28/10/2011 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/10/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics on Friday.


David Cameron arrives in Australia for the Commonwealth summit with


women - but don't worry, not in a Berlusconi way - on his mind. This


morning he's won approval to change the rules for Royal succession.


Progress or unnecessary tinkering? Fancy an extra hour of daylight in


the evenings? Britain tried it back in the '60s and the Government is


considering trying it again, putting us in line with Central


European Time. We'll hear from the Tory MP behind the bill.


And with new figures showing our top bosses are getting 50% more in


pay and perks in the last year, are we really all in this together?


And it could be you. Though, let's be honest, it probably won't be.


But we'll hear the story of how one And with me today are Rowenna Davis


of the Guardian and Isabel Oakeshott of the Sunday Times.


David Cameron arrived at the Commonwealth summit in Perth this


morning announcing that he has won unanimous approval from the


Commonwealth realms for reform of the rules of Royal succession. The


change will allow the eldest child, whether a girl or a boy, to ascend


to the throne. The ban on the monarch being married to a Roman


Catholic was also lifted. The changes will require amendments to


legislation including the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Coronation Oath


Act of 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701. Speaking a short


while ago, this is what the Prime Minister had to say. We will end


the male rule so that in future the order of succession should be


determined simply by the order of birth. And we have agreed to


introduce this for all descendants from the Prince of Wales. Put


simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little


girl, that girl would one day be Queen. Or even if she would be a


big girl! I guess it is a change that had to come. It is an open


goal for Cameron at the moment. There are a lot of complicated


problems at the moment, but let's do this nice and easy thing. I am


massively in favour of it, telling you that as an older sister. If I


thought my younger brother would get on the throne before me, we


would not be having any of it. life could be in danger! Will


anybody oppose this? I really don't think so. What amazes me is how


long it has taken full pub I wrote to netbook -- an editorial in 1986.


That was how many years ago? You would have thought Harriet Harman


would have done it. This was something she would have backed. It


seems incredible it has taken so long. The anything funny about it


is we don't know what the Royal Family themselves think about it. -


- the only thing. We are told the Queen let it be known she did not


object. That is the way these things work. The argument against


it is that the monarchy is a special institution, it is a


hereditary principle. You don't hold it to the same rules. Please,


come on! If you are saying we are going to trump tradition for


equality and venues we hold deer, we have to question you have so


much political power on the basis of your birth. Does the Queen have


political power? She has political influence. We are not in the era of


Downton Abbey. If Kate Middleton was able to tell us, the Duchess of


Cambridge, and what she really thinks, I'm sure she will be fully


behind this. But she doesn't talk very much, it is mostly about her


outfits. But even that! Since I can't get involved in this argument,


we will move on. Two girls. Could we be about to start marching


to 'Berlin time'? The Government has announced this morning that


it's considering advancing time by one hour. That could mean the UK


adopting Central European Time, putting us in line with the rest of


Europe. Except Portugal and Ireland. Now, it's not the first time we've


fallen in with Berlin and Paris. In 1968, a three-year trial started


which kept the clocks in advance of GMT all year round. It meant darker


mornings for early risers like postmen, newspaper delivery people


and schoolchildren. And before that, Winston Churchill introduced single


and double summer time during the war. Why? To save fuel and let


people get home safely during the blackout. But while it might be


nice for those in the South of England to have longer, lighter


evenings, what about people in Scotland where some might not see


daylight until nine o'clock in the morning? Well, the Government plans


to consult all devolved parts of the UK before it decides to support


the plan and if there is clear opposition in any part of the UK,


the trial won't go ahead. So are we about to return to watching the sun


rise at nine o'clock in the morning? Is changing our time a


good idea? We are joined by two people who should know. You are the


MP proposing this. Peter Hitchens has written a cover story on the


Spectator revealing the government is now behind this. Explain to us,


before we get into the argument, tell us what will happen. If I get


my way, we will have a very comprehensive government review


across government departments to find out whether the people


enthusiastic about this are right or if there are compelling


arguments why Richard Nott. You are in favour of it? I am convinced


there are enough good arguments about creating jobs and saving


lives on roads. Supposing it became law today. Tell us what would


happen. The clocks are due to go back next weekend. He if the


government review it and found it was a good idea... Just assume it


is law now. We would not change the clocks this autumn and we would be


on British Summer Time in the winter. We would have an extra hour


of daylight throughout the year. if our clocks don't go back next


week, we would be on the same time as Europe. They would put their


clocks back? They are ahead at the moment. We would stay where we are,


they would bring their clocks back. We would then be in zinc and next


summer, we would go forward an hour in tune with the rest of Europe?


