15/03/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/03/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. There is more


pressure on Syria today, 200 aid and Human Rights Groups have called


on rish and China to support attempts by the United Nations to


end the violence in the country. The move marks one year since the


first protests against President Assad's regime Has the line been


crossed on police reform? An independent review calls for


performance related pay. Koonsultaition on gay marriage


begins today with the Government planning to introduce legislation


before the next general election. We will get reaction. And that is


one for the family album. Cameron and Obama are enjoying their photo


opportunities, but do they make any difference? All that coming up in


the next hour. With us the Green Party's Caroline Lucas. Welcome


back to the Daily Politics ch first this morning let us start with


Syria. Out of the headlines these days. Today's guardian has


published secret e-mails received and sent by the Syrian President,


and his British-born wife Asma. The cash of -- cache of e-mails were


intercepted by a rebel group in Syria and leaked to the Guardian.


In one of the E mailts between the couple, President Assad to his wife,


mocks his own promised political reforms as the "Rubbish laws". His


wife received an e-mail from, this is interesting, Mayassa al-Thani,


she is the daughter of the Emir of Qatar, that is the Government


behind Al-Jazeera, and she offered them it seems the chance to leave


Syria, saying "I am sure you have many places to turn to, including


Doha," which is the capital of Qatar. Asma shows an obsession with


internet shopping including expensive shoes, and even a fondue


set. Every Dick Tay tr's wife should have one! And they all have


plenty of shoes, if I remember from the Philippines. The Guardian


reports that the e-mails show that President Assad has been advised by


Iran during the crisis. Again, no suprise there. Syria's closest ally


is Iran. With me now Michael levy who was Tony Blair's Middle East


envoy. Good to see you back. They are fascinating to see these kind


of e-mails. Anybody's e-mails but particularly those from a dictator


and his wife. But nothing in, I mean, they spend lots of money and


gifts, they are in cahoots with Iran, nothing suprising really.


what I would call a smoking gun there. It is stuff we would have


expected. They live in their secluded castle, they are not in


touch with the real world, and it is really more of the same of what


one would have an tispailted and expect. Did you learn anything at


all, any significance on the Emir of Qatar's daughter almost saying


you can come here if things get rough. Not lail. They say one thing


in public, in privately these people are friends and have known


each other for years. You see, this current President, who was never


meant to be President, it was meant to be his older brother, he was


killed in a car crash, some people think in mysterious circumstances,


he has a younger brother who people think is the real hard line one, he


is head of the Republican Guard or whatever it is called in Syria, the


British Foreign Office gave this guy the benefit of the doubt. They


thought because he went to medical college, he had a lovely wife, he


is not an evil dig dictator like his father. The father as you say


was an evil dictator, I met him many times. I thought I had really


done a deal with him, between Syria, and Israel, the father went to that


meeting in Geneva with President Clinton, meeting got messed up. I


will never forget the words, now is the time to talk to the Israelis


without preconditions, the Americans couldn't believe it it.


The Secretary of State went there, the talks tarted. It looks like


there was an opportunity. But it didn't happen. The son came into


power. Young man, as you say educated here, was there a


opportunity for him to change what was going on in Syria? But again,


the imprint of the father, the imprint of the regime was just so


deep, and the tentacles with so clasping of the regime, that really


nothing happened. Was it worthwhile? -- courting him,


worthwhile seeing if he were for real? Yes I believe it was. I


believe we are now in a situation where the scenarios are all pretty


bad, but trying to work with him, what Kofi Annan is doing, trying to


deal with the Russians, and to get them, if not on side, to understand


their perspective, what is the alternative? To send our boys in,


to send a force in, probably without a UN Resolution. That is


not going to happen? Of course not. Another Afghanistan. Another Iraq,


this is diplomacy and getting your hands dirty diplomacy, that is what


this is about. In retrospect from what we know about the nature of


the regime in Damascus, if the young Assad had turned out to be


the westernised liberal reformer we were hoping he was, they would have


deposed him. Andrew, I remember going shopping with this guy.


younger Assad? The younger Assad. The old one never left Damascus. I


didn't look what he was buying, but we are in the so-called VIP lounge


in Serena airport. He was on the same plane as me. I had been there


officially with my guys from the Foreign Office. And we spent time.


