24/04/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/04/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folk, welcome to the Daily Politics. James Murdoch gives


evidence about the hacking scanned toll the Leveson Inquiry and runs


into trouble over what did he know and when did he know it about the


hacking scandal. Tory backbenchers criticise George Osborne's decision


to loan �10 million to the IMF with one saying it is state sponsored


money-laundering. As the London mayoral campaign enters the final


stages we will talk to UKIP's candidate in the latest -- latest


of our the contenders for Boris Johnson's job. Can a bit of


celebrity stardust liven up a party election broadcast? We will ask the


star of Labour's about his leading role. You can vote for the NHS


service, to protect it. To improve it. All that coming up in the next


hour, with us Labour peer, doctor, scientist, broadcast er, PEB star


Robert Winston. Morning. We will come to the James Murdoch testimony


shortly he is being questioned about the Murdoch family's links


with politician in relation to the BSkyB, the attempt to take over all


of BSkyB. We will bring you that and more in the next hour. Let us


kick off with the star turn in Parliament today. Not Theresa May


being questioned by MPs but none other than the comedian and actor


Russell Brand. Ehere he is talking to the Home Affairs Committee this


morning as part of their inquiry into drugs. For me what is more


significant is the way we socially regard the condition of addiction.


It is something that I consider to be an illness and therefore more a


health matter than a criminal or judicial matter. I don't think that


legalisation is something as I said I alqualified to get into. I can


see areas where decriminalisation might be more useful and efficient,


in countries like Portugal and Switzerland where there has been


trials. It seems to have had some efibg si. It is more important we


regard people suffering from addiction with compassion, and


there is a pragmatic rather than symbolic approach to treating it.


That was Russell Brand talking to MPs in the last half hour. It must


be very warm in that Select Committee hearing. Either that or


his acting career is not going so well! And he is struggling to


afford any clothes. It detracted from what he had to say. Let us go


to the substance. Drug policy at the moment in this country, I mean,


in many, when you look at how widespread drugs are in this


country, and the useage and the grief and horrible things they


cause, the war on drugs hasn't really worked has it. No, I don't


think the policy on drug -- drugs is rational. I think globally it


isn't rational. We have roughly the same policy. We do which is to


criminalise them to make it more difficult to obtain them. You push


up the price of the drug, you increase the black market. There is


a strong case for decriminalising drugs. All drugs? Probably all.


mean as I understand it Russell Brand was a heroin addict at one


stage. One of the great things about that is you could start with


the softer drug, for example we know that cannabis which is hugely


controversial are, it is dubious whether they cause serious ill


effects and ex ta -- ecstasy that applies. I thought, our generation


thinks, of cannabis from the 06. I am told that today, it is much


tougher. It is much stronger. And the other argument is that it is a


gateway drug. People start on cannabis and the people feeding


them the cannabis are the ones who say why don't you try some cocaine.


Crack, heroin. I know that and I think that is an argument which is


often put forward, but the fact is, you know, is alcohol a gateway


drug? The truth is alcohol kills far more people, damages more Clive


lives. Alcohol is legal. Yes... the guy push Meg the bottle of


whisky, and he is not pushing me, I go into the off-licence and ask for


it, he is not then saying would you like to have something stronger


under-the-counter? I think this of course is one of the reasons. There


has been this conflict the scientific evidence and the policy


evidence. Ministers have been adviceed by scientists that there


should be a relaxing of some of the drugs while public policy has been


in conflict because there are other issues like the alcohol issue and


the pricing. Politicians run a mile from this, don't they, on the left


and right. There are many occasion in public policy when you take


decisions which aren't necessarily entirely amicable to the population.


Hanging, many people feel they would like to see on it statute


books. Maybe we should be looking more bravely at drug useage. Does


the appearance of someone like Russell Brand, does that matter?


Does it make a difference? I can't believe it helps the Select


Committee to take up a de-- decision like this. We had a Select


Committee where we looked at cannabis and we came to the


conclusion that really it would be quite reasonable to use cannabis as


a prescriptive drug, Because we have to move on, we have the


Murdoch testimony going on what is the difference between


decriminalising drugs and legal ing them. I think there is a difference.


If you decriminalise a drug you can regulate it. If you make it a


criminal offence, then of course it is not regulated in the same way at


all. OK. Jo. On to something different. Time for the quiz. The


question for today is what does David Cameron, the Prime Minister,


often do at 5.45 in the morning sn? At the end of the show Lord Winston


will give us the correct answer. It is just for fun so no need to mail


in your answer. There is no prize. You have to watch on Wednesday to


get a mug. The Leveson Inquiry into the culture practises and ethics of


the media reaches a crucial moment this week, with both Rupert and


James Murdoch being called at witnesses. Murdoch junior is up


today. He is testifying as we speak with five-and-a-half hours devoted


to questions the News Corp executive and his families


relations with British politicians. Top of the list was the extent to


which James Murdoch knew about illegal hacking at his newspapers


and this whole issue which for many years was the defence it was just a


rogue reporter and didn't go beyond that. That is right. The inquiry at


the Royal Courts of Justice is entering what promises to be the


most dramatic phase so far. Leveson was set up in response to the


outrage over allegations that the News of the World had hacked the


mobile phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. The men who ran the


