of the tax benefits. I buy as much

tobacco as I legally can when I am abroad because it is cheaper to

avoid British tax. The problem is it is not about tax avoidance,

aggressive tax avoidance has not been defined. If you have ever

bought anything from duty-free, that is tax avoidance. It is different

getting the odd, little treat when you come back from holiday? Is it

the millions of pounds or the nature of avoidance? Both. Tax avoidance,

you think that I'd differences in the scale. You probably do the same,

you some of the Government ways of avoiding tax. There

you some of the Government ways of between aggressive tax avoidance and

those taxation is the Government encourages you to do. This was a

scheme the Government encouraged people to do, to encourage very rich

people to invest in the creative industries for a tax break. In a

scheme that is created or could only be created to avoid tax. Is that

right? I would scrap these tax loopholes. It is a deliberate act of

public policy to get rich people to invest money in the creative

industries so they can write losses against tax. So they can help

flourishing talent I'm sure was the incentive. They were set up with the

right principle, to nurture a flourishing, British talent in the

industries. People like Gary Barlow and his accountant realise they can

use it for something else. Barlow should have his OBE stripped for

crimes against music! I will not have a debate about that, put that

to one side. But why should he be stripped of his OBE? I think anyone

who wants one needs their head testing anyway. It is bizarre to

crave another level of status when he has already got so much heaped

upon him. The Prime Minister seems to be reluctant to say his OBE

should be taken from him because of the contribution he has made to

society. He has also failed to make a contribution to society. The

reason why we have a deficit and a Government cutting public services

is because people like Gary Barlow do not pay their fair share. It

would be colossal to our eyes, but it is a drop in the ocean compared

to the overall deficit. I find the honours system preposterous, but if

you are given an honour, you should only have that stripped away if you

are shown to have done your service fraudulently or if you are convicted

of a serious, violent, criminal offence like murder or armed

robbery. This was an extremely complex tax issue. I understand

Barlow and others will repay and that should be the end of it. The

Prime Minister is being accused of being inconsistent because with

Jimmy Carter he said it was morally wrong, but he has not said the same

about Gary Barlow, and critics would say he is a Tory supporter and their

poster boy. It is always a mistake for politicians to comment on

individual cases. I do not want the Prime Minister to decide whether

Gary Barlow is morally right or wrong. The court should decide that,

not politicians on the morality or immorality of tax affairs. Do you

think there should be laws to make some tax avoidance illegal and it

would be clearer, or just not get involved in these cases if they are

not legal? The problem is the law allows it. The only way you could

legally stop it is to effectively closed the loophole. We have got the

longest tax rule book in the world, about 14,000 pages long, seven times

longer than War and peace. If you are going to have a rule book that

long, people will find complex loopholes in it. I don't think you

can get it all onto 14 pages, but that should be the aspiration. When

you build well-intentioned incentives to help the creative

industries, and pages of complexity, you are opening the floodgates to

people who are using them not for the purposes for which they were

designed, but to minimise their tax payments. Let's make it simpler and

flatter. And you would still listen to Gary Barlow's music? I would

never listen to it. UKIP leader Nigel Farage says he's a free spirit

who hates having to be escorted by bodyguards. But he said he needs

protection because anti-fascist groups such as Unite Against Fascism

and Hope Not Hate are acting "violently" at UKIP meetings. Mr

Farage also said that the two groups receive Government money and have

ties to the Labour Party. UAF and Hope Not Hate deny using violence

and UAF say they do not receive taxpayer cash. Here's the UKIP

leader speaking to Andrew on the Sunday Politics yesterday. Sadly, we

have a couple of organisations out there headed up by senior Labour

Party figures who purport to be against fascism and extremism, who

received funding from the department of the communities, who received

funding from trade unions, who have acted in a violent way more than

once. You are saying the Labour Party is behind the threats? I am

saying that Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate are funded. I am

happy for them to come to my meetings and have an argument with

me but it is not so much fun when they are banging you over the head

with banners. That was Nigel Farage and joining us is Weyman Bennett,

joint national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, and Suzanne Evans,