We went round for about an hour together, and you know, you, as you


say the guy spoke perfect English, you would have thought a complete


gentleman, and then his father dies, he is now the dictator in Syria,


and behaving the way he is. You really, there are such different


sides to these people, they are one person when they are here, in


England being educated, marrying a girl from Ealing, father, a really,


very world respected medical man, and then they go back to where they


were brought up, surrounded by the people there, their father, their


regime, put into power. They are totally split personalities. It is


almost a Jekyll and Hyde situation. Beware the girl from Ealing, that


is the message in this foreign policy. I am sure her family


wouldn't want you to say that. don't think it is enough coverage,


we tend to see this as a battle between the rebel, the insurgent,


the people trying to break free from dictatorship and their


disparate group, they are united, suffering terrible casualties, and


this regime. His mate, the big friend, the person giving him every


possible help is Iran. He is their guy. He is their route to his


southern Lebanon and down into Hamas, this is, Iran cannot afford


to lose this regime. Correct. You are absolutely right. But Iran will


play the game the way they want it. If Hezbollah and Hamas move out of


Damascus, and move somewhere else. Like Lebanon. You bet they will


back them no matter where they will be. At the end of the day Iran will


take care of what Iran believes is going to be right for Iran. All of


these countries, ultimately play the game that way. OK. Caroline,


you, have you had a chance the glance at the e-mails. I had a


quick look. I saw the hand made furniture from Chelsea. You know,


as Lord Levy says it dedemonstrates because someone has a nice British


accent it doesn't mean they can't be evil. What comes over is that


contrast on the day when, you know, weapons are raining down on Homs,


he is sending a thing on his iPad with music from you know, a western


country singer from the US. Just, the parallel, the contrast of these


things happening at the same time is shocking. On one night Hitler


had a up meal. Interest stuff and I am sure more will come out in the


days ahead that will tell us more about this. Michael thank you for


joining us. Thank you very much. something a little more trivial. It


is time for the daily quiz. It seems at some point all Prime


Ministers let slip what they like to listen to their iPod. The


question for today is what does David Cameron say he plays when he


Caroline will give us the correct answer at the end of the show.


Lucky Caroline. Lucky lucky Caroline. Now, all police officers


should be made to take an annual fitness test. I must say that did


make me smile this morning, with a pay cut for those who fail. I hope


the BBC doesn't catch on with this! It is one of the recommendations


from Tom Winsor, he is the man the Home Secretary asked to look into


police pay. He has produced the second part of his report this


morning, but will the Government take on the police in this way? Jo?


There is a big battle, but Tom Winsor says there are unfairnesss,


he has recommended an end to policing as a job for life. Saying


that Chief Constables should be able to make redundancies, he also


wants to introduce a system of performance related pay. Controv ly


he suggests pay cuts for those who fail fitness tests. Critics are


worried it will lead to more arrests, cash for collars. The


first part of the report published last year recommended a cut in


overtime pay designed to save about �150 million a year. Overall the


police budget is being cut by 20% over four years in England and


Wales. It is estimated there will be a reduction over over 16,000


police officers by 2015, compared to the number in 2010. Speaking


earlier today, let us listen to a bit of what Tom Winsor had to say.


Polices is becoming more complex. It is not the blue collar job of 30


years ago or longer, it is a complex environment, and it


requires the most intellectually able people who have the other


qualities to be police officers, which are just as important.


Courage, judgment, self control, the ability to assess situation and


deal with people. Are ven shall qualities. But raising the entrance


requirements will increase the average quality of police officers


in the future, to join the able people who are in the service today.


That was Tom Winsor who carried out the report. Joining me is Simon


Reed from the Police Federation. Can we get a genre action as to


whether you welcome any of the proposals? These aren't reform,


this is another cut to the police budget, Mr Winsor took �300 million


in his fis report. He has grabbed nearly �2 billion on this occasion,


it has been predictable what he said, most of it has been said


before, and failed. We have looked at things like direct entry before


and it has been rejected. So, he has had a difficult time. A task to


cut the pay, he has cut the pay but it is not innovative, and it is


pretty blunt, and we are going back 30 years to where we won't be able


to recruit police or keep police. So that is what you say, so you


will resist the proposals. A few of them, let's us look at the raising


minimum standards, is that something you couldn't support.


average age of an officer is 27678 40pergs have degrees and they come


with maturity and values that we are looking for. That is who the


modern recruit to the police service is. They are good people.


Now, making the minimum recruitment for three A-levels is irrel vaant.


We are getting mature people, nearly half of whom have degrees,


what is wrong with that. What about the annual fitness test? Some


people might say I would have thought that would have been scheme,


with a reduction for thoz who fail. Shouldn't they be fit enough to do


the job? Most are fit enough to do the job. There is fitness testing


for firearms officers but the emphasis has and should be on


health. It shouldn't just be about how fast you can run. We should be


saying we want you to be healthy, the problem is, very few welfare


departments now are left in the police service, so the


infrastructure for what Mr Winsor is suggesting, doesn't currently


exist either. Right. I mean, you know, there are a lot of


recommendations and none of which you seem to be embracing,


increasing the pension age to 60, what do you say to that? Do you


want to see 60-year-old police officers? He is talking about


making them fit. There will be some 60-year-old officers who are fit.


But policing is a strenuous job. Can we expect people of that age to


be on the streets chasing 18-year- old offenders. I am joined by Keith


Vaz, Labour MP and by Mark Reckless, Conservative member of that


You have criticised the length of time needed to produce his report.


