17/10/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning. This is the Daily Politics. Today's top story:


Unemployment is down, falling by 50,000 between June and August to


just over 2.5 million. Charities claim disabled people will be worse


off when the government introduces its new Universal Credit next year.


We'll talk to Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson.


David Cameron and Ed Miliband square up for the first Prime


Minister's Questions for a month - we'll have all the action live from


noon. And are our cinemas ripping off


customers with the price of popcorn? We'll hear from George


Galloway, who's leading a one-man crusade to cut the cost of a night


out at the flicks. What else has he got to do? Well,


it is a very important role. All that to come before one o'clock.


It's almost as exciting as the Great British Bake-off final!


What's that? Something to do with baking cakes. Actually, it's more


exciting. And with us for the duration, we're joined by the baked


alaska and strawberry cheesecake of British politics - Jim Murphy,


Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary, and Steve Webb, the Liberal


Democrat work and pensions minister. Which is which, I have no idea.


Welcome to you both. Let's kick off with the latest unemployment


figures, which showed another fall in the number of people out of work.


The number of people out of work now stands at just over 2.5 million.


That is the count of people claiming unemployment benefit. Are


you surprised that total employment in this country, despite the fact


that the economy has barely grown at all since this coalition came to


power, is now higher than it was in the boom year of the Labour


government? There are some peculiarities about this recession


and double-dip recession we are in. There are issues about inflation


and employment, the number of people in disability benefit. Any


reduction in unemployment is good news for those who have found work.


But it is not so enjoyable for folk who have yet to find work to hear


politicians are celebrating the cut in unemployment. My worry is that


the folk who have been at work for longest are getting -- the folk who


are out of work for longest are getting further away from a job.


People get stuck at in benefits. We are not going back to the '80s. It


was not your fault, you were not in government then. In the '80s,


people got lost out of work. And they stayed on benefit, and being


on benefits ended up becoming the norm in the family. I worry that


behind the headlines, there is a big increase in the number of


people who are long-term unemployed. When you have to 0.5 million


unemployed in the Labour Force Survey, there are always bad trends


within that for the long-term unemployed. The official growth


figures can be revised as well. Given that there is no growth, and


88,000 increase in full-time employment is remarkable. 170,000


fewer people on out-of-work benefits, and youth unemployment


down 62,000. There is a substantial number of temporary jobs. That is


better than no jobs, of course. 125,000 are part-time. Of that, we


don't know how many are voluntary and how many involuntary. I am not


here to say this is dreadful news. However, rather than celebrating it,


understanding what is happening inside these figures is complicated.


People who were out of work 12 months ago are not budging. There


is a problem there for all of us. I cannot fix it in opposition, but


these guys have to do more. Let me come to Mr Webb. I put it to you


that the reason why the unemployment figures are better


than they should be, given the overall state of the economy, is


that Labour has become very cheap in this country. Real wages have


not been rising. They have not kept pace with prices, and it is a


bargain to employ people these days. But the price you pay for that is


because real wages are not rising, there is a shortage of demand in


the economy, and that is why it is not growing. Firms, rather than


getting rid of people, are holding on to them through tough times


because they think things will get better. If you thought we were


going to Helen and cut with the economy, you would just sack people.


-- If you thought we were going to hell in a handcart with the economy.


People say, how do you square than number of people in work? These


figures are hot off the press. Firms are keeping people because


they believe there is a point in keeping them, because they can see


things are starting to pick up. there are also keeping them because


they don't need to give them pay rises. The labour market is so weak


that they don't need to give them pay rises, even at a time when


prices have been rising, and at things on which people have to


spend their money, food, fuel, have been rising fast. Headlining for


Asian, which includes food and fuel -- headline inflation has come down.


It is better that we have people in jobs, yes, with modest pay rises,


than in past recessions, when people have shed workers because


they have no confidence in the future. We are all waiting on the


growth figures now. We are. Let's see if it matches Steve's has this


month. Nothing personal, but what I have heard this morning among some


government ministers is that they are almost a uncorking the


champagne. He when you get good news about employment month after


month, it is good news. I thought they weren't allowed to drink


champagne in the age of austerity! Inside these figures, there are


parts of the country where things are just tougher. It is true that


the figures in the north are not great. The North and Scotland are


having tough times. That needs to be addressed. Thank you Fryatt


opening salvo. And now for number two on the list.


Barack Obama has fought back against his Republican rival Mitt


Romney, as the two men step up the fight to be America's next


president. The two men appeared on live TV last night for their second


of three presidential debates. Here's a flavour. The unemployment


rate is 7.8% now. If you take into account people who dropped out of


the workforce, it would be 10.7%. We have not made the progress we


need to make to bring people back to work. That is why we have a five


point plan to bring 12 million jobs in four years. Mitt Romney says he


has a five point plan. He has a one point plan, and that is to make


sure that folks at the top player by a different set of rules. That


has been his philosophy in the private sector, his philosophy as


Governor and as a presidential candidate. Jim Murphy, you were up


till the wee hours? I was, to about 4 o'clock this morning. I fell


asleep at one point, which is maybe why I look so tired. Our make-up


artist has done wonders. You don't look at all tired. But then she has


me to practise on every day. Enough about your make-up, gentlemen. On


President Obama, Heath lost last time in the present debate. Did he


step up to the mark? Is the first debate, he seemed bored. He almost


seemed as though it was bad- mannered of Mitt Romney to


interrupt him, whereas we saw a different Barack Obama last night


and early this morning. We did not see the Obama of the previous


election, where there was a sense of him sitting on a hill with


remarkable optimism. There was a sense of "if I did not do the


things I did for the car industry, Ohio would be in difficulties". He


swung some punches last night. He was winning points. To continue the


boxing analogy, it was not a knockout. It is the third debate


that has significance. This is potentially the decider. When it


comes to the electoral colleges, it is conceivable that the person who


wins the vote does not win the college and does not become


President. The snap poll that was done by CNN did put President Obama


ahead, although not by much. But on issues like jobs, taxes and


healthcare, they put Mitt Romney ahead. What is your feeling about


it now? What strikes me about the first debate is, you have been


president for four years. You have been cloistered and treated with


reverence, and suddenly, you are both candidates in a room. It took


Obama time to adapt to the fact that he is President, but he is now


a candidate. It was a culture shock to go out of that cocoon as


President in to these debates. By the second one, he had worked it


out. He had gone from his lecturing mode to being more of a visionary.