the UKIP communities spokesperson. Welcome. Have any of your members

acted violently or threateningly to Nigel Farage in public? That is

absolutely not the case. We have questioned him. Unfortunately that

is the reality. If you stand as a politician, the public are allowed

to question you. Some of the things he has said, we believe he has

defended homophobic comments as he did yesterday. They said there was a

problem with same-sex marriage. We also believe they are racist. If you

do unpopular things like that then people question you and that is what

has happened. As the questioning being in an intimidating way? Have

members acted aggressively to Nigel freeride? According to opinion

polls, 22% of people ain't UKIP is a racist party. That was not the

question I asked. When they opposed the legitimate questions, did they

do it in an intimidating way or a way which can be seen as aggressive?

I think no. People said they were gay and they were here, and maybe

Nigel finds that intimidating and I think that if the problem with

UKIP. What would you say to that, Suzanne Adams others? Would you like

to attract the allegation? No. The bodyguards tell me a very different

story. This man has been arrested on conspiracy for inciting violence in

the past. 58 of his supporters were arrested en masse last year.

Violence seems to follow this group around whether we like it or not and

I certainly don't like it. On Wednesday night I had seen it all

finally when supporters of this man and his organisation stood up and

assaulted verbally our speakers at a conference on Wednesday night. They

stood up and called a black, 60-year-old, Jewish woman racist.

They called her racist scum and had to be injected from the meeting. I

have seen it all. This group is not antifascist. It is trying to close

down free speech and democracy and does so in a violent way. Let's be

absolutely clear. I don't consider UKIP to be fascist but I believe

them to be pushing racist ideas and pushing the idea that if your

neighbours are Eastern European or black sometimes or Maslin, then

there is a problem with that. The candidates have made a statement.

One said that same-sex marriages have caused floods. Can I finish my

point? Firstly the idea of being verbally assaulted is being

questioned. That is what it is called. If you ask me a question,

that is not verbal assault. It is questioning the nature of my

organisation. I think the idea of pushing division is something we

have to reject and that is part of the problem. We have turned up, gay,

black, from different communities, and questioned Nigel and I don't

believe that his violent. We need to clarify. Verbal assault is not the

same as physical assault. OK, let's talk about physical assault. The man

that hit Nigel Farage over the head with a placard in Margate was a

supporter of Hope Not Hate, closely affiliated with UAF. The same as the

man on bail for a game Nigel Farage at the moment. A supporter of Hope

Not Hate. -- a throwing the egg. Nigel Farage is not as popular as he

would like to be. That is the same for every politician! It does not

mean he deserves that. Nobody has argued he should be assaulted. The

politics of UKIP are encouraging racism and division which I believe

leads to real violence. So why are 12% of the non-white population

voting for UKIP in the country? Why are you not attacking racist

candidates from other parties? We have BNP members in the Labour and

Conservative parties. You have kept silent on that issue. Let's be

clear, UKIP is the only party that has put forward the idea that the

biggest problem facing Britain at the moment is immigration and has

run on that policy to the point where I believe if you ask... Can I

finish? The poll that you reported was also reported that 22% of people

said that UKIP was a racist party. Right, but what about the non-white

candidates that are standing for the party? Why would they be in a racist

party? I believe it is possible, in some sense, and... They are

mistaken. They have made a mistake. Can I finish this one quick point?

When Nigel Farage says that Enoch Powell is his hero... He did not say

that. He never said that. I don't think he ever said that. While we

have the claim and counterclaim, what is your response to the fact

that Nigel Farage things he needs protection? He clearly needs

protection because it does get assaulted and he does need it. The

main problem the left has in campaigning against UKIP and that

UAF have, is they want them to be racist and they want to campaign

against the BNP. I would never vote for UKIP that they are not as

extreme as the people campaigning against them want them to be.

Reality is that you have to campaign against them as you would the Tories

or the Lib Dems and fight on their record. People are not agreeing with

what you are saying is because it does not chime with the reality.