Was it worth the wait? It is worth the wait in the sense it provides


us with information that will help us with the new landscape of


policing. I admire what the Government has done in terms of


wanting to radically changed the landscape of policing, it does need


change. The problem with this report is it has taken 18 months to


come out. We had Mr Winsor before our committee on his first report


on Tuesday. It is helpful but it is only part of the solution. There


are bits I like, there are bits I think will create problems.


idea of a fitter police force? long as they don't start


introducing fitness tests for MPs I don't have a problem! Have caught


it is important that police officers are fit. If you look


around the Palace of Westminster, there are people who are right for


the job. Things like performance- related pay, Andrew, does it mean


they have to rest a certain number of people during a day or a week?


If they don't, they get their pay docked or they get more pay? I was


hoping you would answer that! I ask the questions! What does it do?


That is what the public want. The day I first met the police officer,


they knocked on the door of my house and asked to see my father


and they informed my mother he had been killed in an accident and they


spent a huge amount of time with her. I was 14 years old. That time


is not going to be able to be spent. The public don't want officers on


the end of the phone. I can't answer your questions, you can't


answer your questions. Let's ask Mark. There is very little in the


way of performance bonuses we have seen in this new scheme. There


might be one element of �600 you get if you have particular skills.


We have seen the special priority payments have been done away with


and that has saved money for the police. Is that a good thing?


think so. As a member of a police authority, I initially supported


these but the more I saw of these, I thought it was divisive. Do you


think these reforms go far enough? I am very impressed with what I


have read so far of this very substantial and considered report.


It really is going to give us... You think the Government should


push ahead with this? Put it into effect? The principles of this are


very good. They will also help the police start recruiting again. If


you allow the police to bring in new officers, what that can mean


his most forces have hundreds if not thousands of people wanting to


join the police. They can bring in new people with some of the money


for that money saved. Something jumped out at me from the report.


They wanted a scheme allowing new recruits directly to enter the


police service at inspector rank. Is that the beginning of trying to


create an officer class? We need to look carefully at these proposals


and put them in the context of what the Government is doing. We all


want to see professional officers. This is a profession, one of the


most important and respected professions in the country. Of


course we have to look at these issues. It has not had an offer


could -- officer class like the army. Is it right? The manager of


the local Tesco has been successful a lot of product, but I'm against


him coming into the police force as Inspector. We need to study these


proposals carefully. Look at our profession as MPs. We have people


coming in from every single walk of life. There's nothing wrong with


that. You are nearly all professional politicians? Police 4


x lawyer's... My case rests! need to be careful who these people


are. We need to look at the requirements. Do you want to see...


It's been a criticism and people are either for it or against it.


Some people's critique of the police have said it's never had a


proper officer class the way the army or the military has. That


might be the wrong analogy. strikes the right balance. It


doesn't go all the way to a separate officer class, but it


allows for accelerated promotion. He inspectorate will be open to


existing police officers as well as people from outside. You have that


at superintendent level. Crucially, we will open the police up at Chief


Constable level to people from Australia, the US, other people who


have experience, to bring in new ideas. I don't think there will be


a lot of new people, but the possibility of it has to be good.


Let me give you this... Politicians on the left and the right often say


the police needs more reform. Its real critics call it, along with


the prison services officers, the last unreformed public service. If


you listen to the Police Federation, they say we have seen a minimum 20%


cut to the police budget, a loss of 16,000 officers over the next four


years, 300 million removed from police pay, increased pension


contributions, a two-year public sector pay freeze, a cap of 1%


increase in years three and four. Let me encapsulate that. Enough is


enough. I'm in favour of reform, but what you have to do is carry


the police with you. What we have got is this stand-off which they


feel everything has been done which undermines them. What the Home


Secretary and Nick Herbert have to do is make sure they are part of


the solution. Bring them with the Government on these reforms. There


will be opposition. There is opposition! I do hope ministers


will push most of this through because I think it is the right


thing for the police force. What you have said in terms of those


reductions, those savings, that means that many more people can


stay on as police officers, we can recruit more officers. We also have


to look at the police staff and get them working together with the


police without these artificial divisions we've had in the past.


What are your thoughts, Caroline? The list of the cuts you just read


out is instructive because that is the backdrop for this and it is not


surprising that the police feel very under pressure and battered at


the moment and therefore somewhat suspicious of some of the


recommendations in the latest report. My concern around some of


the work around direct entry is the Government says it wants the police


to be held in the same esteem as doctors and lawyers, so do why, but


in doctors and lawyers you would not have someone coming in at


direct entry level and do some operations on you. One would hope


not! It is a very strange way of trying to achieve the end they want.