But worthy debates illuminating? Do they really matter? Yes, the Poles


did a job for Mitt Romney last time, so in that sense, they did. But,


not wanting to be too cynical about Nick Clegg's game changing TV


debate, but in the end, the Liberal Democrats did not get as many seats


as they thought. An extra million people voted Liberal Democrat who


had not previously. I met people on the doorstep who said, I like your


guy on the telly last night. So they do make a difference. I don't


like the debates. They will be a common practice now in the UK. And


they will become law that the campaign is about. With Cup finals,


you have the pre-match build-up, the match itself, the post-match


analysis and then straight away, you are back in to a pre-match


warm-up. At least it is what the candidates say and it is not


mediated through third parties. could learn from last night, where


it appeared to be genuinely independent voters who were asking


real questions. It was a better format. The last one was much more


stiff. They were stuck behind the podiums. I liked watching them roam


around more, almost touching confrontational. It is theatre.


Nick Clegg proved at the last debate that he could make himself a


player. He was not just the third party guy in the corner. And


because he did well without notes, he became a player. Ed Miliband


spoke without notes at the conference speech for an hour, so


that will benefit him. I think we can learn from last night's debate


in the UK, with real people asking tough questions, with a Moderator


interrupting when possible. Gerry Ford could not have done it


last night. He could not walk and talk at the same time. I have not


mastered that yet. The universal credit is the


government's flagship Welfare Reform Policy. It has already got


its critics. Today the former Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson


joined them, claiming in a report that up to half a million disabled


people and their families could be left worse off.


He from October, next year, some of the biggest benefits including


income support, income based jobseeker's allowance, housing


benefit and child tax credits will be combined into one universal


credit. The scheme, which the government says is the biggest


welfare reform for 60 years, is the brainchild of Work and Pensions


Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and is intended to make work pay by


insuring that benefits are reduced at a consistent rate as earnings go


up. But Barras Tanni Grey-Thompson has today published a report backed


by several charities, concluding that the group likely to be most


affected his disabled people. It claims that over time, 100,000


families with disabled children stand to lose up to �28 a week, and


116,000 disabled people who work will be at risk of losing �40 a


week. It also says that many disabled people plan to cut back on


heating and food bills because of the changes. But the government


said the report is highly selective and could result in irresponsible


scaremongering. The Department for Work and Pensions insisted that


there will be no cash losers under the universal credit, and said many


disabled adults and children would Yvette get more support than at


present. Here is the welfare minister, defending the reforms.


We are introducing Universal Credit, which has a much simplified system,


which people will be able to understand. Lots of disabled people


will actually benefit, because we are focusing our money particularly


on the most severely disabled. There will be transitional


protection for people so there are no cash loses, it is misleading to


suggest there will be. If someone changes their circumstances, that


is the same as the current position, but there will be cash protection


in the sense that there is transitional protection. I am


concerned the scaremongering and there is going round, because it


will make disabled people unnecessarily frightened.


We are joined by the Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson. The government


has promised that the Universal Credit, which wraps up a number of


benefits that are paid at the moment, will be fairer, Burma,


simpler and there will be less fraud and error. They say no one


will lose out. What do you say? And a report says that up to 450,000


disabled people will be worse off. Disabled children, disabled people


in work, and also severely disabled people who live on their own and


don't have any hope. It is a very challenging time, but it could


actually pressure the cost elsewhere, on to local authorities,


and could actually cost us more in the long run. Could you explain how


in your view these hundred and 50,000 that will lose out, why will


they lose out? Are people could be losing anywhere between 28 and �50


a week. For someone who has a disabled child, the cost of


childcare is incredibly expensive, it makes it difficult for them to


go into work. For someone who is severely disabled who lives on


their own, he uses the money for someone to care for them, they


could lose that. Why would they lose it, though? As I understand it,


the credit was meant to wrap up the existing payments. Why will they


lose the money? They will visit in the changeover, because the severe


disability premium is disappearing. The government says that it pays


for the extra cost of disabled people, that doesn't cover the


additional extra costs of being disabled and living on your own.


Steve Webb, was it the intention of the welfare reforms to make 150,000


disabled people worse off? No, and they will not. First of all,


disabled -- Universal Credit is not about cuts, it is about extra. It


is putting more money... A all chancellors like to spend less


rather than more! But in the context of spending less, defined


over 2 billion extra to help people in low wages, including people in


work, all of us want to see disabled people able to work and


able to do so, this means you will keep more of what you earn. But it


is true for everybody? In is particularly relevant for disabled


people. If you are doing a part- time job, or you're in out of work,


the system is much better. response we have had from 3500


disabled people doesn't match up with that. They're saying the money


they currently get, the dads think they will get it within the new


system. There are lots of things in Universal Credit which are good,


but the reporters four recommendation to a round children,


child care, and we think we can help the government moved to where


they want to be. Your report says that half a million disabled people


will be worse off. But your own department, in its impact


assessment, said that around 800,000 disabled households would


be worse off. That was in November 2011. One question is, if you put a


whole thing in tomorrow, what would it look like? The money spent on


disabled people is the same overall, roughly 800,000 disabled people


will gain. Do people who would get less are protected, so the cash


amount they get is protected, and that is the point. Of course Tanni


Grey-Thompson is right to raise awareness of these issues, but our


worry is people read the headline, disabled people lose cash. Your


money is protected, all of this is coming in over the years, it is


gradual. Let me get this clear. Are you saying that if you are disabled,


whatever the disability, if it qualifies for some form of welfare


payment, when this credit comes in, we will not be worse off? The that


is what I'm saying. The Universal Credit replaces it the other system


of credits. The cash amount will be protected, this is being done over


a series of years. He is live on air, he has said it! That is great


if you're currently on the benefit. It is not there for a new claimant,


people can have the same level of impairment on different levels of


support. Doesn't that always happen in a transition? I just... What do


you say it to the claim that your report looks at various things, and


you may well have found problems with his Universal Credit, I am


sure the government will have to read it carefully, but there seems


to be an element of scaremongering. You talk about disabled people


having to cut back on food, 80% said they would cut the amount on


heating. People will be contemplating suicide. Children's


futures will be redeemed. Have you gone too far? Are that is what


people have said to us. We're at parents saying they would consider


putting their disabled child in two residential care because of the


debt they would slip into. I think it is important that been raised


this with disabled people, so they know the changes are coming. I also


think it is important that we did this research. It is not me sitting


in my office thinking about disabled people, we need to have


facts to go back to the government. Jim Mate, I wanted to hear the


report coming out and the government's response, but just a


clarification, his Labour in favour of Universal Credit? We think it is


a good idea, we were looking at it in government. But importantly, it


is how you then design it. Politicians of all parties have got


to talk and carry this argument Caerphilly, because people watching


today would genuinely be worried. I think Tanni Grey-Thompson has done


a great job at highlighting some real concerns, I think the


government has got to listen to disabled people themselves, from


their perspective. Because there is a genuine worry. The government has


now got to respond. But I assume you have a gut to get together, the


two if you, and compare notes. think people sometimes imagine that


policies are disabled people are made in some sort of ivory tower.