media empire at the centre of the allegations Rupert and James


Murdoch have already appeared at a memorable Select Committee meeting


last year. At the Leveson Inquiry they will be questioned separately,


for at least a full day each by a single barrister and they will be


under oath. Today, it is James Murdoch's turn. He resigned as


chairman of the news operation in February and is faith facing


detailed questions over what he knew and when. The inquiry is


turning to the relationship between the press and our leading


politicians. Rupert Murdoch has had a front row seat in British


political life for decades and comments suggest he is far from


happy with the Government. So this could be an uncomfortable


experience for Number Ten. James Murdoch has been giving evidence


for the last couple of hours. Let us look at some of what he has been


saying. Weren't you told that the new evidence related to others at


News of the World? What is now known as the for Neville e-mail was


is important for two reasons. One reason was it was a direct link


between the News of the World and Mr Mulcaire's activity with respect


to Gordon Taylor, that is what was told to me. There was another


reason I appreciate that it linked to wider journalists and could have


been the thread to say there was more going on there, and for that,


and that part of it, that part of it's importance was not imparted to


me that day: Did anybody tell you at the meeting, words to this


effect, the, this guy is trying to blackmail us? I don't recall those


words. Or anything like them, is that your evidence Mr Murdoch?


don't remember those words or words like that, it was a short meeting,


and what I can say... Holding us to ransom because although his case is


worth much less, he knows that we know that the reputational harm o


the company would be so great, that a vast overvalue of the claim has


to be made by way of settlement to get rid of it. Was that


communicated? That was not the gist of what was communicated to me.


10th September 2009, you had drinks with Mr Cameron at a place called


the George, the topic of the discussion was the Sun's proposed


endorsement of the Conservative Party. Do you see that? Yes. Was it


made clear to Mr Cameron that the Sun would be endorsing the


Conservative Party? It was made clear to Mr Cameron by me, that


after discussions with the editor and the leadership at News


International and my father, that that autumn, the Sun would either


be endorsing the Conservative Party or you know, moving away from its


traditional or recent support of Labour as it had been through the


summer. This must have been welcome news to Mr Cameron, wasn't it?