Exactly. In perpetuity we would be an hour ahead. An extra hour of


daylight in the evening. Peter Hitchens, I can see a wry smile.


All of this stuff about extra hours, and the amount of sunshine you get,


you can shifted about from one place to another. Those of us who


get up early, almost everybody with a job, Mrs Harris may not have this


problem, but I was on my way to the station at 7:30am in twilight. If a


Bill were enforced, that would be a 30 -- 8:30am. So that is in October.


This is not a Scottish problem, it is an English problem. If we have


this imposed on us, we will be an hour different from us. We will


have darkness until very late in the morning. We would all have


breakfast in the dark. In the summer, you would be watching


Newsnight and it would be light outside. Who watches Newsnight?


That is another question. There would be more reasons not to do so


because it would be light outside. This is nothing to do with shifting


time to anyone's benefit. There's masses and masses of statistics


claiming we will be billionaires, but the truth is, and the reason


why Nick Clegg is pushing the Prime Minister, visited the European


Union project to put us on Central European Time? Absolutely ludicrous


and fanciful. It is nothing to do with the European Union, it is to


find out whether we are setting our clocks to the best time zone for


the way we live our lives. This is the 7th attempt to make this change.


Under European Union rules, we could not do the 1960 it experiment.


The European Union now main dates if... Are there as it meant --


there's an insecure -- interesting argument in Ireland this week. They


would like to be up to keep some time in Ireland. They were planing


they couldn't do it because Brussels and wouldn't let them. --


complaining. This is another interesting thing about the EU. We


are not allowed to decide whether or when to put our clocks back.


This Bill has been before Parliament seven times in the first


25 years, always put forward by Europhiles, never openly


acknowledged as being in the you measure because they know it is


associated with the European Union and people will spot it for what it


is. People have little imagination about what will happen. It is not


just Scottish people who will suffer, it is everybody. The last


time it was half tried in 1968 and 1971, road deaths rose considerably


during that period despite the fact it was the time when the


breathalyser was introduced and speed limits... Peter, you are a


superb journalist but when it comes to analysing road accidents I would


rather take the advice of the people whose job it is to do it.


The Royal Society for the Prevention of accidents have been


campaigning for this measure for 60 years. They know making the


afternoon rush-hour lighter will save lives. I lived in Scotland at


the time and it was very unpopular. And in the south. I can assure you


it was very unpopular in the north. What I don't understand are the


politics of this. You would think David Cameron had enough trouble


us on European time. It seems a bit of a sideshow at the moment. I grew


up about a mile away from the nearest street light in Scotland.


Which of us really likes getting up in the dark? The thought of having


to get up in the dark for longer, where I grew up, you would be


getting up in the dark even if you got out of bed at 10am. I think it


is pretty unappealing. I agree with Peter when he says we have a


limited amount of sunshine so we will be debating where we put it


and there are costs and benefits on both sides. Because those have been


reviewed over and over again in the past, I end up feeling a little bit


apathetic towards it. If you are going to introduce any motion into


Parliament, why are we talking about this now? We just had a whole


week wasted debating whether we should be reviewing whether we are


in or out of Europe. And the economy is tanking along the bottom.


Why are we doing it? The reason is it is a concession by


David Cameron to Nick Clegg. It establishes... It re-emerged having


been killed off by the relevant department in June. It emerged a


few weeks ago as a result of this. If Rebecca harasses right that it


is so beneficial, why are the people of Berlin not adopting Minsk


time? If it is so wonderful to be getting up in the dark? Minsk time?


In it would be the equivalent of Berlin time for us. It would mean


Berlin would do everything... you now have the backing of the


government for this motion. Otherwise you would not get the


time in Parliament. It comes from Nick Clegg. It is also part of the


parliamentary process. Does it have the backing of government? They are


minded to back it. Is that the same as backing it? What they said in


the press release is they are considering backing it.


The lobby groups for this have been doing quite a good job on pointing


out the potential economic benefits. The tourist industry in Britain


think it could give us an 80 -- an extra 80,000 jobs because it makes


us compete better with Europe in terms of attractions. It widens the


British tourist season. A will Rebecca Harris stake her salary on


these claims of economic advantage? David Cameron has told us on


numerous occasions that we are all in this together but the pay roll


figures show a different story with top director pate jumping by almost


50% in a year. That is based on an analysis of what the top 100 FTSE


companies take. These directors had an average income of �2.7 million


last year. That includes salary benefits and bonus payments, which


rose by 23%, from �737,000 in 2010, to �906,000 this year. The 49% rise


follows an increase of, wait for it, 55% in 2009-10. The report by


Income Data Services is based on averages. With the median figure


being used, it is a more modest 16%. Whichever way you calculate it, it


dwarfs the average 2.3% rise in average earnings across the economy.