Disabled people scrips are in and out of that department constantly.


-- disabled people's groups. Come back and see us after you have had


the dialogue! Now, for the big news this week. The German Chancellor


Angela Merkel, Greece's favourite politician, she is a bit hacked off


with our dear Prime Minister. According to the magazine Der


Spiegel, she likens David Cameron and our glorious country to be


grumpy Muppets. The ones who are constantly grumbling from the


sidelines! Angela Merkel is apparently fed up with David


Cameron's approach to Europe, the air macro is a surprise! How can we


help? We have just the thing. We have a Daily Politics mug, build,


of course, with freshly brewed it English Breakfast tea. If you want


to get your hands on one of these, all you need to do it is when our


Guess The Year competition. Can you More than 2000 stations will be


closed. The most dramatic effect is When are you taking up residence in


Number 10? I don't know, much too To be in with a chance of winning a


Daily Politics mug, send your It is coming up to midday, let's


take a look at Big Ben. That can only mean one thing. Prime


Minister's Questions is on its way. Nick Robinson is here. I watched


your love-in with Alex Salmond! I was in the Middle East. People


talked of nothing else. I always thought of you and I ASBOs Muppets!


Which is which? But older! I have two words to you, Andrew Mitchell.


Interesting choice for Ed Miliband. I would be amazed if there wasn't a


reference to him, but I would be surprised if you do it head-on. The


danger for an opposition leader, in a story that is causing a huge


embarrassment to the government, the act of using it up front can


rally the whole of the government benches to support the guide. So


why would be saying, I probably won't some good jokes, make it look


awkward, but if you do it head-on, the danger is that Cameron has to


back him, at the back benches have to back him, in a sense it makes it


harder. Curiously, sometimes when you are faced with an open goal, it


is more to the got to know where to put the ball! But it is not just


Labour, even a former Tory whip was having a go. My Right Honourable


Friend, who I might say is sorely missed as Chief Whip,... Could he


give an assurance to my constituentss in its field that


services will not be damaged by these changes, and bought to the


point, that stations like Lichfield Trent Valley, badly in need of


improvement for disabled access, one might find that any new works


are delayed as a consequence? we see no delays in investment, I'm


always grateful to my honourable friend, who is always trying to be


helpful. There have been various reports


that there is a larger number of cabinet ministers are unhappy that


Andrew Mitchell is still on the front bench, still in his job as


chief whip. Can you corroborate that? There is certainly a number


of Cabinet ministers who were amazed he was not fired, and pick


anybody else and had done the same thing would have been out. There


are others who were not urging the Prime Minister to fire him, but


cannot see how he gets away from this story and cannot see how the


conversation goes when he has to halt in the Tory MP and say, you


have to behave well in public, you know! My sense is that the Prime


Minister has decided he will not give his party's opponents are


scalp now. The interesting question is whether, in a few months' time,


whether the Prime Minister might start to think again about whether


there is not an important shift he needs to make. But this was the one


reshuffle - he has only had one reshuffle - this was the one man to


take them through to the next election. It would be obvious, but


what government stranding his do it after a quiet time, Boxing Day... I


am not saying that I know anything, but I get the sense that they will


not let Mitchell go now, but they know he is not necessarily


guaranteed to be in his job till the next election. He hasn't got


that much support in the back benches, or even the front benches,


but some Tories are furious for the Police Federation, they believe it


is the Police Federation that has kept it going. In the Times


yesterday, a Labour MP, a fascinating article, siding with


Andrew Mitchell! If you talk to politicians up either side, they


will tell you that the Police Federation is about the fiercest,


most scary Union, although it isn't officially a union, you will ever


face. The Home Secretary's, they had sought to ritually humiliate


them at their conferences. They often sat them in front of a slogan


implying that they are in favour of slashing the police. At these guys


fight tough in -- for their members. There is no doubt in my mind that


the federation think that the public will be bored, may not even


be sympathetic to stories about pay and regulation, but if you talk


about plebs, the public are on your side. So it has cut through!


does. The Police Federation are still locked in a battle about


their own pensions, their own pay and conditions. Some conditions


that an independent report suggested were pretty generous.


we should look to Mr Miliband, and see if he goes for truncal. Why not


find another subject about the We pay tribute to the following.


Sergeant Jonathan coops of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical


Engineers. Captain James Townley of the Royal Engineers and captain


Carl manly of the Royal Marines. Once again, we are reminded of the


immense danger our armed forces operate in top hold our safety and


security. Their families and the whole country should be proud of


their heroic service, and we will always remember them. I am sure the


house will also join me in paying tribute to PC Fiona Bone and PC


Nicola Hughes, who were killed, brutally murdered in the line of


duty on 18th September. The whole country has been shocked and


saddened by the loss of these two young dedicated officers. Our


thoughts are with their families and colleagues at what must be a


very difficult time. I also know the House will join me in sending


our condolences to the family of Malcolm Wicks, who sadly passed


away on 29th September. All sides of this House will remember him as


a real gentleman, a man of integrity and compassion who put


his constituents first and work to cross party lines and was a decent


man. He served the house with great distinction for 20 years and will


be missed by all who knew him. We must also pay tribute to another of


Parliament's great characters. It is hard not to believe that he is


not sitting in front of me, Sir Stuart Bell. He was hugely popular


across the house and was honoured for his services to Parliament. We


will remember him as a passionate and dedicated member of the house,


whose kind us again transcended the political divide. We send our


sympathies to his wife and family. This morning, I had meetings with


ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further such


meetings later today. Come ISAs it all honourable and right honourable


members with the Prime Minister's tribute to the members of the armed


forces and police who have died in the service of our country and to


their families. We in this house and the people of Middlesbrough and


Croydon North will miss Sir Stuart Bell and Malcolm Wicks. Last week,


the Prime Minister promised that work would always pay, but this


morning, Baroness Tanni Grey- Thompson and the Children's Society


have revealed that his current plans for universal credit next


year will mean that up to 116,000 disabled people in work could lose


as much as �14 a week. Doesn't it say everything about how this


divisive Prime Minister always stands up for the wrong people,


while at the same time handing huge tax cuts to 800,000 people, nearly


over �1 million a year? He will penalise some of the bravest


strivers in the country. honourable gentleman raises an


extremely serious issue. The money that is going into disability


benefit will not go down under universal credit, it will go up.