seemed that way. James Murdoch, he is still testified and will do so


for the rest of the day after a break for lunch at one clock. We


are joined by the Labour MP Chris Bryant who has been involved in the


whole hacking scandal and the former News of the World deputy


editor Paul con-- conknew. I want to separate two things. First is


James Murdoch's role in hacking scandal. The second his


relationship and that of his father and company with politics at a time


when hay were lobbying to buy all of BSkyB. Let us stick with the


hacking to begin with on this. What do you think we learned this


morning from the forensic questioning of James Murdoch by the


QC? We learned that James Murdoch is sticking to his line but it is


unconvincing. My problem is that James can keep on saying he never


read the newspaper, he never spoke to the editor, he never saw any of


the e-mails. He never investigated whether it was right to spend the


best part of �1 million on paying off Gordon Taylor. That makes him


look incompetent F that is the tkpai, the company was so large,


that he he or his father count know what was going on on the shop floor,


doesn't that suggest that we as politicians in this country allowed


the Murdoch empire to be big to have too much of a stranglehold


over the British media. If it was a construction firm the senior


executives wouldn't be able to say sorry, there has been, a terrible


accident but we did, we weren't able to know whether proper safety


procedures have been pursued. My argument is the corporate


governance at this organisation was shoddy at best. You were talking


about a time when the News International defence and James


Murdoch's defence was it was a rogue reporter, and that rogue


reporter had been the royal correspondent of the News of the


World and he had gone to jail. And so had the private detective that


had been doing the hacking for him, and giving him the reports so it


was done and dusted and justice had been done. Then, inside News


International they come along to James Murdoch and say, Gordon


Taylor is now hack and he is demanding a lot of money to settle


out of court. We have to do it. Surely the fact that it was Gordon


Taylor, who is involved in football, I think some kind of football union


leader, is nothing to do with royalty or the royal correspondent,


that in itself, I will come to the money in a minute that, in itself


should have alerted anybody to the idea so it is more than Mr Goodman


involved. Certainly. Without doubt James Murdoch is falling back on


the one defence open to him, which is that basically I am incompetent,


I didn't ask the right questions, I have a surprising lack of a


questioning mind, but I am not, I am not corrupt, I didn't lie to


Parliament. That is his position. am saying that there is a statement


to make T statement is not a question, the statement is clearly,


well if we are hacking into the phone of people involved in


football, clearly it has gone beyond one rogue reporter, because


Clive Goodman has nothing to do with football. Anybody with a


probing mind, let alone somebody in charge of a major international


company should have actually asked that question. He didn't. He says


he didn't. That is quite unbelievable. I think anybody


sitting there watching that, Joe Public will think that is very hard


to believe. Then you come to the second part of this, which is first


of all clearly Mr Taylor, he isn't royalty so not the royal


correspondent, then the sum of money that News International is


being asked to pay, or is having to pay to get Mr Taylor to settle out


of court. It turns out to be way above any amount ever paid before


in similar cases of involving privacy. Way above the amount of


money that even the News International's own QC said would


be the maximum amount, and it could only be that you pay this sum of


money to avoid further reputational damage, and what can be the only


further damage? But the fact that the rogue reporter defence doesn't


They knew for ages that the rogue reporter line was just that, a line


which they hope they would be able to keep to. Watching James today,


he is on oath, of course. Much more significant than when he was


sitting next to his father... one person questioning him. Exactly


and therefore much more frenzied. It shows up differences between the


parliamentary and judicial system - - much more forensic. It looks like


a man who is not telling the full truth. There is an awful lot of


selective amnesia going on, just as he had wilful blindness previously


when he did not read the whole of the Mail which said, by the way,


there is mass criminality going on, in relation to the payment of


police officers. For me, the most telling moment came from Lord


Leveson, who has a habit of coming in with a really effective, short


and polite questions. It was this. James's stance is to blame, Myler,


the last editor, and the legal manager. But as Lord Leveson said,


what was their motivation for keeping him in the dark? What


logically would it be? Normally, in the circumstances, you want to


spread the blame. In the case of Colin Myler, although he stands


accused of having misled Parliament on his first estimate, is the fact


he was not around in the country. - - his first testimony. He was not


there at the time of the hacking. So it is hard to see what is


motivation would be for withholding things. Let me get Robert Winston's


comment on this part. I think my view is unpopular. I think one of


the things that is missing is that BSkyB and the Murdoch print media


have done an immensely good job at many tyres. Look at the Times'


campaign on bicycling in London. Look at the Arts on BSkyB. Had this


inquiry happened 10 years ago, it would have been much more


significant. Increasingly, young people will be using the internet


anyway, which will be almost impossible to regulate. I am not


quite sure why that is relevant. the real problem is not the


original phone hacking, it is the cover up. It is the perverse and of


the course of justice. -- perversion. It is the biggest


corporate corruption scandal in this country. I am thinking about


how Leveson eventually decides what we do about it, and that is a big


problem. The other issue is more difficult to keep tabs on because


it is going on as we broadcast. There is implication from


questioning from the QC, that the Murdoch organisation swung its


support away from Labour and to the Conservatives, and then started to


use that support to lobby for the right to buy the rest of BSkyB. The


60% of BSkyB they didn't own. think there were three parts of the


contract between the Murdochs and the Conservative Party. We have


learned one thing which Cameron has not owned up to, that he did


expressly discuss these matters with James Murdoch and Rupert


Murdoch. Cameron has never owned up to that. Apparently they did it at


Christmas lunch with Rebekah Brooks. And on another occasion, at the


George pub, I don't know which George pub it is. I think there are


three parts to this. Slash the BBC, that is what happened, although it


was not necessary for the deficit. Secondly, the curtailing of Ofcom.


Just after meeting Rupert Murdoch, David Cameron made a wonderful,


wonderfully bizarre speech about slashing the quangos and the only


one he was going to have a guard was Ofcom. And thirdly, it was


allowing the BSkyB merger to go through. This gets very murky and


difficult for Cameron. The one-time that James lost his head, his


Harvard call, was when Vince Cable's name cropped up. And acute


bias was the turn, in a flash of anger, probably the only real


moment of anger. He may be justified from his particular


position, given we know what Vince Cable thought. There is a lot of


talk going around that this will be a tough week for Jeremy Hunt, the


Culture Minister. Because he was very pro News International before


we got into power. Indeed, he even had some great cheerleading thing


on his website at one stage for the Murdochs. And he is the man who had


to get involved in the BSkyB decision. We got a lot from Mr


James Murdoch on, I don't recall details of my talks with Mr Hunt,


it might have been to update him on the bid. For a young man... Me and


Robert, we have more of an excuse now. You are obsessed with your age


today. It is the third reference. don't remember. No, you don't


recall! What I mean is that not to recall these things is quite...


Unconvincing. I think it is extraordinary and I have never


believed Jeremy Hunt on this. I had a private conversation with Jeremy


Hunt when we were about to do any questions and he said, the only


difference between you and me is that I would allow the BSkyB merger


to go ahead tomorrow and you wouldn't. You are telling us, he


said he was in favour of the full takeover? This was actually when it


was still Vince Cable's responsibility. It appeared as I


was coming in, James's evidence, that a meeting was only cancelled


by Jeremy Hunt, it seems, on legal advice. Which she jests Jeremy Hunt


was willing to still need him during the course of the BSkyB bid.