UKIP are not a racist party. If you say that you find gay relationships

abnormal... That is bigoted and reactionary. Can I finish? But

people have questioned them in a non-violent way. You are picking out

individuals, tiny things, that do not represent the party. We have

made this very clear. The idiots who have criticised us... Let him

finish. Would you accept that you referred to another organisation

that attacked Nigel Swaraj, that your leader has explicitly said that

Unite Against Fascism has attacked people? -- Nigel Farage. You are

changing your point. Nigel Farage, as you yourself, has had to account

for people that you are calling idiots yourself. Do you understand

that that does provoke a strong reaction? Of course. But we don't

have a level playing field. Similar candidates in other parties have

said even worse things. The Tory candidate councillor who talked

about wanting to expel all Muslims from the country and destroy masks.

Awful things. Did that appear on the Unite Against Fascism website?

Never. Does your group have ties to the Labour Party and trades unions?

Yes, we have ties to trades unions, to mosques, churches, groups, and we

are opposed to Fascism. We don't consider UKIP to be a fascist party

but we are part of a campaign that says we should live in a society of

tolerance and equality. Thank you for that note of agreement at the

end! Politics is showbiz for ugly people

according to the saying but only some politicians attain celebrity

status. So what have they got that others have not?

Actors playing politicians are of course trained to capture the

audience. If you want something done, ask a woman. But there are

some politicians like the late Margaret Thatcher who mastered the

art of holding our attention so well, they seemed to transcend

politics altogether, reaching a certain celebrity status. There are

mishaps and plenty of missed mixed metaphors. My leadership chances, as

I may have told you before, are about as good as my chances of being

reincarnated as a baked bean. Whatever the London Mayor gets up

to, there always seems to be a lot of love for Boris. Would you like to

see him elected? I love Boris. And there is a certain something about

the fellow public schoolboy and former banker now UKIP leader Nigel

Farage, and his charismatic character. Scotland's first minister

Alex Salmond has certainly got the hang of it but is there something

that successful ones all share? Politics is largely an art form and

therefore to really succeed in politics you have to be an artist,

and that means being a great communicator, a great actor. Even

when you are being completely fake and not authentic, you have to

convey the sense that you are being utterly sincere and authentic.

Putting on a show and doing a bit of acting is not easy. So what tricks

to politicians have two win us over? British eccentricity. It have to be.

Something quirky and different to what we are used to. Bull Garrity

maybe could be one explanation. Charisma could be another. --

vulgarity. Another master to add to the mix, Tony Blair. Here at his

last Labour conference as Prime Minister, diffusing tension between

his wife and Gordon Brown. At least I don't have to worry about running

off with the bloke next door! In a way that I think is still

underestimated, Tony Blair was a mesmerising orator. I used to get

his speeches before he delivered them when he was leader of the

opposition and read them and think what total rubbish. We are going to

be a young country, a country reborn. And then he would stand

there on the stage and say, we are going to be a young country, country

reborn, and you would believe it. You would be utterly spellbound. How

much of this is taught and how much is natural talent? You have got it

or you haven't. The great artists just have it by instinct. They know

how to communicate. They know how to appear sincere and to be funny. And

they have just got it. And if you have got it, flaunt it. The longer

politicians manage to keep the audience entertained, the longer

they can stay in the limelight. Eleanor Garnier reporting. With as

is the journalist and author Peter Hitchens. You are a big fan of Tony

Blair. Why? Not only because office record but what they touched on

there. Politicians make people excited and Tony Blair did that.

What was wrong with Tony Blair? He was a great communicator and a lot

of people believed that I voted for him over three elections. That

cannot be delayed. Well, I don't know whether it can be denied or

not. They did not do much for me. What is he a communicator off? He

seems to be a communicator of drivel and vacuousness. Almost everything

he said qualified as one or the other if not both and every speech

he made, I wondered why people were taking it seriously. There was

nothing there. I think the magic of Tony Blair was, and David has proved

this, he was so vacuous that anybody who wanted to manufacture an image

could have anything into him and have it come at the other end. David

Cameron is considerably more intelligent and so his attempt to be

a second Tony Blair has not really work because he has the intelligence

to block the drivel valves. But he has not won on election, has he? No,

he hasn't, but that is to do with Conservative Party debt which is not

he hasn't, but that is to do with something we can do anything about.