The overall amount of money will go from one point �35 billion last


year to �1.45 billion in 2015. Under the plans, both recipients


will lose out unless their circumstances change. All current


recipients are protected by the scheme. This is a choice we have


made that future recipients, we will increase the amount we give to


the most severely disabled children. And there will be a new low amount


for less disabled people. We are increasing the overall amount of


money, focusing on the most disabled. That is the right


approach. May I congratulate the Government on the early


introduction of the adjudicator bill? Farmers in the Third World


and developing country producers desperately need protection from


what have been described by the Competition Commission as bully-boy


tactics of the supermarket buyers. In view of that, could I ask how


quickly it will be before the government introduces this


important measure? We are making progress with introducing this


measure. It is an important measure. It is important to stand up for


farmers so that they get a fair deal from supermarkets. On occasion,


there have been unfair practices, things like retrospective discounts


that have sometimes been proposed. Mr Ed Miliband. I joined the Prime


Minister in paying tribute to the six servicemen that have died since


the House last met. Lance Corporal Dwayne groom of first Battalion


Grenadier Guards, sergeant Gareth Thursby and Private Thomas role of


third Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, Sergeant Jonathan coops


of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Captain James


Townley of the Court of Royal Engineers and captain Carl manly of


the Royal Marines. They all died heroically serving our country.


They showed bravery and sacrifice, and our condolences go to their


family and friends. I also joined him in pay tribute to PCs Fiona


Bone and Nicola Hughes. They remind us of the dangerous work our police


officers do day in, day out in the line of duty. Fair bet is a great


loss due Greater Manchester Police have -- their death is a loss to


Greater Manchester Police, their communities and their families. I


also thanked the Prime Minister for his generous comments about the two


Labour colleagues we have lost since we last met. Stuart Bell was


the son of a miner and a long- standing member of this house. He


was passionate about European issues and served with distinction


as a Church Commissioner. His death was sudden, his illness diagnosed


just days before he died. The condolences of this side of the


house and the whole house go to his family. And on Malcolm Wicks, he


was one of the deepest thinkers in this house. He was a brilliant


minister. I know from my time as the Energy Secretary what a


brilliant minister he was. He also faced his illness with the utmost


bravery. He knew what was going to happen to him, but carried on


writing, thinking, talking and engaging with the work of this


house. My last conversation with him was before our party conference,


where he talked passionately about politics as he always did. Our


condolences go to his family. The unemployment figures today are


welcome, particularly for youth unemployment. I am sure we all


agree that there are too many people still looking for work, and


the number of people out of work for a long period over a year


remain stubbornly high. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he


believes the fall in unemployment is not yet been matched by the


figure for long-term unemployment? I thank the right honourable


gentleman for his generous remarks about those who have fallen, those


brave police officers and the colleagues we have lost. In terms


of the unemployment figures, this is a good piece of news that should


be welcomed. A number of different things are happening. Employment is


up by 212,000 this quarter. Unemployment is down by 50,000. The


claimant count has fallen by 4000. Since the election, that means


there are some 170,000 fewer people on out-of-work benefits. These


figures show that there are more women in work than at any time in


our history. The overall level of employment is now above where it


was before the crash in 2008. We still have huge economic challenges


to meet. We are in a global race. We need to make a set of reforms in


our country to education, welfare and the private sector, but this is


positive news. Unemployment is still too high, partly because of


the increase in unemployment that took place at the time of the crash.


But we need to do more to deal with long-term unemployment, and that is


why the work programme has helped thousands of people already. We are


prepared to spend up to �14,000 on one individual long-term unemployed


person to get them back into work. We do have the measures in place to


tackle this scourge. withstanding that, youth


unemployment, long-term unemployment and long-term youth


unemployment are all higher than when he came to office. On the


particular issue about long-term youth unemployment, he cut


attributed to the craft are happened four years ago, because it


has been rising over the last 18 months. It remains a big concern.


The number of people out of work for more than a year is continuing


to rise. Does he agree that the longer young people remain out of


work, the greater the damage not just now, but to their long-term


prospects and the greater the damage to our economy? Of course he


is right. The longer people are out of work, the worse for them and the


economy. That is why we have the youth contract and the work


programme, the biggest back-to-work programme since the war. He


mentions the problem of long-term unemployment. In the last two years


of the last Labour government, long-term unemployment almost


doubled, so we should hear about that before we get a lecture. In


terms of helping young people, under this Government, 900,000


people have started apprenticeships. We are backing apprenticeship


schemes and are reforming the school and welfare system so that


it pays for people to get jobs. We face enormous economic challenges.


We have to rebalance our economy. The state sector was to be, the


private sector was too small. Since the election, 1 million new private


sector jobs have happened, which makes up for the loss of jobs in


the state sector. We have a huge amount more to do - reform welfare,


reform schools, boost the private sector and Britain can be a winner


in the global race. On long-term unemployment, there are more people


out of work for longer than at any time for two decades. That is


happening on his watch. Let me turn to one group who are losing their


jobs as a result of government policy. A year ago, he told me a


"there is no reason for there to be fewer frontline police officers".


Can he tell the House how many frontline police officers have lost


their jobs since the election? percentage of officers on frontline


duties has gone up. Frankly, who weather won the last election was


going to have to reduce police budgets. They were committed to


reducing police budgets. We have had to reduce police budgets. We


have increased the percentage because we have cut paperwork and


taken difficult decisions about pay and allowances. It is remarkable


that while the percentage of officers on the frontline is up,


crime is down. I really hope, just for once, we would get a straight


answer. All the Prime Minister needs to do, they were like this -


all the Prime Minister needs to do is take a leaf out of the Police


Minister's book. On Monday, he told the House the truth. He said there


are 6778 fewer frontline police officers than when he came to power.