-- which suggests. Where does this leave us? It has taken us not very


much further forward on phone hacking. I think the revelation


about politics will get stronger. Tomorrow, when Rupert Murdoch


appears, I think a few political bombs will be thrown. I hope the


politicians, in the future, don't do what we have done for 40 years,


which is allow one person to have such a sway. That includes Labour


as much as anybody else. It is longer than 40 years, it has always


gone on. That is why I think how you regulate the press is very


difficult. The bit that is being avoided is the criminal stuff. I


think when people see... I have seen some of the stuff, I think


people will be truly shocked. you very much for that. We will


bring you an update on what James Murdoch has been saying before the


end of the programme. Time for the latest in a series of


interviews with the candidates who hope to become the next Mayor of


London. Today, the turn of UKIP's Lawrence Webb. What is his


platform? He wants to stop any EU legislation impinging on the City


of London. He is proposing zero- tolerance on gangs, knife crime and


anti-social behaviour, with a new role of defender on Saturday, face


court on Monday. -- a new rule of They would restrict the extension


-- and scrap the congestion charge. They would let landlords decide


whether to have smoking in pubs and clubs. They want to make it easier


for people to carry out citizens' arrests. Lawrence Webb has joined


us in the studio. Thank you for coming in. Let's look at some of


those quite eye-catching policies. The main problem is, you wouldn't


have the power to implement them. There's a lot disgust that the


other candidates have been discussing, that they can't do -- a


lot that has been discussed. Part of the mayor's role is to create a


vision for London. In terms of landlords allowing smoking, that


would break the law. Businesses, pubs, have been closing at the rate


of 28 per week. Have we have to create an environment which is good


for business. It is a point that needs to be made. The government


keep coming up with strategies to tackle anti-social behaviour,


drinking and things like that. People don't get drunk in pubs.


They buy cheap alcohol in supermarkets, landlords are they


responsible to their drinkers. admit that many of the things you


propose are not things you can do. They are creating a vision. People


may think, the voters out there, cutting VAT, for example... Boris


can't build an airport in the Thames Estuary but there has been


an awful lot of coverage about it. It is creating a vision and that is


what I am doing. What about some of the things that you could actually


do? What are the leading lights in your manifesto in terms of what you


could actually changed. One of the things people talk about his crime,


people are concerned about crime. What we saw after the riots is that


people were rounded up, brought before the courts and Del very


quickly. Statistics show us that about 200 crimes a day are


committed by people on bail. You only see the headlines with the


murderers and rapists but a lot of those crimes are low-level anti-


social crimes. The sooner people are put away, the less chance they


have got to commit crimes, biting people's lives will stop you have


also suggested the sit -- extension of citizens' arrest powers, how


will that word? It deals with a lot of low-level


crime. -- how will that work? People are afraid to intervene


because they are afraid they will be arrested and charged. Or that


they might get hurt? If a lot of it is a young kids committing crimes,


on some of these estates around London, the perpetrators are


actually quite young, 10, 11, 12, young teenagers. People used to


have respect for adults and if people told them to pack it in,


they would. Now they fear to get -- to intervene in case they get


trouble themselves. Are you advising people to step in?


would support people, if they are intervening to prevent crime, the


law should protect those people that are upholding the law.


don't think it is a dangerous line to cross-question not everyone is


going to do it but where it is done, they should be supported. -- you


don't think it is a dangerous line to cross?


Have you got fresh choice for London as York slogan? Yes, we also


have the logo on the ballot paper. -- as your slogan. We have the logo


and the description is, fresh toys for London. As we were campaigning,


that is what people wanted. You're not running a shy of the party?


ballot paper has got UKIP on it. 2008, UKIP came in 7th place behind


the BNP and the Christian People's around so what are your best hopes?


A lot has happened since then. A recent poll put us less than one


percentage point behind the Liberal Democrats and clearly ahead of the


greens. That is despite the greens getting in all of the debates and


me being resigned to the also-rans afterwards. You are all souk


running for the London Assembly. -- also running. The media have


portrayed this as a two-horse race. If you in the media but explain the


voting system, it would open up the contest. The first vote is a truly


free vote. You can vote for whichever party you want. Your


second preference, your security blanket, if you like. If your


preferred candidate doesn't get through, your second vote counts.


Who would you advise voters to put a second preference? We have said


boroughs because we think Ken would be so disastrous. -- we have said


Boris. Would you consider running for London? I think the idea of the


two-horse race is about right, I think it is one of the problems. I


don't understand how we have arrived at the Labour Party


choosing Ken Livingstone. I think it has been shown to be a tricky


customer. I would have thought we would have had a fresher view about


how London might be led. UKIP is the fresh choice. Forgive me, I


don't think we will be supporting UKIP. We get support from a good


many Labour voters. I think there is a real dilemma for lot of people


in London at the moment. My personal view is a personal view. I


am not sure that the party interest is the key issue here. I think the


person who represents London, their personality is very important.


