01/07/2014 Daily Politics

Politics. Is it time to shake up Prime Minister's questions? An

internet campaign is under way to allow voters to ask questions via

social media and new penalties for MPs who behave badly. Another day,

another Labour policy launch. Ed Miliband promises to unleash the

potential of England's cities by devolving ?30 billion of Government

funding. Union baron Len McCluskey says Unite

will stump up more cash for Labour's election campaign. We look at Ed

Miliband's relations with the unions. It's tough being a party

leader and trying to maintain an image, with less than a year to the

general election can they change how voters see them?

All that in the next 30 minutes. With me for the duration is the

Times columnist Phil Collins. Welcome. Let's kick off with what

the leader of Britain's biggest union, Unite's Len McCluskey has

been saying about Labour, here he is on Newsnight last night. There's

interesting debates taking place within the party. There are views

and thoughts from thousands of Labour Party members, including, of

course, trade unions. I think what's beginning to emerge is the

likelihood of a positive cohesive programme that offers hope to the

British electorate. Unite backing Labour and will put their money

where their mouth is, so they say, what will they want in return? They

were always going to get to this point, Labour's problematic

relationship with business means they've nowhere else to go and Unite

is the main funder these days and Unite recognises that as a position

of power. What they'll want is not quite so straightforward because

what they often get are people in seats. The control over the

personnel in parliament is often more important than the policies.

The process of getting a manifesto is a really complicated one and

interestingly in its own right we don't know whether that's going to

end up in a bold programme or a cautious one and that argument is

still going on. Unite are amongst that. It would be wrong to say

they're simply driving it. It's not true money produces influence in the

most direct way. What about strike action? They voted for strike action

one day next week, what does Labour do, condemn it? It's always

difficult for a Labour leader in that circumstance. Ed Miliband will

face a tough stance again. There will be voices on both sides of

that. Again he will have to calculate what does this look like

to the wider public, if I refuse to condemn something I would otherwise

condemn in the week they promised me a lot of money? The message of that

is obvious to everybody. He will have to judge it on the issue. He

will have to have the courage to condemn February wants to. How does

this stack up with John Cruddas, Labour's policy co-ordinator saying

Ed Miliband is shying away from radical reform? Well, John, you have

to remember, is trying to engineer a bold outcome. He is trying to

balance - the difference here is this is gone from a private meeting

to the newspapers. It's not unusual in itself that the leader of the

process is trying to get the leader to sign up to everything. Not

unusual either that the leader might think I am not sure about that, I

don't know how I will sell that to the public. There is an argument

going on about whether Labour should be explicitly left of centre and

bold or whether it should creep back a bit towards the centre. It's good

that argument is going on. I don't think we yet know the divided -

where it's going to rest. We have a few months to find out. It's time

for our daily quiz. David Cameron hosted a party for celebrities last

night in the Foreign Office. My invite must be in the post! Who

didn't turn up? Phil will give us the correct answer

at the end of the show because I am sure he knows.

Prime Minister's questions has been described as feeding time at the zoo

and now the campaigning website Mumsnet has had enough, branding the

weekly run-in as outdated and unprofessional, they have created a

we Tegs calling for the -- created a petition calling for the age-old

feeding frenzy to be reformed after a survey found 80% of their users

think it's ineffective. Half the respondents said the

spectacle actively damaged parliament's reputation. What's on

their menu for change? Out should go planted questions, scripted answers

and media soundbites and in should come questions and answers and

chances for the members of the public to throw in the odd morsel

through social media. These are all suggestions previously put forward

by the Hansard Society who have also called for a sin bin for badly

behaved MPs. Are the public still hungry for a rowdy PMQs or is change

afoot? Mumsnet CEO Justine Roberts joins us now along with Nigel Evans.

Welcome both to the programme. First of all, one might say PMQs as it

stands is a ratings winner, why would you want to change that? It's

not a winner according to the Hansard Society, few people are

watching and lots of people turned off. We know there is a lot of

disaffection with MPs and politics and unfortunately what it means is

we see a lot of people saying it's just politics, it's not for me.