Not even David Cameron. Listening to that, he said he was vacuous and

Not even David Cameron. Listening to not say anything, and therefore it

was easy for everybody to project what they wanted to hear. Do you

think it was true or was there a narrative, a passion, and he did

believe in something? I think you did. If you looked at his vision for

the country which was for the Labour Party to embrace the markets. That

was significant. David Cameron may well be better educated and with

better results... They are equally well educated. Both Oxbridge public

school boys. If you have got vision, the only vision that Tony

Blair had was the vision of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which

were not there. Beyond that it was slogans, the kind of thing you have

just come out with. Klaus four was dead before you were born. It was

killed off by Harold Wilson and it did not matter. Anyone who knew

anything about British politics knew that it meant nothing. It is

personality we are talking about. Steve mentioned having an instinct,

a likeability. Tony Blair said you have to be a member of the human

race before you get into the political class. Wouldn't it be fun

to have politicians that you dislike that have knowledge of what is going

on? Who do you like and rate? Thinking back there was the

generation that came to the Second World War, whichever side they were

on, who knew something. Denis Healey is a good example. You can listen to

him and you can hear there is some experience and knowledge of reality

in this person. He has seen people killed and he knows what war is

like, which so many of these buffoons do not, which is why they

want to start them. I don't want to make that link directly to Boris

Johnson but he does have personality and appeal. Does he have substance?

Ultimately what unites politicians like Boris and Tony Blair is they

have an amount of personality but ultimately you judge somebody on

their record. The reason Boris was re-elected was people asking if

their life was better or worse and Boris has been quite successful in

London and that is why he was re-elected. What is your view on

Boris? He is quite a good performer but something like Monty Python.