We will leave it there. Thank you. Gay marriage is back on the agenda


today with the Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, launching a


consultation this morning. The Government say they want to


legislate to allow what they call "equal marriage," but although


Conservative MPs have been told they're be allowed a free vote,


there is anger amongst some Tory backbenchers, not to mention many


in the church. Speaking this morning, Lynne Featherstone said:


It was very clear that there was a big inequality, the great


unhappiness with that particular barrier. Civil marriages, the


marriages offered by the state, were only available to opposite sex


couples. We have a law that doesn't discriminate. We believe that


people, same-sex people's love and commitment is exactly the same as


people from the opposite sex. As the Government, we feel we are duty


bound to offer the same facilities, if you like, to people regardless


of their gender. This is about love and wanting to be married.


With me now is the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, Tom Brake.


And Austin ivory from Catholic voices. Listening to the equalities


minister, what exactly is going to be gained in terms of any legal


advantage? There doesn't seem to be any difference in terms of


increased rights between gay marriage and civil partnerships.


marriage is different. That is why many people choose to get married.


That is why many gay people want to get married. I think there is a


difference. But there won't be any new rights. The rights you get with


the civil partnership will be the same for us if you are having a gay


marriage. They are different, qualitatively, but it is actually


about providing an opportunity for same-sex people to get married. I


really don't see the problem. supposed to be a consultation at


the moment, but it is not a consultation over whether it will


happen, because it is clear the Government has made up its mind, it


is how it will be implemented. is. All three party leaders are


committed to gay marriage. This is about how to do it and not whether


to do it. It was not in any manifesto. Not in the Conservative


or Lib Dem manifestoes. It is the commitment we have decided to make.


It is fair for the fair for a government come forward with


proposals there's demand for. Interestingly, recent polls suggest


over 60% of people think same-sex relationships are just as valid as


heterosexual ones and if that is the case, why can't same-sex people


get married? Her you argue there is a groundswell of opinion in favour


of this happening? The polls suggest people think heterosexual


and same-sex relationships are of equal value. There's been talk that


Tory backbenchers are happy, some of them. I don't have numbers and I


don't think it has been that vocal in terms of people who may be


unhappy about it. Is there going to be a free vote? Will that


categorically happen? 5 not sure whether there's going to be. I


suspect that already we he reports some people will be given some


flexibility in relation to this vote, but it's a clear commitment


from the Government, a very clear expression of support from David


Cameron that this is something the Government wants to do and I hope


Tory and Lib Dem members will want to support this unanimously. It


also has the support of the Labour Party. Would you like to see a free


vote on this issue? The Government have made it clear this is


something we intend daring and from a Lib Dem perspective, it is


something there is a policy commitment to. Their something I'm


baffled about. Lynne Featherstone has been at pains to stress that


this is no obligation on churches or religious organisations to hold


these ceremonies in a religious setting. Is it true that some


religious groups... Liberal Jews, for instance, or Quakers, would


like to hold a gay marriage in the synagogue but they can't? That's


correct. What we are consulting on his about civil marriage and


anything that the Government does would not actually legally allow


religious marriage to take place. That is why on a bit confused as to


why the Catholic Church, for instance, is as concerned as they


appear to be. Why is the Catholic Church so concerned? Because people


are concerned. This isn't just about the church. The polls show


70% of people believe the current definition of marriage should stay


the same. How does that square with the polls... The poll he was


referring to was referring to the quality of relationships and life.


People do respect homosexual love. When people asked about marriage,


most people believe that the have gunged an institution, man passed


woman. They wanted to stay that way. For duvet? That is maybe what


people understand it to be, but why can't that change? People don't


want it to change because they recognise it is a unique


institution with unique benefits. Not only is it an institution that


exists in societies, the building block of civil society. The state


exists to recognise and protect that marriage institution in the


same way the Church St defies it. The proposal here is not just to


allow a group -- the group of people to marry, it is to rearrange


the architecture of marriage. is civil marriage. It doesn't have


anything to do with judges for religions in that sense. You are


not being asked to preside over these ceremonies. There are not two


marriages in this country. There are two ways in to it, the civil


and religious. Parliament decided nearly 200 years ago what the


definition of marriage was. It is right that parliament should take


the decision in relation to equal marriage. This is about providing


it an opportunity for people who love each other to get married. I


can't see the problem. desperate to come in! This issue is


fundamental. It is about equality. That is why it seems odd to be


worrying so much about whether or not it is 70% or 60% in favour. It


is an issue about the qualities. We would not be having debate about


this about whether women should have the vote. If you place the


issue in that context of the qualities it is clear that the


Government is doing the right thing. I'm not sure we need a consultation,


I would like to see them just do it. It was in no manifesto. Suddenly we


have this consultation paper being launched. This has been thrust upon


people. You say it is about equality. There is no legal right


gained by this. Equality and equivalents are not the same thing.