Unfortunately, it's putting people off getting involved. That's really

important. That's a really important thing. It's a good show and I am not

saying take away the scrutiny, the scrutiny is fantastic but it's not

effective. It's stage-managed and putting people off the whole game so

it's not worth it and we ought to change it. Should it be changed and

how? The only thing I would change is perhaps putting it on at evening,

for the vast majority of people I agree politics is as interesting as

a sleeping stick insect but it's the most watched of all aspects of

parliament. For instance the Prime Minister is questioned in more

detail in a more mundane atmosphere with the liaison committee four

times a year when a chairman is able to ask five or more questions

indepth and in detail. Nobody watches that. Everybody watches

PMQs, every Wednesday, because there is the cut and thrust, there is a

liveliness about it. It's one of the most watched political programmes in

the United States of America because they find it absolutely fascinate

that the democracy is seen to be so vibrant. Do they actually consider

it important? Why is there so much focus on PMQs, is it that

representative of politics and parliament at large? It's not

representative, it is the gladiatorial spectacle, when you see

the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, this programme

itself judges it as it's happening and after. I believe that it's one

of the best-trending things on the internet following PMQs as what's

happened on the Daily Politics. We are not suggesting scrapping that

period of time when the Prime Minister is called to account by the

leader of the opposition. It's a fantastic thing. But the idea that

it has to be a bunch of people behaving like a group of... That is

the bit that people like. It's like watching a fight. And

disillusionment in our system. It's not a good outcome. Sometimes it

gets too much excitement in the chamber. I am against the sin bin,

it would be almost like a sport, we wonder who will be - wonder who will

be chucked out this Wednesday. I think there is a liveliness about

Prime Ministers questions and the fact so many people are watching it

is possibly something that needs to be controlled but not reformed. You

couldn't take your eyes off that questioning, the scrutiny and if you

could have questions coming from Select Committee, real experts from

real people as well involved, put it on later so over 55s could watch,

there are many reforms that could be done. Yesterday we had the statement

on Europe about David Cameron, but he was there for over an

hour-and-a-half having questions from 86 Members of Parliament.