People will wonder what they were laughing at. An engaging person and

likeable, but he's not what he appears to be. Conservatives think

he is hostile to the European Union and they would be quite surprised if

they studied and thought about it. He is not what he appears to be,

which may be the trick as well. Do we want that? Regular disappointment

of the electric discredit the whole system. You do a good impression of

Ed Miliband. What the hell is that voice all about, make? It sounds

like Tony Blair with a cold. He would talk like that. Let's talk

about it. As the years go by and his nose gets more bunged up it has come

on. I want to talk about what is going on. Come on. These are big

issues I know. It is not a leader's voice. Does it matter about the

voice? A bit. William Hague was seen as a pipsqueak and a bit of a drip

and he would talk at the top end of his vocal range and now he is

Foreign Secretary, he talks in a deeper voice and it gives him real

gravitas. Does that mean he would be more likely to be leader now with

that voice? Argued bully, yes. If you are not doing so well and you

are perceived to be a bit of a drip, having a silly voice helps you be

lampooned. Is he being lampooned and hampered? He is always caricatured

in particularly unflattering ways and the question is not whether he

has got a different or unusual voice, the question is should it

matter? It ought not to matter, but if it does, it is surely the duty of

anybody who has got any role with politics and the public to make sure

it does not matter. What matters is what he says and what he thinks, not

whether it comes through his nose or mouth. Are you ever going to get

away from the image, the look, the sound of a politician? Television

infantilised as all who watch it. It does that and it is a terrible

danger to freedom of thought. It makes people tremendously

conformist. You can dismiss quite a substantial person on triviality and

it is a tool by which you can destroy real politics. Are you

guilty of trivialising politics? There is a right to mock

politicians. Mocking somebody for their voice is not trivialising

politics? Of course it is. Spitting image did that. It also did a lot of

harm. Political discussion in this week has been the sense of a public

schoolboy in 1958 dominating what we think. Nobody studies what they say

or do. We have an infantile, political culture. Is that the fault

of satire? Some people would say it engages people in politics. But if

it engages people, but lessens the standard, it is not doing that. One

of the reasons why this country is so badly governed is because of this

childish attitude. If you compare British democracy took a lot of

countries in the world, we have a vibrant democracy. Politicians know

they will be scrutinised. We are one of the most indebted countries in

the world, we make nothing, or our political statistics are fiddled,

this is a bigger problem than what comes out of Ed Miliband's knows. I

have studied Ed Miliband's voice for hours and hours, and I listen to

what he says, and that is a good way to characterise someone. Thank you

for being our guest of the day. In a moment we will get a beginning of

the week briefing from two of Fleet Street's finest. They are waiting

for us just outside Parliament. Now a look at some of the events taking

place later this week. On Tuesday the Business Select Committee will

scrutinise Pfizer's proposed takeover of AstraZeneca when bosses

from both firms appear before the Business Belect Committee. On

Tuesday MPs get a chance to grill David Cameron who appears before the

Commons Liaison C ommittee. The Prime Minister will face Ed Miliband

across the dispatch box for what could be the last PMQs of this

session of Parliament. On Thursday Parliament could prorogue, which

would give MPs a 19-day break. They would not return until the Queen's

speech next month. Emily Ashton from the Sun and Andrew Grice from the

Independent are standing by for us on College Green. The coalition row

over education, how serious is it? This is not your typical row, this

gets a bit personal. This is between Michael Gove who causes divisions

quite a lot, and between David Laws. It is about how much funding

is going towards free schools. Because the Lib Dems accused the

Tories of diverging millions to free schools away from local authority

places, they accuse Michael Gove of being ideological and obsessed with

free schools. This gets to the heart of the hatred for Michael Gove

amongst Lib Dems, but it is symptomatic of coalitions in general

ahead of an election and it will get more bitter. Do you think this is a

limited domestic row between the two coalition partners, or does this

potentially risk more damage in a widespread way to the Government? It

is a risk. The education Department and the Treasury, which is now

getting involved, were the two departments in 2010 that worked very

well together in coalition. That is a setback to the Lib Dems' desire to

show coalition works. They have got to come out of the coalition next

year and say the last five years have been good for the country and

it is not easy to say that when it looks shambolic. Who wins this row?

The Lib Dems are the Tories? It is tricky. The free schools are going

ahead and I do not know if there are any winners. The Lib Dems still

support free schools. I am not sure it is a debate to be one. It is more

about hoisting the flag up the mast and saying, we don't like you

becoming obsessed with free schools. Labour are due to make an

announcement on the NHS. Tell us more about it. Ed Miliband is making

a speech in Manchester tonight where he will address some of the

problems, like waiting time appointments for GPs. It has work to

do our economic credibility, but the NHS is an issue where Labour has

always been strong and Ed Miliband will start with Labour's plan to

rescue the NHS. They will be warning another five years of the Tory and

Lib Dem Government would not leave the NHS in safe hands. There will be

a major cash crisis by the NHS after the election and so Labour is trying

to get that up in lights before the year's time. You could argue the

Government is running out of things to do if they are going to break up

on Thursday. What do you say? We do not know for sure, but that is the

general speculation. The Commons office will not announce it until

the business statement on Thursday morning. But if they do rise, that

is 19 days before the Queen's speech and that comes two weeks after a two

week Easter break and two weeks in February. A lot of people will say,

we elect them to the House of Commons to debate laws and policies

and they are not here. There is this claim of a zombie parliament that is

running out of things to do because of a five-year fixed Parliament. And

what about Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Talks of a public interest test

being passed. Even if that was not passed, and Government block a deal?