I don't think he is going to help. Maybe the part-time Chancellor is


taking over the Home Office. Another promise broken. They are


not just breaking their promise, it is their conduct as well. This is


what the mayor of London said. order. It will just take longer to


get in a backbenchers who wish to participate, as opposed to shouting


and screaming in a juvenile fashion, because I will have to extend the


session. The drop the -- the leader of the opposition will be heard,


and the Prime Minister will be heard. This is what the mayor of


London, his new best mate, said last year at the Conservative Party


conference. "I reckon we need to make it clear that if people swear


at the police, they must expect to be arrested". He says from a


sedentary position that he did not say that. Maybe he will tell us


what he actually did say. According to the official police report, "a


man claiming to be the chief whip called the police plebs and told


them they should know their place, and used other abusive language".


Can the Prime Minister tell us, did the chief whip use those words?


What the Chief Whip did and said were wrong. I am clear about that.


That is why it is important that the Chief Whip apologised. That


apology has been accepted. order. I said a moment ago that the


leader of the opposition must and would be heard. The same goes for


the prime minister. What the Chief Whip did and said were wrong. That


is why it is important that he apologised. That apology has been


accepted by the officer concerned and by the head of the Metropolitan


Police. That is why this Government will get on with the big issues


about helping Britain compete and No straight answers on the Chief


Whip! It is a real issue, abusing a police officer. Just because a


police officer has better manners than the Chief Whip, he doesn't


mean he should keep his job. If a York in a city-centre abused a


police officer, ranting and raving, the chances are they would be


arrested and placed in the back of a police van. And rightly so. The


Prime Minister would be the first in the queue to say it was right.


But whereas it is a night in the cell but then, it is a night at the


Carlton Club for the Chief Whip. Isn't that the clearest case there


could be a total double standards? This apology has been accepted by


the police officer, accepted by the head of the Metropolitan Police, it


is clearly not going to be accepted by the leader of the opposition,


because he doesn't want to talk about what we need to do in this


country to get out deficit down, because he has got no plans. He


doesn't want to talk about building on our record on unemployment, but


he is input -- approach to welfare caps. He wants to discuss these


issues because he has nothing serious to say about the country.


Here is the most extraordinary thing. They say that I practise


class war, and they go around calling people plebs! Can you


believe that? It is good to see the Cabinet in their place come are


supporting him in public, but in the newspapers, what are they


saying in private? His position is untenable, in other words, he is


toast. That is the reality. He is the truth about this government.


What everybody else loses their jobs, the Chief Whip keeps his. If


you are a millionaire, you get a tax cut. If you are everybody else,


Order! Order! I am very worried about your health! You're shouting


in a bizarre manner, calm yourself, They are totally out of touch with


this government, one rule for everybody else. Now we know, he


wrote those questions yesterday, before unemployment fell. He


obviously wasn't listening earlier, so let me remind him. Employment is


up 212,000, that is a success. Unemployment, down a 50,000 of this


quarter. The claimant count down, that is a success. He comes to this


house, he has written out his clever political questions, he


doesn't care what is really Or the! -- order! Mystic Lynn


Over two weeks ago, April Jones was abducted when playing with her


friends in my constituency, a well behaved, quiet town to stop well


Mike honourable friend at the Prime Minister Trinny in paying tribute


to the amazing way in which the people in the town have come


together and committed to the ongoing search for April. I will


certainly join my honourable friend in doing that, I think the whole


country has not only been shocked by these appalling events, but also


the whole country, frankly, has been lifted and incredibly


impressed by the response of this community and everything everybody


has done to help the police, helped the emergency services. We have


seen a whole community come together, not just in grief, but in


action, to help this family. At the energy summit last year, he prized


faithfully he would take action to help people reduce their energy


bills. Can he tell the House and the country how that is going?


have encouraged people to switch, one of the best ways to get your


energy bills down. And I can announce that will be legislating


so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their


companies -- customers. Something Labour didn't do in 13 years.


Closed question, Dr Julian Lewis. know that my honourable friend will


be delighted to know that the answer is yes, we are committed to


retaining an independent nuclear deterrent based on the Trident


missile system, that is why we have continued with the programme to


replace the vanguard scheme of. That is indeed an excellent answer.


Given that apart time nuclear deterrent would be dangerously


destabilising, with the Prime Minister confirm -- would be Prime


Minister confirm that the British Trident successor submarines must


and will operate on the basis of continuous at sea deterrence?


think he is absolutely right to raise this issue. One of the key


elements are the credibility of our deterrent has been the fact it is


continuously at sea. It is something the Royal Navy take


immense pride in, being able to deliver that without a break for so


many years. Having met some of the crews, it is incredibly impressive


what they do. I pay tribute to them up for the service they provide. It


is a key part of our deterrent. a parliamentary answer to my friend


from Wrexham yesterday, the government said, "we remain very


concerned by continuing reports of Rwandan support for the M23 rebels,


who are killing, maiming and creeping in east Congo." so why did


the chief whip authorised the payments of �60 million of British


taxpayers' money to Rwanda as his parting shot on his very last day


as international development secretary? I would like to wish the


honourable gentleman habit that date for yesterday. -- happy


birthday. I'm sorry I wasn't invited! It is a very important


Haydn that he raises. -- important Haydn. Ryan Day is a continuing


success story, a culture that has gone up from genocide and disaster


to being a role model in lifting people out of poverty in Africa. --


Rwandan. I am proud that we have continued to invest in that success,


but we should be proud and firm with the Rwandan regime that we do


not accept that they should be supporting it militias in the Congo


or elsewhere. I have raised this issue personally with the President,


but I believe that investing in Rwanda's success as at an African


country showing you can break the cycle of poverty, is something we


are right to do. A today, the unemployment figures show a


reduction of 62,000 in the number of 16 to 24 year-old out-of-work


for the three months to August, and employment is now at the highest


level since records began in 1971. I'm sure the Prime Minister will


want to commend the economic policies of this government to the


whole house, rather than more borrowing and spending from


opposite. Mark Bent makes an important point, what we need is an


important rebalancing of the economy -- my honourable friend.


That has more than made up for the job losses in the public sector.