Labour would argue he was a big enough personality to take on Boris


Johnson. I think he has espoused some disastrous causes and some of


his comments on international politics seem to be extremely


unhealthy. Do you wish you had gone for it? Could you have been the


alternative? Like Andrew, I am too old. I don't think there is an age


barrier. Ken doesn't think there is. I like science. I am quite her


young compared to Ken Livingstone. Did you think about it. It is too


late now. I think you did. I didn't. And thank you very much, Lawrence


Webb. Just over a week to go until the


party's battle it out at the local elections. The race to be Mayor of


London as well. They have many tools in their armoury, like the


door-to-door leaflet drop, the appearances on programmes like this


one, and not to forget, they are still around, the PEB, the party


election broadcast. They come around every year, every time there


is an election. I know all of you have been glued to those thrilling


3 minute chunks of television gold. This year, our very own guest of


the day, Robert Winston, has even starred in one. If you haven't had


Pitch, real people, or should a political party throw a bit of


celebrity into their election broadcast, like say a TV doctor.


The NHS deals with when we are at our most vulnerable. At our most


frightened. When we are naked. is bizarre. It is odd it is the


local election. When does it tell you? OK. I am watching Labour's


offering with man who makes it his business o know what sways if


voters. What they have tried to do is use a professional. They are


using Robert Winston, he is well- known from his work on television


but he is a leading doctor, doctors are some of the most trusted people


in Britain so Labour have gone for broke by having no politicians


whatever in their video. But do politicians do it better? Boris


Johnson and a Pickles Cameron duo take the lead for the Conservatives.


Don't led Labour do to your council what it did to the country. Sach


has been behind many Tory ad campaigns. Its chief executive says


a leader's pitch sometimes doesn't work. Some politicians believe


talking to camera and at people will be memorable. To a point it


can be, but is it seeding in their mind an image thatly sta with them


and change their mind in where they put the tick in the box. There is a


preponderance of men in suits. No men in suits for the Green Party.


We can't vote. I can't vote. But you can. And real people are what


it is all about for many of London's mayoral candidates


although Ken Livingstone got into trouble over this one. This is a


party political broadcast on behalf of ordinary Londoners. It turned


out some of those ordinary Londoners had their lines scripted


and were paid expenses to turn up. There are other ways to connect


with the voter though. Like the faithful election battle bus for


example which seems to be the tool of choice for London's mayoral


hopefuls but you can't get a bus in your living room. Which is where


you might think a party election broadcast on TV would be better.


Seven out of ten said they watched one and one in eight said it had


influenced the way they voted, which is the same as national press,


so in a sense they can have an impact. And viewing figure show


that party political broadcasts were watched by an average of 7


10,000 people last year. A word of advice from the world of marketing?


Effective political advertising is about setting an agenda, you make


sure that the battle is fought on the territory that you want it to


be fought on, not what the other side wants it to be fought on.


Robert Winston who stars in that Labour latest election broadcast.


We are joined by the man who knows everything and more about party


election broadcasts aren't all that goes on round them Michael


Cockerell, welcome back to the programme. Now, Robert you appear


in this Labour broadcast and you talk about the National Health


Service, it won't have escaped your mind it is not about the National


Health Service. Unfortunately I think they are. There is a miscop


shenion the Health and Social Care Bill involves local politics as


more people come into social care and more payment will come from


Local Authorities. That is the problem. You know, I don't see


myself as a celebrity doing this, I had grave misgivings about doing it,


but I feel so strongly this is a moral issue, I sat through this


bill for a year-and-a-half, feeling increasingly uncomfortable and I


felt I ought to speak out. understand that and you have been


on this programme giving your struens health reform, I have no


problem with that, but Local Authorities,, they deliver Health


Service, but what you object to, what you complain about can only be


changed by national Government. think it can be changed by a


general feeling about what will be happening locally to be fair. You


know one of the issues of course is that the health service has been


fragmented, with the new commissioning groups there already


several hundred groups of which they will be local who will be hor


in charge of what happens locally. We will not have a National Health


Service. The risk is we will have a local Health Service which has


health inequalities in different parts, like London. There was a


time some of us vaguely remember when there was no internet, no


bloggers and the party political broadcasts were shown at the same


time. Can you re, it didn't matter which channel you were watching,


there it was. In these days you think if there is no escape they


must have been important. Are they as important? I don't think they


are. It was a captive audience. Now they are two or three minutes they


used to be as long as a quarter of an hour or half an hour. It was


Margaret Thatcher who first said I believe in choice, so you don't all


to to watch me at the same time on the then three channels. She was


the first one to do it and also she was the first one to be told by


Saatchi and Saatchi, anything you can say in half an hour, quarter of


an hour you can say in two or three minutes. They wanted to have spots


like Americans, spots of 30 seconds. Why, Robert, is Ed Miliband not in


the Labour commercial, if I can call it that? That is interesting.


That is why I raised the question. I think you would have to ask him


that question. And also the people who run, you know who run the party


affairs. I am not in that circle. I have no idea. I understand. They


put Robert Winston on as an ordinary person, celebrity,


television doctor. With more credibility. He begins by saying I


never thought I would make party political broadcast, although I had


to suppress a certain smile when you, yes, watching you and talking


extolling the virtues of the health service and attacking David Cameron.