It is difficult. They want to put a bit of political pressure on Pfizer

and Pfizer is talking about having a legal opinion, showing its

guarantees about keeping jobs in this country would be legally

binding. There is usually something in the small print saying if

circumstances change, the company doing the takeover can change its

position. MPs will be looking for long-term guarantees about jobs in

this country. Pfizer has spoken about a five-year guarantee of

keeping research and development jobs. I think the MPs will be

looking for ten years. Thank you. Now, let's get back to that

coalition row. It's over funding for school places that pitches the

Deputy Prime Minister against the Education Secretary. Insults being

traded include Michael Gove being accused of "lunacy" while

Conservative sources have accused Nick Clegg of being "pathetic" of

all things. So how did this latest verbal bust up begin? Well the Lib

Dems are unhappy at what they see as Mr Gove's ideological obsession over

free schools which they claim could lead to the loss of 30,000 local

authority places in England as money is diverted to the free school

programme. In fact it was the unlikely figure of Malcolm Bruce who

landed a big punch on the BBC over the weekend when he said the budget

for free schools was completely "out of control" and that Michael Gove

needed to be "reined back". The Liberal Democrat deputy leader is

unhappy at the Education Secretary for supposedly diverting ?400m from

the department's basic-need funding to bolster his free schools

programme. But the Tories have fought back, accusing their

coalition partners of being "pathetic", saying that more school

places were being created overall. In fact, the blue half of the

coalition are accusing the Lib Dems of sour grapes after leaked e-mails

showed senior officials within the Department for Education were

concerned that Nick Clegg's policy of free school meals amounted to "an

abuse of taxpayers' money for his personal ends". While it's not the

first coalition row, this one seems particularly vitriolic as both

parties look to strengthen their support base ahead of next week's

local and European elections. I'm joined now by a panel of

Westminster's finest, or at least the best we could muster together on

a Monday lunchtime - Paul Uppal, Lisa Nandy and Julian Huppert.

Welcome to you all. Is providing free school meals to infants and

abuse of taxpayers' money? We have to look at the whole round. One of

the things I have picked up over the debate, it is not just about the

number of places, it is the quality of places. I have a free school in

my constituency and that will provide a ladder of social mobility

for many youngsters and it is providing a solution for so many

meet youngsters. Do you accept free schools do not have to be set up in

areas where there is a shortage of places? They can be set up anywhere

and there is a shortage of places in certain parts of the country and

money has been taken away to fuel this ideological obsession? There is

more than adequate provision for need of places. Why is there a

shortage of places in certain parts of the country? I have seen in my

own constituency a free school that has been established there. In

providing a number of places and the quality of places, it is paramount

to meeting the need. Is Michael Gove obsessed with free schools? No, he

is obsessed with providing a social ladder of mobility to help children

meet the skills gap and escape from poverty. The Lib Dems were fully

signed up, what is the problem? I think having more of that money

towards basic needs is the right thing to do. There are people who

are looking for more places and we need those to happen. Equally I am

proud of the policy of providing free school meals at infant schools.

There is evidence that shows it helps everybody, particularly those

from lower backgrounds. Is It good we articulating what we would like

to see happen. Malcolm Bruce said the education department is out of

control. Is he right? Loo-mac this is nothing like as much as we saw

with the Blair - Brown battles. We are two separate parties. But you

have now completely fallen out. Lunacy on one side, and pathetic on

the other. The free school meals policy was written on the back of a

piece of scrap paper. There have been some bizarre comments. There

has been a lot of research about free school meals policy. It helps

people who are in particular are already getting free school meals.

We should help people from poorer backgrounds catch up and not fall

behind. But do you recognise the Tory charge your school meals policy

is leading to a cut in school places as council funding has to go into

providing school meals rather than places? It came from other money and

the Treasury and the Treasury announced extra money for this

policy. Do free schools not provide school places in the fairway local

authority schools do? We should focus on the experience a child is

going to happen. Do you match need with where people want to open a

free school? I am sure in some areas free schools are dealing with the

need there, but in other places they will not be. We should be supporting

pupils and their education where the need is. Is no doubt Labour is

watching this with great amusement but there is a serious point here.

If there is a shortage of places, which there is in some parts of the

country, is it being met? I don't find what has happened in education

policy funny at all. We have the free schools programme which is out

of control. 1.5 billion so far. 40 brand-new schools in areas where

they are not needed when we have a real crisis of school places. 90,000

places will be needed in London by 2016. What about quality as well?