But there is more we need to do to tackle youth unemployment, long


term unemployment, but these figures should be welcomed.


constituent of mine loftiest left - - lost his leg in Afghanistan then


lost his disability allowance. The Prime Minister promised to look


after ex-servicemen and women. What has happened? I have insisted on a


special car out for limbless ex- servicemen, they will be separately


looked after through the Ministry of Defence. This house agrees that


it did mean to politics when negative campaigning, designed to


scare vulnerable people, is used. A campaign to save our hospital were


now hospital is not closing is possibly the worst example of that


I have ever seen. But my honourable friend grieve me that Labour's


Campaign in Corby is a disgrace? -- was my honourable friend agree with


me? He is entirely right. A Labour MP after a Labour MP is trooping up


to Corby and claiming that hospital isn't safe, and they know it is


simply not true. The local newspaper is now backing up the


fact that this hospital is being invested in by this government


because unlike the party opposite, you are going to stay there for a


very long time! And the reason... Do reason you are going to stay


there... The reason you are going to stay there is the reason this


country is in a mess because of the borrowing, spending and debt did


you delivered. So get yourself comfortable. Why will the Prime


Minister... Over here! Why will the Prime Minister not publish all the


texts come e-mails and other forms of correspondence between himself


and his office and Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson and News


International? So that we can judge whether they are relevant. Is it


because they are too salacious and embarrassing for the Prime


Minister? I wouldn't smile. When the truth comes out, the Prime


Minister will not be smiling. Or is it because there is one rule for


the Prime Minister and another for the rest of us? Before answering


this question I would like everyone to recall that the member macro


stood up in this house and read out a whole lot of the Leveson


information that was under embargo, he wasn't meant to read it out.


Much of which turned out to be untrue, and he has never apologised.


Until he apologises, I am not going I hope that house will have the


self-restraint and courtesy to hear Employment levels in Wales have


increased by 40,000 in the last quarter, not least because of the


contribution... Will the Prime Minister are welcome me in


welcoming the extension that has created 8000 new businesses?


will certainly during my honourable friend. The new enterprise


allowance gives people who have become unemployed at the chance to


set up their own business, their own enterprise. Under the current


rules, they have to wait three months before being able to access


that programme, but under our plans, they will be able to get that from


day one of becoming unemployed. I was to see new businesses starting


up in our country, to build on the record of last year, when more


businesses were established in Britain that at any year in our


history. When in opposition, at the Prime Minister said, "all too often,


when questions are put to ministers, the answer is met as a not me,


governor, shrug of the shoulders. *" SOCA and the promise to tell us


which one of his ministers will take responsibility of the West


Coast Main Line? De Transport Secretary can do this house and


made a full statement and gave a full apology -- came to this house.


Can we ever remember a minister from the party opposite about


apologising for anything? Returning to the Trident issue, has the Prime


Minister looked at the severe cost pressures facing defence at the


very moment Trident replacement has to be paid for? Frigate, airplanes,


unmanned aircraft, army vehicles, all need paying for at much the


same time. This has to come out of the defence budget. Will the Prime


Minister keep an open mind on how exactly to replace our nuclear


deterrent? The list of things that he goes through it are all


programmes that are fully funded and properly going to be invested


in because this government has sorted out, as he knows, the


defence budget. What I would say to him about the deterrent is I don't


believe that we would save money by adopting some alternative nuclear


deterrent posture. If you are going to have a deterrent, it makes sense


to have something that is credible and believable, otherwise there is


no point having one at all. There are record levels of support for


the British Union. In a recent poll, the Prime Minister will no that


only 7% of the population of Northern Ireland want a united


Ireland, that only rises to 32% in 20 years' time. But the Prime


Minister agreed that the agreement he signed up to this week, to


ensure there is a single, decisive question asked of the Scottish and


British Union, that it is now up to him and his house to unite in a


campaign to maintain sustained I am delighted to answer in the


most positive way I can. I am pleased we have reached an


agreement with the Scottish government, a single, simple


question on the referendum, so we can put beyond doubt the future of


the UK. I hope everyone will vote to keep the UK together. I know


this will have cross-party support. I have always wanted to share a


platform with Ian Paisley. Maybe I will get my chance! Recently a lap-


dancing club has been granted a licence. It doesn't matter if it is


a Wembley sized incinerator or a lap-dancing club in a beautiful


market town, there is no weight in planning the law. With the Prime


Minister agree that it is time there was a planning law so that


when a catastrophic applications come Fordwich blight the


environment people living, which distresses people to a great degree,


their voices should be heard. speaks for many people about the


frustration the planning system can sometimes deliver. We have changed


the licensing laws to give the planners greater power to alter or


licences, and that can apply to the sort of the premises she refers to.


The second thing is, and our plans be broken right made their plans


which give greater control to residents about the shape of their


community. I would encourage her to take up the issue with the


department. Could I thank the prodigious that there tributes? On


the theme of policing, as the house has heard, there are nearly 7000


from one police which have now disappeared from our system. -- a


frontline police. Will the Prime Minister give me a straightforward


answer, in what is my last question in this house, and give a


commitment there will be no more cuts whatever happens to policing


it? And nobody wants to prejudge the wisdom of the Greater


Manchester electric, but I wish to honourable gentleman well if he is


successful. The point I would make is the point the police force would


make to him, "the effectiveness of policing can only be measured by


the reduction in crime." Crime is down 12% in Greater Manchester.


They rise difficult decisions, and the Labour Party was committed to


even greater cuts than we have it delivered. Turkey is, can we crack


down on the paperwork? -- the key is. Can we cut crime? The answer is


I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Mr Wicks. Isn't one way


we can honour his memory to continue to improve our national


health service so that more people beat cancer and don't have their


lives tragically cut short? honourable friend speaks for the


whole house in what he says about Malcolm Wicks. I understand he


often used to drive Malcolm home to Croydon after the vote, and Malcolm


refer to your car as the cab. And the fare was apparently a bottle of


wine at Christmas. We will make sure the Inland Revenue lay-off


that, but it is a good arrangement. He is right. One of the greatest


things we can do to remember Malcolm is ensured the continued


success of the cancer drugs fund, which has helped thousands, and


make sure people get urgent treatments as well as urging drugs.


The Secretary of State of Education said this weekend that if there


were a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU, he


would vote to leave. A third of the Cabinet to agree with him. How


would the Prime Minister vote? don't want an in-out referendum,


because I am not happy with us leaving the European Union. But I


am not happy with the status quo either. I think the majority of the


country wants a new settlement with Europe, and that settlement being


put to fresh consent. That will get a ringing endorsement from the


British people. Does my right honourable friend


agree that there was no structural deficit at the top of the boom, as


claimed by the Shadow Chancellor? My right honourable friend makes an


important point, which is that in the IMF report out this week, it


shows that the structural deficit in 2007 at the height of the boom


was 5% of our GDP, or �73 billion. The shadow Chancellor said there


was no structural deficit. This demonstrates how little they have


learnt. We have talked about our plans for the British economy, how


we will help it compete and succeed. Their plans are to go on a giant


march with their trade union paymasters. That is how the leader


of the opposition will be spending his weekend, the most lucrative


That overrun a bit. There were a couple of perfunctory exchanges on


unemployment, a hugely important issue, but it was not the one they


all wanted to pop about. That was Andrew Mitchell. It did not take


long for the leader of the opposition to get onto that. They


were looking at the government attitude to the police and police


numbers. Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip, was sitting on the front


bench. He may have responded from a sedentary position. We are still


trying to check that out. Let's hear from what the voters thought.