The report comes as Vince Cable, the bad man's favoured man, has


been consulting on proposals to climb down on the escalation of


awards. Mark Field is a member of Parliament for the City of London


and a former recruitment consultant so he knows about salaries. When


top businessmen, and they are mainly men, and getting a rise of


50% two years ago and 50% this year, we are not all in it together.


would all agree we are living in a global market and we want to get


the brightest and best people from across the globe into our top


companies. But I do accept that this does not look like a free


market at all, it looks like a club that goes on with committees made


of the same people being recycled. The furore about Cedric Brown from


British Gas, when he had that package of �300,000, the current


going rate would now be 10 times that. Let's look at the global


market argument. I can understand that the chief executive of BP


needs to be paid a lot because Chevron might come and get him and


he is very good. But this survey shows that the biggest rises were


the lower down directors, not the very top. Not the rock star


managers. And also, for your argument to work, you would have to


show me that the top pay in Germany, France and Italy went up by 50%.


Ilott and it did not. It did not. - - I have looked. I do not entirely


disagree, obviously. But I do not think we should just look at the


issue of globalisation. We do need to get the best boat around.


have just agreed with me. I think there is a more genuine concern


here, which is the sense that capitalism, well, global capitalism


now seems to be an unfair bargain in recent years. People are


campaigning about this. What is interesting about St Paul's, and I


have been down that this week, it is not just the usual suspects, the


people on the left of politics, but increasing unease from middle-class


people that capitalism is skewed against them. I have been told that


the Corporation of London, the governing area they your


constituency, is going to take legal action to get rid of the


encampment. What do you think? is interesting that we have a


Conservative MP on the show acknowledging that there are


serious problems with bonuses in the City and something needs to be


changed. And that it is not just immoral but economically unsound.


The question I ask is why do we have David Cameron consistently


coming out, as he did this morning, saying that City bankers are


continuously being bashed in an unfair way, and offended those


practices. He is not defending the salaries, but he says we do not


want more regulation in the financial services industry,


without whom we would be in trouble. Like now? If we lost the banking


income then we would be in more trouble. I find that argument naive.


We are negotiating to millions of pounds of banking bail-out so again


and you are sitting there saying we do not need more regulation. You


have just acknowledged it a second ago that we do. I do not want to


see Vince Cable spending an inordinate amount of time in his


comfort zone, utilising the idea of how we control industry. He should


be spending his time making sure that we deal with unemployment and


growth that has stalled, and the message that this country is open


for business. What do you make of this? Vince Cable looked at this


question this summer. The question is what can the Government do and


is it right for them to intervene in the market in something like


this? Vince Cable said he was surprised at the number of round


table discussions with private companies and he was surprised at


their willingness to move on this. With 50% pay rises? I want to get


your reaction to the statement from the Corporation of London. We have


had endless discussions about this and every time we talk about it,


nothing happens but their pay continues to rise and rise and rise.


It is way ahead, so that the gap now between the top paid in a


company and the average is 10 times bigger than it was in the 1950s.


What are you going to do about it? Well, I think transparency is


important. What we need, therefore, within public companies is more


activist shareholders. Government is trying to do that.


think we have a tipping point. What is happening in Wall Street and St


Paul's, it is not just the usual suspects. They are middle-class,


Tory-voting people that feel they have done the right thing and they


have got savings and they are losing out. Vince Cable jumping on


this particular bandwagon and spending an inordinate amount of


time solving what he regards as a problem makes some sense but we


have to make sure the country is open for business. Our economy is


bumping along the bottom and still we have companies awarding


themselves 50% extra this year compared to last year. That is


phenomenal to me. It is not economically sound. It is rewarding


failure. Shares have not gone up by 43% in the past year. The people


that own the companies do not get that, the dividends do not rise,


the pension funds do not go up. We have run out of time, but what is


your reaction to the news that has just come through that the


Corporation of London will begin legal action to remove the protest?