They are not the schools that parents want to send their children

to? There is another problem with this because free schools have had

mixed results because they are frankly an experiment. They don't

have proper oversight so we have seen real catastrophes. They don't

outperform other schools. The question is this. The education

secretary has been focused on a small number of schools and

children, some of whom have done very badly and some have done OK,

but the rest of the country is waiting and wondering what the

education secretary has two say to them. We need a policy that speaks

to all schools and all children. I think we can do better than we do at

the moment. Are you happy to defend the experiment of free schools when

only 22% of people support them according to a survey. And some

schools have not got proper oversight according to Lisa Nandy.

We are planting a seed and it will take time. Is it across-the-board?

Two thirds have been excellent or outstanding in Ofsted. Why am I

Conservative? The two years I was in a state school where because of the

colour of my skin my teachers thought I could not speak English.

One teacher engaged with me and provided a ladder of opportunity. I

passionately believe these free schools can give this. Are you

seriously arguing that state schools cannot give a ladder of opportunity?

They have outperformed free schools in the Ofsted ratings. In the state

system we have three boys in the state system getting five A stars.

That is failing children. I am saying that the status quo is not

good enough. There is plenty of money being spent. We have to

produce academic excellence. This is not the answer, to squander money on

a number of schools who have been proven to fail over recent years

because there is not proper oversight. Anybody can walk into the

schools and teaching them. We rely on whistle-blowers to know when

things are going wrong. That is not raising standards. Would you like to

see more money diverted to the free schools programme? This is a

long-term project. Sure, but would you like to see more money diverted

into the programme? I think any money that is providing those

children with the right ladder, then that is absolutely crucial. So

taking money away from local authorities and putting it into free

schools. Do you agree with that? We should focus on providing the

education that people need. So where you run to sign up in the first

place and do you regret it? Some of my constituents have set up a school

affiliated to the University of Cambridge so there are good things.

You could criticise the Blairite academy programme, where there were

similar concerns. We should talk about pupils and not just the

organisations. There is grossly unequal funding across the country.

Why should people in Cambridgeshire get a quarter of a million pounds

per year for a typical primary school less than the English

average? Why does a pupil in Cambridge deserve so much less? That

is something the last Government did nothing about, leaving us at the

bottom. Labour left us right at the bottom of funding for many years.

Their 13 years we did not get the extra money and that has caused real

problems. We need a fairer funding problem so that -- fairer funding

solution. We will leave it there. Thank you.

The CBI has warned that political uncertainty could pose a major risk

to economic recovery. The revised up their prediction for greatest year

but they also forecast an increase in interest rates in 2015 and said

that politicians need to be aware of headline grabbing policies that we

can investment opportunity and jobs. Whatever could they mean? Could they

be talking about the policies that Ed Miliband and the Labour Party

have been spouting recently? Intervention in the market at

various levels, like capping rent and in the energy market. That poses

uncertainty. Reading the CBI report this morning, they were saying the

opposite. One of the problems with the growth we have seen is that it

is potentially unsustainable and relies too much on a housing bubble.

They are calling for what we are calling for, investment in

infrastructure, building new schools, roads, homes and hospitals,

but particularly house-building. Increasing the supply so that house

prices do not continue going up and then far too many families cannot

afford to own or have stability in their own homes. That is why we have

said we want to intervene in the market and increase the supply and

make sure people can get onto the housing ladder in a sustainable way

if they want to, but also to boost jobs and growth this country not

just in London. Do you support your party's policy for capping the

increase in rents? We want to make sure people have stability in their

homes so that when you sign up to a contract, that read that you have

agreed to remains for the duration of the contract. -- that rent. We

want the contracts to be longer. As someone who has rented for many

years with many friends with families in rented accommodation,

that stability is the basis of a decent life. I cannot understand for

a moment why the Conservatives are so opposed to it. Why are you? I

have worked in the centre for 20 years and lived through this. For

those that remember the regulated tenancies, we have been here before.