I seem to ren when Alastair Campbell has to put the thumb


screws and gag on you when you attacked Labour's plan tons Health


Service. We as a result of that doubled the investments in the


Health Service, Tony Blair did come true, came through straight away


and... We are not here to talk about Blair's health. Here is a


thought, to get your reaction. We have always been against having


commercials on British television for politicians, as some people


suggest it. Mr Basil get. So Mr Basil get, that why he has been


Robert Winston throughout the show. He is suggesting it. One of the


huge problems is the vast sums of money you need to buy, because the


TV stations always demand the top dollar because you have nowhere


else to go. I don't think many people want to go down that route.


Rupert Murdoch of all people suggested Americans should have


British style party election broadcasts for free in all the


networks. In the age of broadband n internet. The parties can make


their own commercials now and seen by a lot of people. Int There is


still a huge audience on terrestrial television, they won't


naturally use this and switch over, especially if the broadcast is made


engaging, if you saw the David Cameron's one, it was made exactly


like a news report, very much like Nick Robinson's news report. The


same shot, getting on the train, holding his red bag, walking off by


himself. Never gets off a train by himself. Gets off with 20 people.


For a broadcast he gets off by himself. I think we better leave it


there. Nobody cried in the making of these broadcasts were were told.


Unlike Ken Livingstone, nobody cried. The authentic tears or not.


Thank you for being on Michael. On Friday evening, George Osborne


announced that Britain will loan the International Monetary Fund �


10 billion. Yesterday the Chancellor explained his decison to


the House of Commons and faced some criticism from both sides of the


house. We will not turn our back on the IMF or turn our back on the


world: That would be a betrayal of our country's interests and our kun


tri's identity, and it would incidentally at the same time be a


betrayal of my party's history. Mr Speaker, it is because of the


decisive action this Government has taken to deal with our own debts we


can be part of the solution and no longer part of the problem. Would


with the US not contributing this is clearly less than the UK's quota


share. Could it be that if he had contributed a fraction more, he


would have to come to this House and ask for Parliamentary approval?


After the budget shambles of the last few weeks, isn't this


Chancellor running scared of both sides of this snbg The only way


that Spain, Italy Portugal and Greece are to become come petstive


and get their economies growing again, is a return to national


currency. Does not the chancellor agree that it is bonkers of a


policy to pour billions of billions of UK tax payers' money into


supporting to failed euro? When one's friends are trapped in a


burning building, isn't the kindest thing to do to lead them in the


direction of the exits in an ordinary way, rather than give them


billions to stay exactly where they are? It is to make sure that the


Fire Brigade has enough water to deal with the problem. We all know


this is state sponsored money laundering to prop up the failed,


the doomed European project called the euro. It does not come without


a heavy human cost, this deal means that in southern Europe the


imposition of net tightening of 3% per year, without jouf setting


monastery stim louse or demand growth in the rest of Europe or


structural reforms. On that basis why is the Chancellor throwing good


UK tapes money after bad for this - - taxpayers money after bad for


this economic madness? And we are joined by the Conservative MP


Claire Perry and Chris Lesley. Welcome to both of you. Yesterday


George Osborne said that what he was doing was helping countries


including groups of countries, the eurozone who get into trouble. Yet


in October 2010 he said clearly Britain will not be putting money


into the bail out fund directly or through in the IMF the IMF


contributing money, no. It is true. It is not going into the bail out


fund. It is going to... To bail out the euro. Isn't it great we part of


the solution and not the problem. Let us get it right here. The IMF


is putting the had round because it need more money for its number one


consense which is the eurozone. No it is lending to countries not


currencies. Let me finish the question. I am not talking about


currency, I know it doesn't support currencies but your own Chancellor


said including groups of countries it help, that is the eurozone. The


reason why the IMF has done this, and you have to read anything, it


needs a bigger firewall to help if the eurozone needs a bail out and


the eurozone bail out will join with the IMF bail out. That is the


opposite of what the Chancellor told us. What we heard yesterday it


was the right thing to do, it was supported in November by your


shadow cans lo, it was supported yesterday by Alistair Darling and


it is the right thing to do. I go back to the point. We have a fire


burning in Europe. We have euro gedsen, thank goodness we we are in


Britain where the pound is at a high against the euro. You admit it


could well be use for the bail out? We are not putting money into the


bail out fund. What we are doing is supporting the international


institution that will deliver global stability. I am confused


here. Is this money, is there any chance or not in your view, that


this money can be used by the IMF to help with the eurozone bail out?