If we were to open pensions to the under 65, that would be to overcome


discrimination but it would also destroy pensions. What shocks me


about this debate is that senior Catholic church leaders have


described the proposals -- proposals as grotesque. I find that


shocking. We're talking about allowing people who love each other


to get married. Why is that grotesque? Had you feel about being


accused of inflaming homophobia? That his inflammatory to say to the


church that they are homophobic when the church is expressing the


majority view of civil society. We want to welcome folks from


Scotland who are watching now. They have been watching First Minister's


Question, gay marriage was also on the agenda there. That is what we


are talking about here in London as well, about the Government's


changes here in Westminster for gay marriage. We hope in a few minutes


to be joined by indeed I have been told he may be there now BBC


Scotland's political editor Brian Taylor. Great to see you. What are


they saying about gay marriage in the land of the brave? We have a


picture of Brian. But clearly, they have nothing to say at all. Where


do we go from here? We have a consultation, this consultation is


about how to implement these rights, and what I think will, the


Government will make very clear, is this is not about religious


marriage, this is about civil marriage. When I got married in a


civil marriage, that was a commitment to my wife, I didn't, we


didn't emback, on something with the intent purpose of having


children, so to suggest marriage is simply about procreation. It is not


true. I didn't suggest that. think we have sound with Brian


Taylor now. Brian. Good to see you. Thank you for joining u we are


talking about gay marriage down here, tell us what the situation,


the debate is in Scotland? I would be interested, because it has been


said although in economic terms Scotland is more radical than


England, in social terms, Scotland is often a more Conservative


country, where are we? It is often thought to be that, if you recall


the debate early on the business of clause 13, really, I think on the


promotion of homosexuality in school, it was a very huge emotive


edebate and the change wend ahead. At this point in Scotland there is


a consultation issued, responses to that closed at the end of last year,


and the Scottish Government say they Alex Salmond was asked about


it, say they are considering the response, they got 50,000 response,


very large indeed. The indication previously had been the Scottish


Government would give the verdict in the spring. I think the spring


in Scotland maybe extended a bit perhaps towards May or June.


Ministers, Alex Salmond has said in the past he is in favour of the


equality issue going ahead, in favour there by of gay marriage. He


said in response to prompting from the leader of the Liberal Democrats


who said stand against the serious forces, the church and others,


arguing against this change, Mr Samed said it was right to take


account of the consultation, and he urged those who were demanding that


he stick to his path, that they shouldn't use inflammatory language.


He said it was the wrong thing the debate required. Thank you for that


Brian. An extended spring in Scotland? Brian is predicting that


there. It is the nicest time of the year in Scotland, I hope it is


extended. Thank you to our guests. Let us move on to something equally


controversial. Who would be a banker? It seems not a day goes by


wouldn't these poor misunderstood souls being attacked in the press


for the sides of their bonuss or salaries or both. Is all this


banker bashing justified or is it is a distraction from the real


issues facing the economy? # Life the rich


# And rich is nice # But all things come at a price #


The very fact that a group of actors can put on in the West End,


and expect the public to come and watch a play called Toxic Bankers


demonstrates how disliked these people are. Do they really deserve


it? Should we give them a break? have gone too far. We are saying


that finance is useless, it is parasitic, they shouldn't exist or


it shouldn't exist in the UK. That is totally misguided and economic


suicide for the UK. Even bankers admit that to lift to cloud of


suspicion from them, a deal M&S now be done that ensures banks stay


afloat and never rely on us for bail ought. But their pay is so


high. Isn't it? # The avaricious values sh


# On which our lives are built # Mean in this time of crisis


# We have to share the guilt # The official data shows about a


third of 50 pence taxpayers work in the financial sector. So they will


be people who work in industry, actor, doctors, all sorts of


profession like that, so it is wrong to think the only place where


there is very large salaries is finance, that is not the case. This


musical doesn't include the song brother can you spare a dime? Isn't


that the crux of our anger? They won't lend to anyone any more.