The viewers all talked about Andrew Mitchell. Tony in West Berkshire


said the remark caught our attention, but the dishonesty is


the point. The minister may have apologised and the officer may have


accepted it, but there is still the matter of who is lying. Jack says


Ed Miliband has a point. The Chief Whip has failed to confirm what he


said and should be sacked. Fill in Doncaster says Andrew Mitchell


behave badly, but this is a mountain out of a molehill. Colin


says Sean Ed Miliband realises that the more he goes on about the Chief


Whip's behaviour, the more difficult it is the David Cameron


to get rid of him. Antoni says Ed Miliband is trying to milk a mouse


by pursuing the Chief Whip. Can you do that? I have never heard that


expression. Put the image away. What do you make of it all?


well, you said before that sometimes when the goal is open, it


is hard to score. I don't think he slotted it in the net. On the other


hand, Ed Miliband will know that this has resonance as a story. It


is easy to understand. The viewers' e-mails reflect that. They think he


either said plebs, or he didn't. Someone was accusing someone of


lying. So it in one sense, he can't help but win on that. But, and this


is an important but in the psychology of Westminster, if you


put the ball in the back of the net on Prime Minister's Questions,


those faces behind the Prime Minister Goh glum. They were


cheering by the end, not because they support Andrew Mitchell, not


because they think David Cameron should keep him in the Cabinet, a


but because there was a little slip of the tongue by Ed Miliband, where


he talked about everyone losing their jobs when Andrew Mitchell


keeps his. He allowed the Prime Minister to say hold on, you


weren't listening. Unemployment has gone down. It was a little thing,


but it means that as David Cameron goes back to his office and is


surrounded by people talking about the Mitchell thing, they will feel


better than they thought they would feel before they went in.


Murphy, this has been a running sore for the Conservatives. It


angers a lot of Tory backbenchers and Cabinet ministers. At the


Conservative conference, Cabinet ministers were openly critical of


Andrew Mitchell, which does not happen often. I wonder where the


story goes from here? Politics is so unpredictable. It is one of the


rare beauties of politics. Your viewers might not since this, but


in Parliament, the Chief Whip has to be seen and not heard. He is not


a news story. That's right. It is a small thing, but an important thing


for the theatre of Parliament. When Ed Miliband was talking about it,


the minimum the Chief Whip was doing was shaking his head. He is


voluntarily putting himself back into it by virtue in responding


that way. How does it work out? If David Cameron sacks him, it is a


week sacking. So I suspect he will try to cling on to him. But this is


not just about who lied, the Chief Whip or the police. They can't both


be telling the truth. It also gets into real communities, living rooms


and pubs across the country. It is one of those things people


genuinely talk about spontaneously. The longer he is there, the more


that conversation will continue, none of which is good for the


Conservative Party. I am not paid to give the Tory party advice.


Would you like to be? No. For does your own side pay you to give


advice? No one listens! But I would have dispatched him weeks ago. The


Prime Minister standing up for the wrong people. You stand up for


someone who went to the same posh schools as you. Are they makes?


public perceive it that way. They have a similar background. That is


toxic for the Conservative Party, which has been trying to change its


image. There is this thought of, did Andrew Mitchell shout out a


comment? You might think of course he did, because Ed Miliband reacted.


Famously, Tony Blair wants reacted to a heckle in Prime Minister's


Questions which was not made. He was taunting William Hague about


which countries supported Tory policy on Europe, paused as


suddenly went, Norway? No one had anyone in the chamber Saynor way.


We went back over the tape, and nobody did. I am not saying Ed


Miliband made it up. There may have been a heckle, but now we are all


asking about it. I was racking my brains while watching that. Maybe


you have heard people talking about Andrew Mitchell. I have only had


three or four e-mails about it. People have just moved on. He


should not have done it. He was stupid to do it. But in terms of


real people contacting me, which they do about all sorts of stuff...


Are you saying our viewers are not real people? It is one of those


things that emanates from Westminster that people talk about.


Maybe that is because it is an accessible story about a prominent


person swearing at a police officer. I don't know what it is about this


story. Despite your constituents, it has taken off. I do get the


impression that Mr Mitchell lives to fight another day... Last week,


it was the Telegraph editorial. People were saying, we are not


going to have the Daily Telegraph sacked on ministers. Now they will


not have Ed Miliband sack their ministers. The line now is not just


that somebody like. The line now from Mr Mitchell and the government


is, they misunderstood. Nobody is lying, they just misunderstood.


last thing they want to do is get into a detailed conversation about


who said what, possibly because if he had really lost it, he might not


have a clue what he said. It is possible that he can't remember


what he said. I am like that out of the newsroom quite often.


Politicians often fight the last war. David Cameron is interested in


Tony Blair's memoirs. They reflect the former Prime Minister saying, I


should not have led Peter Mandelson go when I did. I did it because the


press hounded me. I think David Cameron has thought, I am not going


to make that mistake. He may well be making a different mistake,


which is that he may be holding on to someone who is toxic for the


Tory brand. There we leave it. Dwayne Fields was brought up in


Hackney, east London. One night, he got into a fight. A Gunn was pulled


on him. It was fired twice, but he was not hit. This made him take a


different turn in life. He became the first black British man and the


second black man in the world to reach the North Pole. Now he has


his sights set on the South Pole. He wants to help inner-city


teenagers to make them realise that they can do something, too. For him,


getting them out into the countryside is the key, which he


argues means more funding for youth groups. Here is his soapbox.


This is something you hardly see, a young black man enjoying the


countryside. When I am out here training, I hardly ever see any


young people enjoying the countryside, let alone black people.