Will it be lent to Government like Greece, will it be lent to


Government like Spain whose problems are not eurozone problem,


they are the sorts 06 problems we have here. So it will be lent to


them. That is an option for the IMF. So it will be used in eurozone


abilities. It will not go into the eurozone bail out fund. Excuse me,


I am not... Look, I think language is important here. Some honesty


here, you are dancing on the head of a pin. I don't think I am.


are making me angry. I am not asking you if it is going into the


eurozone bail out. I know that is not the case. Every financial


commentator in the world knows that the purpose of this bail out, this


extra money for the IMF is for the IMF to work with the eurozone bail


out fund, to bail out the eurozone together. But not directly. It is


going into Government lending this is the point. Andrew, I think the


reason why Claire and the Chancellor are having so many


problems with their own backbenchers, just a second Claire,


Claire... You are not very good at letting other people have their


word. Not when they are wrong. reason why so many people are angry


is because the Chancellor and in a sense by your own comments you are


treating them like fools, pretending that somehow this ten


billion extra isn't intended for the euro bail out solution and if,


this is money you might well rinse it through the IMF, but to suggest


somehow that this... Just a second Claire, to suggest this isn't going


to be propping up the bail out fund, which in terms of the eurozone


countries themselves we, are talking wealthy country, including


Germany who should have been dipping into their pocket, instead


you are letting them off the hook so we, the rest of the world put


Excuse me, I have got to ask him a question. Excuse me, I want to ask


me -- him a question, would you let somebody else speak for a minute?


Are you in favour of giving more money to the bail-out fund or not.


Let him answer! It is very difficult with Claire in the room


sometimes. The important thing that we have to do is look at the


American position on this, the Canadian position. It is yes or no.


They are saying no money for the euro bail-out, whether it is direct


or indirect. I know what the American position is, what is your


position. We say no and the reason is at this point in time, the


eurozone countries have not been coming up with their own resources.


We are letting them off the hook. My point is if we keep it in this


sticking-plaster in place, it will keep taking the money from the rest


of the world. For the avoidance of doubt, can I get it clear that if


the IMF had come to a Labour government currently in power,


would you have given the money to the IMF? No. Because it is letting


them off the hook. There is a negotiation here. It is a finely


balanced issue. We want the resent to be healthy and get into a state


where it doesn't put the rest of the economy at risk. And where we


have to support an IMF in a general sense. In this set of circumstances


as a negotiation, wealthy eurozone countries and the rest of the world,


to what extent can we make sure they dig into their own pockets. If


we let them off the hook, we are not doing them a favour. This is


the usual level of pathetic, put a full political posturing that you


Alistair Darling, who has come out of your omnishambles of a Labour


government with his reputation intact, said he would agree with


this. Ed Balls said last November he would agree with it. You need to


make up your mind to be a trouble opposition, because frankly, if I


could just speak. Trying to deal with you is so difficult. This sort


of pathetic political posturing has got to stop. Nobody takes you


seriously, you have no economic credibility and the sorts of


ridiculous comments you are making today, and Ed Balls made yesterday,


proved that. Can I ask a final question. If this money is not to


be used in concert with a eurozone bail-out to add to the size of the


firewall for the eurozone, why is it the Americans have said we're


not giving us money to the IMF, because it would be used to add to


the eurozone firewall. We have a choice. I have no idea. The


Americans said we have provided extraordinary amounts of liquidity


through the market. The European Central Bank has provided


extraordinary amount of liquidity, a supercharged programme. It is


time for all sorts of countries including the UK to step up and


deal with this crisis. What is very clear at is that the government


when they are in a whole, they try to become more shrill. Is that


because I am a woman? No, you are refusing to engage in the argument.


You either bail them out now, or you hold back, don't give our money,


UK tax payer's money at a time when they should be digging into their


own pockets. I am not going to make any apologies, it is British money.


Thank you very much. Don't interrupt me.


Nick Clegg wants to scrap it and start it again but what has the


Deputy Prime Minister got against the House of Lords?


Here is a guide to Parliament's upper house.


The Upper House is the second chamber, the House of Lords. It is


independent of the elected Commons but the two houses share


responsibility for checking laws and passing government action.


There are 800 members of the House of Lords, the number is not fixed


as it is in the Commons, and there is, as ever, talk of change.