# Smash the system # Trash the bankers #


What happened here is that the Government have stepped in and


massively changed regulations governing lending. They are forcing


banks to lend less, telling them to lend at a more expensive rate by


forcing them to hold more capital. Many of these reforms make sense,


because they ensure the banking system is more prudent and there is


more, greater reserves in case something goes wrong, but the


consequence of that is always higher lending costs, and reduced


lending. OK, that is all very clever, but they started this


crisis. # Who's to blame? #


As everyone is aware we were happy to take the mortgage, credit cards


when they were available, although there are important questions to be


asked about bankers, perhaps we are all a bit to blame. In a way we


probably could have called the show Toxic Bankers? After seeing that we


could have the singing Daily Politics. Joining me is Mark


Littlewood. Let me bowl you a fast one right away. Bob Diamond picked


up �28 million last year, justify that. It is not for me to justify


it. It for the shareholders to justify. The last thing we need


which is the danger we are moving into is having politicians debating


this. We almost had the near farce of Steven Hester's salary being


debated on the floor of the House. But politicians are going to debate


it? I think what we still have is this back wash still, a fury about


the abilities, that there is this feeling if the taxpayers leap to


your aid if you go bust, you can't have this heads I win, details you


bail me out. If we can move, which I think we are taking steps towards,


that if Barclays goes down it is wound up rather than bailed out. It


is up to Barclay what is they are paid. They have to makes the


judgment, not politicians. Well, there are issues of fairns here,


and it goes wider than the banks. I can see that Bob Diamond is kind of


at the upper echelons of this. If you look at the, the directors of


leading British firm, this is not just bankers but all firm, they saw


their earnings in the last financial year rise by 49%. And yet


average pay, in the private sector rose by 2.6%. Why it is fair for


the bosses to get 49%, and the ordinary workers to get 2.6%?


averages cover a very wide range of different areas. There was one boss


I think that goes into that figure whose salary went up 400%. But his


company performed fantasticically. They are getting big erase, we are


told in the information age that a company runs on its brain, that the


quality and productivity and brainpower of the work force.


the guy at the top. Why the discrepancy. You need to go through


company by company, but the guy at the top is very important,


sometimes people make in, I think, wrong suggestion that if the share


price fall the boss must be doing a bad job. Sometimes that is not true.


Sometimes the hardst job is to stabilise a fail ing company.


you telling me that Bob dime would work only half as hard if we paid


him �14 million. It is not a question of us paying him. We all


have insurance policies, the money is, in a sense, I mean let me not


take a populist line on this, let me do it another way. This is theft


from the shareholders. This is money that belongs to the


shareholders that senior management are pinching. Not pinching it. You


have to decide, there has to be a process to decide what the is


correct remuen Asian, would be 20 be OK, they have to have a process


in place, that determines what they think he is worth, it is not qeef


him working... You know as well as I do, shareholders do not determine


these salaries. They don't. That is a fiction. It is remuen nation


committees that determine them. Not always, often, I am on your


committee if you sit on mine and we will both get �28 million. I think


there is a case for greater shareholder activism, but we can't.


It would be disastrous if we got into a cycle that any ort of


substantial salary in the tns shall services is pinching or stealing,


it isn't. I wanted to sign you up, I thought you were doing a really


good job. I am cheaper than �28 million. You are right of the


limitations for shareholders to hold chief executive to account.


Some of the shares are held for microseconds before they get passed


on. Many are held by others in other countries and others have


vested interested. So that is not going to work. I think particularly


now, at a time when we are supposed to be in this together. Where have


I heard that? It is corrosive for people to say their own salaries


going down, at the same time as you say, these bankers and many others


are getting high pay outs. There is one way you could say these guys


are getting really big salaries and they are nearly all guys. They are


getting big salaries. We don't think they are worth it but in the


end of the day the consequences of Government trying to intervene in


the private sector and saying you are worth that, that is never going


to work in the end. Let us take the view Bob Diamond is getting 28


million, we the taxpayer will get 14 million of that and so we are


quids in. That is what I would suggest, that rather than having


politicians try and work out what the figure should be, let us have a


50% tax and a permanent tax on bonuses, that would be a simple way


of doing it. You could look at issues of the differential between


company, putting the highest paid and lowest paid. That concentrates


mind. If people want to get higher they would have to bring up the


lowest paid. There was a documentary on the BBC last night,


not mine, from America, they talked in the 1950s the differential


tweenk between the chief executive of the General Motors and the


average worker was 40-1. Today it is 550-1. That is a huge difference.


Any way I have run out of hard balls so you can put your bat down


and go back to the tea room. Always good to be bowled out by you Andrew.


David Cameron and Barack Obama have promised to review the rules on


extradition following a series of high profile case, the current ex


pra dition treaty between Britain and America was signed in 2003.


Complaints were raised over the case of the NatWest Three who were


extradited to America, and convicted of fraud connected to the


Enron scandal. Then there was Gary McKinnon whon has been accused of


hacking NASA and Pentagon computers. Concern has been raised by the case


of Christopher Tappin, the businessman who is awaiting trial


in America on charges of illegally exporting goods to Iran. Last month


David Cameron said that Mr Tappin's case raised the need for a


thoughtful review of the process. His son Neil told the Daily


Politics he felt his father's treatment had been unfair. He has


never once had the opportunity to show any of the evidence on his


side of the argument, so in the hear information this country, the


US put across their side of the story, and then our lawyers had to


argue a few technical points which were pointless, so he goes out


there, he is in a cell on his own, no contact with us, 5,000 miles


away from home. It feels to us and if his presumption ofness has been


lost. That that is Neil Tappin talking about his faer. Let us get


more from Dominic Raab. What can be done? Is this not just window


dressing? We have had a review, we have had the baker review, he was


very clear, he said the treaty was not one sided. It doesn't operate


in an unbalanced manner. Apart from tweaking nothing is going to change


I would dispute that on the facts. The ratio of citizens between the


US and UK is something like five to one. It is in practise lopsided.