That's a lot of scrutiny there. The real problem is the party control

over it. This is spectacle rather than politics. You make a good point

about the liaison committee, it's forensic and it's boring. But it's

important. Very much so. PMQs is rarely boring, but is rarely

important either. It's sometimes showcasing leadership but usually

doesn't, get the choreographed responses. I remember I got elected

in 92 and John Major had gone to Brussels, he was going to show

Brussels what it was all about. Then he capitulated at whatever, I can't

remember the issue, at Prime Ministers questions that day when

normally there is a lot of choreography that goes on, a lot of

whip management but the fact is only one person stood up on the

Conservative side to ask a question off the Prime Minister. The

pro-Europeans and the anti-Europeans were very unhappy with John Major in

equal meshure and I think that showed -- measure and I think that

showed the House telling the Prime Minister we are not happy. When was

that? That was a long time ago but I remember it distinctly. Of course

one would say you need more memorable PMQs in that respect. You

have agreed the evening might make it then more appealing to a broader

audience. Let's look at the planted questions. They really are ex-cruise

ating, should they be taken away? A lot of constituents watch the

questions and if you are too sycophantic then there would be

groans around the chamber and the country. Even though you expect

mostly the Conservatives to support their Prime Minister, doesn't happen

all the time, and the people on the other side to attack the Prime

Minister, doesn't happen all the time, you get some who actually ask

questions - I have asked questions about constituency cases about a

child dying, or extra housing and you do ask constituency-based

questions, you have to. If they stripped out - constituency-based

questions are different to planted questions, if you did strip out the

planted questions and more questions through social media that they had

to answer off the cuff would that improve it enough for you? I think

it would improve it a great deal. I think it's a cultural as well. A lot

of leaders are given lip service. Actually we know there are MPs who

go in with the express intention of barracking. What are we going to do

today? It's crazy. If they had the will to change it, they could. Nick

Clegg does that LBC thing once a week and people can phone in and ask

what they like. There is one other thing it does, it tote rip dominates

the week -- it totally dominates the week of the Prime Minister who has

to spend ages preparing for it. With a busy Prime Minister preparing for

a pantomime every Wednesday is the best use of time? Tony Blair got rid

of one of the weekly sessions so it's not to say you couldn't

radically change it, could it be ever be got rid of it No, absolutely

not. Tony Blair changed it from Tuesdays and Thursdays, quarter of

April hour to half an -- quarter of an hour to half an hour ones win --

on Wednesday. It allows the opposition six questions. The Prime

Minister found it easier to just dismiss the questions from the

leader. - the opposition. Some female MPs told the Speaker they

were no longer taking part because of the atmosphere, that's a

dangerous precedent. It certainly is. The fact that only 22% of the

House is female is something that I am really concerned about. I hope

that's something that we can address properly to get more females - to

get more... How would you address it in the House as it stands at the

moment in PMQs? I have to say no female member of parliament has come

up to me and questioned the fact that it's as it is, the females I

sit around really stick it to either the Prime Minister or the other side

as much as anybody else in the House. They actually do punch their

weight in the Commons. How far are you going to push this? The petition

is there for people to sign you going to push this? The petition

is there for people to if they want. I think it - we are not trying to

get rid of PMQs but it could be effective and a better use of the

Prime Minister's time and less offputing to other groups that look

and think this is nothing like me and it's not normal and not for me.

For journalists is it still the key event, how many Newslines do they

get out of it? If they move it to the evenings I can not watch it in

the evenings rather than not watch it in the afternoons. It's not

particularly important. It occasionally drama tieses a

leadership question, apart from that I get nothing from it. On both

sides. People question the quality of David Cameron and Ed Miliband,

Nick Clegg, it's all there. Thank you very much.

Ed Miliband was going "local" in Leeds this morning, for the launch

of another Labour policy for the next election.

He's promising to unleash the potential of England's

cities and regions, creating "economic powerhouses" to rival

London. Here's some of what he had to say.

Let's transfer ?30 billion worth of spending out of Whitehall, over a

Parliament. Let's transfer it out of Whitehall and let's transfer it to

local areas to make those local decisions about transport, about

skills, about support for businesses, about how to get people

back to work. Why? Not just because we think it is good for local people

to make those decisions but because they will make better decisions

because they have much more of a sense of what the local needs are.

And if you can involve local businesses in those decisions, you

are much more likely to succeed. With us now is the Shadow Business

Minister, Toby Perkins. Welcome to the programme. Ed

Miliband says a if you tour Labour Government would need to act because

80% of recently created employment has been in London at the expense of

the rest of the council try. -- future Labour Government. What is

the evidence? It came from the Cities report based on the business

register and employment survey, showing where you look at where the

net jobs have been created. That more new job than those lost, 80%

were based in London. How much of this is new? I have lived through

Enterprise Partnership, Regional Development Agencies. They are all

put up as an attempt to try to spread the wealth and focus of

Government spending. It never seems to work? I think the difference with

this is that it is about where the responsibility lies and where the

budget goes. If you devolve this budget to combined authorities at

city and county regions working together, combined with local

enterprise partnerships, you actually send the money there,

rather than accepting some Whitehall civil servants that will now have a

Leeds postcode, you actually send the money and give local areas the

opportunity to actually influence business support, infrastructure

skills. All these things. What is the motivation for the local

authorities to spend the money in the way you would like it to be

spent, on businesses and not, for example in other areas, that they

may feel is a priority? The specific budget is being devolved to them. It

would be about combined authorities working together, remember than the

vowed local authorities and working together on things like

infrastructure, transport, skills, business support, all things that

are vital to their local economy. So I think that what we are doing here

is devolving specific frunds Whitehall, down to - or up to the

regions, and this can only be a good thing. If you have phrases like a

long-stem national framework for an innovation policy - whatever that

means t sounds like a state-run industrial policy T harks back to a

time of picking winners, if you like. -- it harks back. I think it

is Duchess of Cambridge approach. It is about a revolution in devolution.