I think it has been absolute pantomime over the past couple of


weeks. It is like a Third World shanty town outside St Paul's,


which is a world heritage site. We have Remembrance Sunday, the Lord


Mayor's Show within a fortnight, and on that basis I think they are


doing the right thing to try to remove these people but it will be


a long process. They will be lucky if they can remove them for that.


and a parrot to they are Tory voters! -- and apparently they are


Tory voters! Parliament Square has been there for 10 years, so do not


hold your breath. We are grateful that Mark Field has


come on the programme. What do you think when I say John


Major? Do not fall asleep! Traffic cones hotline, Black Wednesday, or


positively maybe the National Lottery. The former Conservative


Prime Minister did indeed introduce the national lottery in the 1990s.


The original idea was promoted by a far more obscure politician. We


The National Lottery, it feels like it has been with us forever. The


irony is that the man that actually got those big-money balls rolling


is not the man that a credit for it when they finally dropped. -- that


took credit for it. The lottery was only in his mind because he won the


parliamentary version of the lottery, the ballot for Private


Members' bills. I was not there. The first I knew about it was when


the phones rang and people kept saying to me, what is your subject?


I am from this newspaper, the TV, and I said I had not thought about


it. Colleagues loaded him with options but the two that he steered


away were the National Lottery and a Government hand-me-down that


would please the shipping industry but few else. The bill of carriage


of Goods by Sea was not going to up the credibility of somebody that


had been in Parliament for 18 years without making much of a hit. But


the National Lottery is another matter. What was the opposition to


this? It all stretches back to Margaret Thatcher. She was very


puritanical. Actually, I think she did believe that the feckless might


be trapped into more feckless behaviour with the lottery. So she


was very far from enthusiastic. Then the real reason was the


Treasury had done the deal with the Football pools. That is why when we


have the second reading vote, the Government was kept out of the


lobby. After the debate, a journalist came up to you and what


did he say? He said, that is it then, it is finished. I asked why


and he said that Number 10 had told him. I said that Number 10 had


better think again. I said we are going places with this. This will


be immensely, immensely popular in the country, because it will bring


lot of pleasure and report to thousands of people every week.


after adopting it in the manifesto, pulling a surprise jackpot victory


out of the bag in 92, John Major did indeed launch the National


Lottery, but he would not keep his fingers crossed. I know exactly


what you will do with that! name is now attached to its


creation but not everybody has forgotten the man that first put it


in the public and the Prime Minister's mind. People still come


up to me. I was on the Queen Mary during a speaking tour recently and


somebody came up to me to thank main. He said he would not be on


the Queen Mary but form what I had done because he had won the lottery.


-- but for what I had done. They still do it. Europe has dominated


the news agenda this week in more ways than one. It is time to look


back at the events over the seven days of the week. David Cameron


endured the biggest Tory rebellion over Europe ever this week, with 81


of his MPs defying him by voting in favour of a referendum on British


membership of the EU. I have to say to the front bench tonight, shame


on you. After that, the Prime Minister cleared his schedule and


headed to the EU summit. But it was left to the leaders of the 17


eurozone countries to secure a deal. Vince Cable found himself in a spot


of bother over an unpaid tax bill. The Business Secretary was forced


to pay a �500 penalty for late payment on earnings from media work.


An embarrassed by the fact that an honest mistake was not spotted.


However I make it absolutely clear that I did not avoid paying tax.


And Ken Clarke was forced to changed his sentencing bill


conceding to demands that 16 and 17 year olds who commit knife crimes


should go to prison. Asked if he and the government were running


scared over the threat of another backbench rebellion, he said: That


Honest Ken Clarke. Now it turns out that this trillion pound bail-out


fund, the money does not exist. So the eurozone is cap-in-hand to


China. What will the Chinese ask for in return? That is the key


question. The art of politics over the next 40 years will be how we


learn to negotiate with the rising powers like China and India. Let's


face it, Europe is not what it used to be. We will have to learn how to


do that, but the question is how we can do that while also keeping true


to our moral standards and not being beholden to powers that we


disagree with. As they say, it shut up! They will say that about human


rights in Tibet. No doubt. I find this situation and embarrassment.


It is the direction that things are going in and we will have to get


used to it. We are not going there. Not Britain, but the eurozone.


Chinese could come up with some money but they are very smart


people. They will exact a price. They will love the idea of being


centre-stage and being brought in, and complaining about their


currency being too weak. True, but there are lots of opportunities


that come with that process. It is just about being very clear what


your boundaries are and what you will work with and what you will


not. David Cameron is meeting with members of the Commonwealth today


and you should also be talking about building better links with


our Commonwealth partners. Thank you very much for being with us.


That is it for this week. Jo will be here on Monday and you can join


Jon Sopel for the Politics Show on Sunday. In the meantime, we leave


you with images from the Brussels summit, which eurozone leaders hope


Download Subtitles