The point Baker made is that the legal tests, the evidential tests


are broadly similar, that is true, I think more or less but the key


thing is the way judges look at the evidence in the US, and they don't


do that here. The other critical think thing, I think that is what


is being trailed is this idea of a forum test, when you cross border


cases what this means is they could be tried here if it's a crime here.


Do you dispute what Scott Baker has done. His conclusions are clear, it


doesn't leave room for manoeuvre for David Cameron to look at this


again. I disagree. We have had review, there is a problem with the


Baker review, four months on we don't have any of the evidence it


received. That cast a shadow over the credibility of the report.


it going to be published? I am calling for it to be published.


that because you are worried it wasn't as independent as it said on


the tin? I am no doubt about the propriety of Scott Baker but the


evidence was shifted over the Home Office. It is extraordinary to have


an independent review and you don't have the evidence published so


people can see why people came ep to these conclusions. There is a


case of baba Ahmed who has been in prison without charge and the US


wants to extradite him. He hasn't been. This is a case that you


brought, shouldn't he be extradited. No, he is a UK citizen. The crimes


which he is alleged to have committed are supposed to have


happened in the UK. We should be trying that in this country. He is


under severe accusation and it is right there should be a trial. He


wants a trial. U but it should be in the UK where the crimes are


alleged to have occurred. Where someone hasn't been extradite, we


are seeing the example where people feel they have been handed over too


easily and quickly. The whole thing is a mess. Whatever you think it


can't be right to hold someone for years as a matter of principle that


can't be right. I think David Cameron is brave taking this on. He


is addressing the matter with the President, something that Tony


Blair was scared to do, with all those accusations of being a poodle.


It is important he addresses this. There is an expectation that


something will happen. The House of Commons voted for reform, not just


of the US arrangement but the European arrest warrant.


officials are looking at how this treaty is working, are you


optimistic is going to change. Something is, you have heard the


Prime Minister and the President saying they are going to examine it


and that has to be good news. Greens achieved the dream of any


small party, they got a seat in the Commons. Caroline Lucas won


Brighton Pavillion. He is a lone voice and there is a limit to what


one MP can do. Has it allowed The Greens to shine. We sent David


Thompson up the property ladder to This might be the most eco-friendly


house in Britain and if the greens were in power, they would probably


like us all to live in a place like this. But they do have one foot on


the Westminster property ladder. The Green Party now have a seat at


the top table of British politics and it has always been seen as a


triumph to have a green voice on the green benches, but actually, as


having an MP made a blind bit of difference? It has been an article


of faith that getting an MP in Parliament would be the be-all and


end-all for a small minority party. We now know that is not the case.


It is massively important and the role Caroline has is important, but


the success of green ideas does not depend on having one MP in


Parliament. There are some who describe themselves as turquoise


Tories, True Blues but a bit green who are frankly fairly caustic


about the impact Caroline Lucas has made. I'm not sure I'm finding


having a green member of parliament as creative as I thought it might


be, for creating as much attention as I was expecting. I would say


good on the publicity, but maybe a bit light on policy. Apart from


Caroline in Westminster, the Greens have two MSPs in Scotland, and 133


councillors in England and Wales and they control one council,


Brighton and Hove. They have to make gains in local government, but


think it is too early to say what will happen in Westminster. But


even their friends are doubtful whether Caroline will have to budge


up any time soon. It is difficult to make the sunshine there -- a


function that having one Green MP in Parliament, however good, it


leads automatically to the election of a lot of green MPs. That doesn't


mean sitting in splendid isolation in the Palace of Westminster is a


waste of time. Organisations like Age UK and Kucker look at most MPs


in vain. The debate on nuclear power, where all the major parties


have given up on finding alternatives to nuclear power, the


Green Party can do that. There's a very important role of bringing


these radical and ideas into the heart of the system that seems


locked into this very cruel politics of austerity without any


imagination about how a better world might be created. Or maybe it


is. As a single issue parliamentarian, there's a huge


opportunity. I'm not sure she has taken that opportunity and I am not


sure the green message is coming through as strongly. Her platform,


as it is from the coalition's platform, she is responding to our


policies, not the other way. Harsh words but that's life in


Westminster. Will that ever really be the ideal home for the Green


Party? Caroline is still with us. I didn't


run away! I don't blame me. It was obviously going to be difficult


because you're one of over 600 and you what a woman in what is still a


kind of men's club, despite the increase in women. Has it been more


difficult than you thought or have you been able to make more of an


impact than you had? It depends how you measure impact. In terms of


getting key issues on the political agenda that otherwise would not


have been there, we can say I've been successful. Example?


nuclear power. The Liberals are meekly following the Conservatives


and they have given up their opposition to nuclear power. The


majority of people are opposed. Where is the voice and the Commons?