It is about sending the responsibility to those great

It is about sending the responsibility to those cities that

should be the economic powerhouses but actually have been held back too

often. Right, I mean they should be the powerhouses, why have they never

been? Toby makes a great point. In the past there has never been money

flowing, it has been a bureaucratic devolution. If you get the money,

that changes it. But your question is a very important one - will the

money come with strings attached? Will there be a central requirement

of the locality? If there is not, if it is a straight-forward taking of

the money from the centre to the locality that really is quite a

change. Still reasonably small at the moment but it has the potential

to grow bigger. The crucial question is whether you get strings attached.

The tendency of central Government is to think - you are not doing what

we expected or wanted you to do, let's pull the control back, buts of

genuinely letting go, I agree it has to be a good then. How is it

different from what George Osborne was talking about, he talked about

supercities in the north and a new high-speed rail link joining up

cities. Is it any different? The point he went to Leeds

cities. Is it any different? The point he went to and said - we can

build you a train line, it point he went to and said - we can

build you a train line, is not devolution, it is about investing

money. That was a plan dreamt up in response to opinion polls. I think

what this is actually about, the difrns is it is not about talk, it

is do devolving money and responsibilities. Philip is right to

say - if you devolve that, you have to accept you don't control

everything it gets spent on but it is about saying to the local

authorities, work with within your areas with the local business

community and partnerships. Work on the infrastructure, collectively on

your transport. That's something that politicians have not done in

generations. Was that a spoiler, do you think by George Osborne last

week? Was he trying to pre-empt what Labour has said this week? It is

much more about the skefbs thinking they are not win in the north of

England and they have to do something to breakthrough. --

Conservatives. Now we are not against trainlines in the north of

England. It is probably that a local consortium would decide they did

need good train infrastructure between the cities. The question is,

who is in charge? You have this alphabet soup of people involved. I

wonder after the announcement and Andrew Dennison's work, who

ultimately will make the decision T can be difficult to get this work

done. As you know infrastructure problems are blighted by taking

years. I wonder in the end, who is in charge? The other problem for

Labour at the moment is the figures on economic competency are not

improving. Do you think this is the sort of announcement will that help

do that? That people will trust Ed Miliband and Ed Balls more with the

economy when you bring out announcements like this or will this

pass them by? I think it'll make a difference, people will look at the

warm welcome it has had from the C bi. And the Engineering Employers

Union but it is about a broader programme, the kind of economy we

want to be, about getting more manufacturing into the economy,

about spreading the growth. The devolution of business rate growth

we have spoken B I think as people investigate this -- spoken about. I

think as people investigate this, they will see this as real change.

Another day another announcement. It is only aier ago people were saying

Labour have no policies. -- it was only a year ago. Now we have decent

policies. I think it is important we sell them to the public. Isn't it

because they are being worried about being antibusiness, that they are

worried about the economic competency. Do you think that's part

of it? ? In 2010, Labour went into the election with no business

support at all and they are clearly worried about doing the same in

2014. 24 week is about trying to address that. -- this week. We also

have an an opportunity Labour with Europe. The Conservative Party is

vulnerable with business on Europe. A sensible pragmatic pro-European

policy I think is exactly the right one and could help. But, underneath

it all is the problem you suggested. Which is the stubborn numbers of

economic competence. Can you win an election with figures like that on

economic competency? It has never been done before a party with

figures like that, plus its leader trailing the Prime Minister so far,

has won. That would have to be done for the big time. Any big businesses

supporting Labour so far, putting their money behind your campaign?

Time will tell on that. One of the important things is that Ed Miliband

set out in the start of the leadership is to make Labour Party

the party of small business. Small businesses have been ignored for too

long. And bringing forward proposals has revolutionised our relationship

with small businesses and they are just as important as big businesses.

Do you have trouble eating a bacon sandwich?

Or do you find that students boo you in the street?

If so, welcome to the world of the party leader,

who - despite the best efforts of a coterie of advisors -

face a daily battle to control the public's perception of them.

So what to do if you find you have an image problem?

Politicians trying to project a positive image can be... Gold medal.