It actually decimated the rental sector completely in terms of

investment. It had the opposite effect. There are unintended

consequences. It is very easy for politicians to say, look, if it

scores high on opinion polls, let's follow it, but it is short-term and

does not fix the long-term problem. That is having enough houses to meet

supply. All right, we will leave that there. You have heard of Das

Kapital but what about Le Capital Au XX1e Siecle? Apologies for my French

accent. That is capital in the 21st century. It has been written by

Thomas Piketty, a Frenchman, and the 640 page tome has been sitting at

the top of the bestsellers list and some people who bought it have

actually read it! This is Adam Fleming.

Reading Le Capital Au XX1e Siecle takes a seriously long time but

don't worry. Here is a quick summary. Thomas Piketty has analysed

centuries worth of economic data. His conclusion? Inequality is

increasing. But not just that, it is hard-wired into capitalism. The only

times things get more equal is one was destroy inherited wealth or

governments do serious redistribution. -- when governments

destroy. The rich are destined to get richer while the rest of us stay

the same. The author sums it up in a now infamous equation. R is greater

than G. It was briefly in the Amazon top ten, selling better than the

diet books but not as well as beriberi. -- Mary Berry. It is doing

well in London. This think tank had to find a bigger venue to

accommodate all of his fans. I think it will stand up well with Karl

Marx's Das Kapital. It will change how we view capital in mainstream

economics and politics, yes. And it shows changes in intellectual

thought in this century. It is that big a deal? Yes. So how do I say his

name? Thomas Piketty, I think. We hope! If you get to the end, you

will find the professor advocating a new tax rate for the rich of 80%.

But won't that make it harder for them to buy the book? Look how much

it costs! We will leave the big question of how to pronounce the

man's surname. We will say Thomas Piketty. Do you agree with the main

thrust of his economic thesis, which is that if there is more growth in

capital assets than what you earn, income, then inequality will become

greater? There is a lot to that, but I don't agree with his conclusions

like the 80% tax rate. OK, but in recent years if you have been

sitting in a house in London that has grown a huge amount in value,

outstripping what people can earn in a day... Yes. We tax income more

than wealth for many years in this country and we have argued that

should change for many years. They have done things like changing stamp

duty for example. But we would also like to see a mansion tax, which we

have pushed Bob. You're not going to get that in coalition with the

Conservatives. No, but I still think it is the right thing to do. Out of

Government you were suddenly more interested in it. But he would not

back it. I hope it can happen because we need to rebalance it and

focus on wealth. That is a fairer way to run public services. Whenever

Labour decide to sign up to mansion tax, they have taken that half of

the equation. But you still want higher tax rates. You want people to

keep their earned wealth and tax the inheritance or their property. We

don't want higher tax rates for the many. We want the 50p rate of tax

restored. This is what Thomas Piketty, however you pronounce his

name, is actually saying. In Britain there is an astonishing fact. 50% of

people only three to 4% of our wealth. That cannot be right. One of

the solutions to that is taxed but there is another solution which is

to make sure that people are enough in the first place to have a decent

standard of living, which is one of the problems we have got in this

country. -- earn enough. But people earning ?10,000 a year need that 750

quid. They are desperate for it. Let me explain it to you. If you raise

the minimum allowance before people pay tax, the threshold, it helps

people like me and Hugh who pay ?65,000 a year as much as it helps

them. There are better ways of doing that. No, it is less progressive.

Independent studies have shown it is less progressive. Would you ever

look at a mansion tax? I actually don't think it would work. I am an

East African seek. If you follow this argument through logically. And

we have business in Kenya, then this is about compensatory taxation. We

lost everything and came to the UK. The same Government who asked us to

leave asked us to come back in 1980 and we said not ready. We are happy

where we are. Can you use that example in terms of rejecting a

policy that would tax wealth here? I think in some elements of the book,

if you look at the US, there is some resonance. But if you look at the

UK, and Allister Heath has written about this extensively and I will

not recited Verbatim... No! You jumped to that quickly! The

discrepancy between dividends and rental income has not happened over

the last 70 years. That is a good point to leave it on. Thank you for

joining us. The News At One is starting on BBC One now and I will

be back tomorrow at midday. Goodbye. MUSIC: "Mas Que Nada"

by Sergio Mendes