If you look at the social issue, the NHS, who first started to push


commercialisation in the NHS? Labour. The Lib Dems are following


the Tories through the lobbies. Who is standing up for real public


health service? The greens. Afghanistan, I've put down the


amendment in a debate on Afghanistan calling for troops to


be withdrawn. That did not come from any other party. If you're


measuring it by putting issues on the grander, we are doing it. If


you are asking if I can outvote 649 others... I can't. I wonder if the


Times have been propitious for you. There are two ways in which Green


issues have been put on the back- burner. One is the economic Times,


which are quite grim and people are more worried about putting bread on


the table, and the global warming issue, rightly or wrongly, has been


put on the back foot as well. The public are more sceptical than they


were. Let me take the first one around whether or not there's a


contradiction between trying to get the economy back on track and


promoting investment in green technologies. My role is unique.


I'm the only one saying there doesn't have to be a division


between these things, precisely by investing in energy efficiency and


renewables. They would have vastly good economic effects as well as


good environmental effects. I was able to help instigate an inquiry


into the green economy to make sure those arguments were heard by a


cross-party committee of MPs and hopefully then to go forward to


make recommendations for the Government. Since getting elected,


we have been a strong green voice in Parliament. Membership of the


Green Party has doubled. We have our first council in Brighton and


Hove. Success in your grasp! What more can I say?


All those pictures we've seen on the news and in the papers of David


Cameron and Barack Obama schmoozing must be the stuff spin doctors


dream of. But just how important are these photo opportunities and


what happens when they don't go according to plan? In a moment,


I'll be speaking to one of Tony Blair's former spin doctors as well


as the Sun's former political editor, but first, here's a look


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 58 seconds


There was a great end! Well, former Labour spin doctor


Lance Price and George Pascow Watson, who's now at the PR firm


Portland, are with us now. Do they work or of a very risky? They are


slightly risky, but in the name, particularly with someone like


David Cameron, who is a natural performer, they are fantastic. A


great set of pictures can tell a fantastic story and they also give


a politician the chance to shine as a normal human being away from


Westminster. I presume that is what they are for, to show they are


human. We know they are. But to show them in normal surroundings.


But that clip of Tony Blair on the Tube, he looked really awkward, I


thought. I have to put my hand on your heart -- my heart. I was Byley


responsible. The idea was to make him look as if he understood the


concerns of normal people. Travelling on public transport. But


it is not true. You can only do it if it is true. It has to look right.


When we put him on the Tube or when we encouraged him to travel by


Ryanair on holiday one time because there were too many stories about


his fancy holidays, those sorts of photo opportunities go horribly


wrong. When you look at pictures between American President's and


British prime ministers, there's a feeling sometimes that you see that


unequal relationship, however good the photo opportunity, they look as


if they are the underling, if you like, to the American President. Is


that something you can't overcome in a photo? I'm not sure it's too


much of a problem. There will always be a sense that America is a


bigger animal than Britain. People don't have the time that people who


watched this show normally get to tune into politics. It is quite a


boring and difficult subject for a lot of people. Sometimes big


pictures like this are the way they get their perceptions and that is


really important for politicians. It is also important to point out


that what we've seen in this footage is a little bit. We haven't


seen the private stuff. The prime minister had 80 minutes on Air


Force One, one-on-one with the President. We don't see that sort


of picture. It is important to give the picture of security, economic


lakes and the fact we are being taken seriously. It doesn't change


anyone's vote. I doubt it. You have to provide pictures for television.


You guys need pictures. If you have a big event on the health service,


for example, you will see another picture of David Cameron listening


to nurses or Nick Clegg nodding his head sagely in the background,


making it look like they are engaging. It is all a bit


artificial. The real work goes on behind closed doors in really


serious discussions and the prime ministers and party leaders get a


bit fed up with these photo- opportunities. How much time do you


spend on thinking about the photo opportunity? Whoever came up of


that idea of Ed Balls and Andy Burnham swinging on those swings.


There are people like me who think about these things all the time and


it is not that easy. You get a brief that says make the prime


minister look more human. You scratch your head. Half the time it


doesn't work. Half the time it is counter-productive because prime


ministers are not like the rest of us. Thank you for joining us.


Time to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: What does


David Cameron say he plays when he needs a lift? Do you know the


answer? I can remind you... I was going to go for the last one but I


can't remember. That was Champagne supernova by Oasis. Do you know?


have drawn a blank. Thin Lizzie's Whiskey In The Jar.


Andrew will sing it! You get to pick the winner. I was amazed that


the President was allowed to use Air Force One to go to the


basketball game. This is this the year winner. This is not the winner


of that competition. This is yesterday's competition. The answer


Download Subtitles