A, a bill prone to wondering off script. About, caught out by events

out of their control like being egged and C, simply standing in the

wrong place at the wrong time. And there is no shortage of advice for

political leaders. Like many before them, these three all have their own

individual image problems. The you will vulnerabilities they have is

for David Cameron he is arrogant and out of touch.

will vulnerabilities they have is for David Cameron he is For Ed

Miliband, quite the same that they are weak and out of depth and Ed

Miliband has an associated problem with that, which is that some people

find him a bit weird. Oh dear, weird, out of touch, weak, that

doesn't sound good. In the world of communications and PR, there are

some key buzz words and phrases politicians need to be associated

with if they want to be a success. Think strong, and perhaps gravitas.

I Think strong, and perhaps gravitas.

think if spin doctors could design a politician, they wouldn't design me.

That perhaps is why Labour recently advertised a vacancy, as head of

leader's broadcasting, tasked with advicing Mr Miliband and improving

his TV appearances. Expertise which could have been useful in May at

this early-morning media convenient. There is undoubtedly bullying going

on in the media. People take photographs of Ed and try to make

him look weird or not norm A he has to ignore all that -- not norm A he

has to ignore that. He has to play to his strengths. Which are out on

the ground, on a doorstep on soapbox he convinces and connects with

people. The question is who will look prime ministerial and do the

best for the country. It is on the doorstep that Nick Clegg is said to

be toxic, bruised from being in coalition and advice - brutal

honesty. Nick Clegg is a politician, he comes from the political class.

He has been involved in politics in one thing or another for decades

now. He very much understands the political system. That's a weakness

if you tray to pretend you are somebody else but it can be a real

strength. If you say - I have been there, I understand what the system,

how it works I want it change and I can do that. And for David Cameron,

playing the part of PM, it is about turning weaknesses into strength. If

he is arrogant and out of touch, is David Cameron also quite

firm-minded? Does he have a plan he is prepared it stick to? Leaving up

to strategist's buzz words like "credible" isn't easy being human,

hopefully not too difficult. And plumping for a relaunch now, is

like admitting you have already failed.

So, Phil, we talk about these things in the lead-ups to all elections but

however much party leaders and their advisors like to talk about policy

and the message, it is still important in the age of television

and democratic politics, it is about instinct and your ability to

connect, isn't it? It is, but there is a lot of information contained in

those images. Theismcations when we say someone has an image problem is

somehow the imaction is false and beneath the image there is a truth

which the public has somehow not understood. That's rarely true.

Usually when someone has an image problem, they have a problem, and

the image is telling you something which is true, not false. I think

you can see that in all three party leaders at the moment. Their images

are exaggerated versions of themselves. They are in a sense a

caricature. But a caricature is defined by the thing which is true

about it, not the thing which is false. So when Ed Miliband has an

image of being geeky and sometimes a bit indecisive and sometimes a bit

left-wing and the swirling parts don't add up to a picture, it is

quite a good component part of what he is. David Cameron's image so much

the same. He has an image of being arrogant, out of touch, as was said

in the film but at the same time that staples translates into being

quite authoritative and again there is a lot of truth in that. Neglect's

image, when they say students boo him in the street. That's not

because of an image problem, it was a substantive policy problem on

tuition fees. These snippets we get through images tell us something

important about the leaders. You have talked about all three of them.

You have talked. It seems that Ed Miliband has more of a problem trab

transcending his image, if you like. Is that true? It is for but for real

recent. I I don't think there is a magnificent under the radar and they

send out this character from a cartoon to go on to the TV. I think

what you get through his visual representations is a snippet of what

you are getting in policy terms. So my own view is that the Labour Party

are camped in the wrong position and that that sense, not particularly

well-defined, is coming out through the image that Ed Miliband portrays

on TV. So it is not that he has an image problem, in my view, it is

that he has a problem. All right. Let's leave it there. There is time,

before we go, to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was:

David Cameron hosted a party for celebrities last night

in the Foreign Office but who didn't turn up?

Was it a) Cilla Black, b) Claudia Winkleman

c) Noel Gallagher or d) Bruce Forsyth?

Kew I think it is a trick question. I think you are expecting me to say

Noel Gallacher. I think you are expecting to me to say all of them.

No, the trick was it wasn't a trick question, it was Noel Gallacher.

Thanks to Maurice Saatchi and all my guests today.

Andrew and I will be here at 11.30 tomorrow with