I am not tried to say everyone should go to the North Pole. I want


to encourage them that their choices in life are not limited to


being a rapper, Sports personality or a footballer. I want to get them


out into the countryside as a way of opening up their world. They


think it is not for them, but that is because they don't see it. I was


born in Jamaica and loved it. I would run around in the forest all


day. No one would see me for hours. When I came to London, I had a


small concrete backyard to run around in. It was crowded. School


was not much better. It was painful and tedious. We did camping trips,


but that was about it. We hardly ever saw a different way of life,


or even new one existed. I lived in a difficult part of London. The day


I was shot at twice over nothing made me want to do something


different. That is why I decided to go to the North Pole. I want


teenagers to realise that they can do something, too, and getting out


into the countryside is a great way to show that the world has more to


offer them. I love the countryside, because you are out of the city,


away from the noise. It opens a new up to a different way of living. In


the countryside, you see big houses. People have time to say hello and


smile at you. Here, you can relax, focus, think about decisions you


want to make. It gives you something to do, keeps you away


from trouble, away from your peers and the pressures that come with it.


You can't survive on your own in the wilderness. It helps you learn


to rely on other people. You are not just thinking about yourself or


your own needs. The only way to encourage more young people into


the countryside is to increase the funding to youth groups like army


cadets, Sea cadets, Scouts. Increasing funding rather than


cutting is the way forward. Unless we start giving more opportunity


and choice to young teenagers, their worlds will remain narrow,


and they are more likely to choose Looks lovely out there in the


countryside! Or what made you think of trekking to the north pole of


you had had that terrible incident? In surely, it wasn't about trekking


to the North Pole, it was about doing something different to what I


would normally do. -- initially. It came up through Ben Fogle and James


Cracknell, I heard them on BBC Breakfast say they wanted to go to


the South Pole. I thought, that is as different from my normal life as


I could get. They directed due to the North Pole instead! What do


your friends say? You described eloquently, the contrast with city


life, do your friends to feel the same way? It is strange, initially


it was really difficult for them to come to terms with why I wanted to


go. As soon as they realised that I had a passion borders, they started


to follow, because passion is contagious. So they started to


follow my lead, or one of two of them came out into the countryside


and enjoyed it would meet. In general, they are City folk. But


they did comment and say, they understand why a lot -- I love the


countryside. Do you think more money should be given to help kids


living in urban areas, in cities, to go to the countryside? They do


city farms to give kids a taste of the countryside. I think funding


needs to be put into it. When you are in the countryside it is


totally different to the lifestyle that you live in the city. You have


space to think, you have silent for a change. Not many people get to


experience what silence feels like. You are alone, you have time to


think about issues come up problems, challenges you might face and


possible solutions. Do some of your friends think it might be boring? I


often hear this idea that when you have kids, the AD up thank you for


living in the countryside. It is not seen as a cool thing to do


until people experience it. That is just belief. When you bring a group


of young people into the countryside, they see the benefits,


I have seen it with my own eyes. I have spoken tickets, their reaction


is, there is nothing out there. It is just the sticks. The fact is, we


knew what out there, you enjoy it, they enjoy it, they want to go back.


Do you think people will say that this is not the most critical think


-- think we should be spending money on? A I disagree. To prepare


young people are adult life, it is about getting them out into the


wilderness, giving them a small challenges, allowing them to


overcome challenges as a group and a small community, and then bring


them back to the city. It line to up to face other challengers.


do you think? This idea that enthusiasm is contagious is great,


hopefully people who are watching get that sense today. Would you put


money into it? We can chat afterwards and see how we could do


that. One of the wider point is the way in which a lot of children get


an experience of the countryside would be three uniformed


organisations, the guides, the Scouts, a lot of that still happens,


but a reduction in the involvement, I remember I was about nine or 10,


but I can still remember it, lighting a fire. That is my only


experience. Is there a problem in psychology, the children are


cosseted, letting them roam freely... We I have seen it all


work, I live in a south Gloucestershire village commit is


quiet at night, the primary school there is twinned with the a school


in inner-city Bristol. Tickets from the inner city school came out and


really enjoyed the experience. It - - the kids. It just needed a bit of


initiative. Maybe you should talk about these opportunities! Not to


be done in the home! You can see the stars at night.


Have you got your popcorn? We have! We are talking cinemas. Someone


picks these things are too expensive and wants to take action


to stop but who is the man who He is taking on the US Senate.


not now, nor have I ever been, and oil trader. He has taken on Big


Brother. But now George Galloway is turning his sights on a cinema near


you and their prices. Fighting for your fizzy pop, at dishing out flak


for your savoury snack. His weapon? An early day motion in Parliament.


An adventure guaranteed to tap your height and purse-strings. George


Galloway, taking on cinemas in his new blockbuster. This time, it is


We had joined now by George Galloway. He has embarked on a


crusade to cut the cost of a night out at the cinema. I heard you say


you have never had popcorn. What got you into this? I had to buy it


for my kids, and it is a 1,000% mark-up. I went to watch the


terrific new, very Scottish movie, Braved a. It is a wonderful, feisty


film. But you cannot drag your kids crying, I want popcorn, it is a


1,000% mark up, you have to buy it. Then I started looking at ice cream,


Coca-Cola, it is absolute profiteering. They throw you out if


you bring your own. In Westfield, which is where I went, you would


get banned from the whole of that brought. Not just London. My friend


in New York brought his dude in come the end up getting arrested,


because he tried to bring it in -- brought his food in it. What is the


price of a big bucket of popcorn? How much would you pay for that?


Depends if you get one of these meal deals! You don't know this!


You don't know the price of milk! You would get it for about �8.50


Foster I'm vegetarian, I don't get a hard dog! -- hot dog. I think it


is �4.99. No, it is �4.40. However, in the Odeon, according to the


watchdog, it is a five per M25 pence. Oh I am now the country's


expert on these matters! It looks awful to me. But kids love it.


can make at home! The kids were saying, dad, dad! But I didn't want


to pay that price. But what is to be done? I think the OFT, or which


macro, somebody... We need some kind of public pressure. A people


may not realise they are being ripped off. They are in such a


hurry to get into the cinema that they soon forget. Why not have, for


example, private enterprise outside the cinema, a selling popcorn? You


will not get banned or jailed for bringing it in. Why should they be


allowed, effectively, because they are licensed premises, they are


effectively private clubs, they can exclude you or banlieue, had you


taken from the premises. -- have So you tabled an early-day motion?


Yes, Sir Peter Bottomley... This is the 4th interview I have done on


this! I salute your indefatigability. I well remember


that the next time I go to the Cinema! We haven't got time to pick


the winner for Guess The Year, but we will do it tomorrow. The answer


Download Subtitles