Basically, they split into three types. There are the life peers,


there for the lifetime. There are 26 bishops of the Church of England


and there are 92 hereditary peers, there until, well, until he knows


when? The -- who knows. Lords are not elected, they are sent here


mainly by the party leaders. They come from assorted fields. Some are


great experts. Had they spent a bit more, we might have had a bill


which would have damaged the health service a great deal less. Quite a


few ex-MPs wash up here too. Debate about the quality of our national


performance, in which we are all involved. This is the Prince's


Chamber, a working ante room which leads into the House of Lords


Chamber. It is a place where peers can come to meet, mingle and maybe


do a little bit of plotting. The role of the Lords is to act as a


body of specialist knowledge. The country's elders, to scrutinise in


greater detail bills that have been approved by the Commons. Bills have


to be approved by the Commons and the Lords. They have here in the


House of Lords, government ministers, too. Not all members of


the House of Lords belong to political parties. You have the


crossbench peers and the bishops. They are neutral. Well, they are


meant to be. The New Testament shows Jesus as having a very


special concern for children. Lords acts as a constitutional


safeguard. The fact it isn't elected is actually rather an


important part of its flavour at the moment. It can challenge the


wishes of the majority when they threaten to steamroller certain


important rights. The Lords can ask the Commons to think again. It is a


bit like having your homework sent back by a politically -- pernickety


Robert Winston is still ask -- with us, he is a Labour member of the


House of Lords. Those in favour of plans to reform the upper chamber


say it is unelected, unaccountable, half the people don't turn up half


the time, it is desperately-needed to be reformed and to have a mainly


elected House. What is wrong with One thing is that you don't hear


arguments like you have just heard in the House of Lords. People tried


to look at the evidence for something and then work out what is


the best solution. People like myself may take a Labour whip, or


even the members of the Labour Party, but I see myself independent


of my party. I often am prepared to vote against it or certainly argue


against it, just as many Conservatives who, with proper


legitimacy, do the same thing. This is rather unusual in a political


chamber. Are you against changing it at all? No, of course not. What


we should be doing is to try to decide what kind of Parliament we


want to serve the best interests of the nation's, rather than to tamper


with one part of the mechanism which is working quite well at the


moment. We have 800 or so, not enough room, too much cost, it


needs to be streamlined. I take the argument about the expertise. You


could still retain an element of that expertise if you are talking


about crossbenchers or even party figures like yourselves who have


had other lives, in the arrangement that the government is putting


forward. I don't have a problem with anything you are saying. The


case for reform is not an issue. There is obviously a need for


reform. But we have a bill produced by Nick Clegg, who has never sat


through a debate in the House of Lords, never been to a committee,


doesn't actually know how the chamber works. He must do. I don't


think he does. A Labour MP said to me, after 20 years in the House of


Commons, tell me, do you wear your robes during debates in the House


of Lords? That shows the ignorance of the Commons. What is your


biggest worry? The elected part, or are you worried about the party


political part? What is your biggest concern? The biggest


objection to the elected bit is you end up with people are not


accountable over 15 years because they don't come back to the


electorate. That is a big flaw in the Clegg bill. Also, there is an


issue that one of the beauties of the place is you don't have a


second-rate Commons. You have an independent chamber which is able,


by looking in detail at legislation, to advise about the best way to go


forward. Would you stand for election? No. That was brief. Well


done. The straightest answer we have had


all day! James Murdoch has been giving evidence to the Leveson


inquiry all morning. In the last half hour he has been questioned


about the bid for the part of BSkyB that the Murdoch organisation does


not own. And about relations between News International and


senior politicians. Would it be fair to say that Mrs Brooks bore


the brunt of the majority of meetings with politicians, because


of their relationship with politicians? -- her relationship.


have seen the skill of the Prime Minister's meetings in that period.


I can't remember exactly, she would have been closer to those issues


than I was. Was it part of the general way of working, as it were,


that Mrs Brooks might report back to you as to the outcome of any


discussions, or the fact of any discussions with politicians, and


then you would report anything important back to your father?


time to time, she would report to me about a discussion that was


relevant but she would also communicate directly with my father,


with some frequency. That was James Murdoch, this is James Landale. We


have done the hacking staff, this has gone on to the relationship


between senior News Corp people and senior government people, including


the Prime Minister, and this whole lobbying for them to buy all of


BSkyB. What do we know? There is no great new smoking gun, no great


document or fact that has emerged that totally changes what we knew


previously. But we do know a bit more detail about the scale of the


meetings that were taking place, the discussions being had. Also


some of the discussions taking place in private. We have heard


about the dinners that members of the Murdoch family had with David


Cameron at Christmas. In the evidence we have got, from the


written evidence and also the oral evidence, we know how much lobbying


was going on by News International, to try to get the government on


side. News International, you are saying, you obviously had superb


links into government by virtue of owning four newspapers. It was


leverage in these links to lobby for the BSkyB bid? That is the line


of questioning that the QC involved in running the questioning has done.


That is what he is trying to gnaw away at and say that his private


conversations, these meetings with George Osborne and David Cameron,


semis social private occasions, they were not just there for fun.


They were there to lobby and pursue. What James Murdoch has been saying


is no, anything he said, to use his phrase, would have been the same as


his public advocacy. Is there feeling the Culture Secretary,


Jeremy Hunt, is in some trouble over this? There are concerns about


the nature of the relationship between Jeremy Hunt and James


Murdoch, that was raised by the Leveson inquiry. Saying, he was


onside, a natural ally. James Murdoch said, no more than anybody


else. There was some humour and Jeremy Hunt saying on his website,


that as any conservative, he thinks the Murdochs have made a great can


go mad as contribution to British television. Teresa May has just


started her defence. She said she had an ambiguous advice, that the


deadline for this appeal was on Monday -- unambiguous advice.


you for that. Thank you to Robert Winston and all of our guests. The


answer is that David Cameron is usually reading through his papers


Download Subtitles