22/11/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/11/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. It's show time in


Brussels. Can David Cameron win a freeze in the European budget which


his eurosceptic party will buy? We'll have the latest from the EU


capital and debate his chances with politicians from across Europe.


As the Justice Secretary unveils options for allowing prisoners the


vote, has the Government gone far enough to satisfy the European


Court of Human Rights. Are they even right to try?


It's 70 years since this man launched a report that changed


Britain for ever. But would father of the welfare state William


Beveridge be spinning in his grave if he could see the state of


welfare today? And ahead of Dave's big day in


Europe, we uncover the real man All that in the next hour. With us


for the duration, James O'Shaughnessy, former policy


adviser to David Cameron, currently working on a new chain of academies


with Wellington Public School. More of that later. But first, the BBC


News channel have reported that Tony Hall has been appointed the


new director general of the BBC. I was always in favour of Tony Hall,


of course, and supported him from the start, even when he wasn't in


line for the job! He was barely out of his pram when I said he should


be the DG of the BBC! He is the former head of BBC News, so he is


not a new kid on the block, but for a long while he has been chief


executive of the Royal Opera House. So a lot of sitting on our


programme of from now on. He succeeds George Entwistle, who


lasted only 55 days in the post. I assume that he will last longer.


Chris Patten has found a replacement, and kind of gone


outside, going outside the existing hierarchy to bring somebody Baku


used to be in the hierarchy. It is very BBC that it is somebody who is


currently outside the BBC... Clearly he has gone out and got his


man, Tony Hall was not an original applicant for the job.


understanding is he did not apply for the job in the round that Mr


Entwistle won. So they have gone out and recruited somebody quickly,


which I'm sure is a good thing for the stability of the BBC. I guess


Chris Patten thought, I need to get somebody out with the current


structure, but I also need somebody who does know a bit about the BBC.


It is still a managerial leadership position and you're still editor in


chief. In Tony Hall, they are hoping they have found somebody who


has got credibility on both fronts. He has done a great job as a


journalist and also running the Royal Opera House. Are you


available to be the new boss of the Royal Opera House? Not yet!


Anywhere, there we go, Tony all is the new director general of the BBC.


It's show time in Brussels. David Cameron arrived there this morning


looking for allies to freeze the EU budget for the next seven years at


its current level. There are those other than Britain who also want a


real-terms freeze, as the jargon has it. But many more want an


increase, especially those who do well out of Brussels largesse.


There is already talk of compromise but the Prime Minister is still


talking tough. I am not happy at all. These are


important negotiations, at a time and we are making difficult


decisions at home over public spending, it is quite wrong for


there to beat proposals for this increased extra spending in the EU.


So we will be negotiating very hard for a good deal for Britain's


taxpayers and to keep the British rebate. They always say that sort


of thing when they arrive. I wonder what he is going to say when he


leaves. Let's go to the man who knows! Mark a card for us. Where


are we in this Budget process? are involved in here, with a day of


bilateral, conversations between government leaders between the


president of the council and President Barroso. First up was


President -- David Cameron, who was supposed to go in there and present


his position for 15 minutes. He was in there for 35 minutes. He was


first up because Britain it is still seen as key. If you can


strike a deal with the British, perhaps you will get others on side.


Afterwards, we are hearing there is a long way to go. I should say that


the president of the council thinks he has moved a long way towards the


British position. His people are going around saying that what they


have on the table already amounts to a cut. The British are saying,


not so fast, they want a further reduction. That deal would also


involve some reduction in the British rebate, and as far as the


British are concerned, that is non- negotiable. Tell me this, if Mr


Cameron is sticking to his line in the sand, which is a real-terms


freeze, I know other countries do not want much of an increase or any


increase in the Budget. But is there anybody in the EU feeling as


strongly as Britain about a real- terms freeze, and no further?


think there are people who feel as strongly as the British, that


spending needs to be reined in. Whether they go as far as the


British, whether they would be prepared to use their veto, we


don't know. But certainly, the Swedish, the Dutch, they are


equally adamant that there has to be a freeze, or at least a large


reduction in EU spending. What we don't know is whether they are


prepared to compromise. The attitude here is that the British


position is understandable, but most other countries come here,


laying out their position beforehand, and then they


compromise. The feeling here is that David Cameron has boxed


himself into a corner. He has said, this is what we want, we will use


our veto if necessary, but now he is here, he will come under great


pressure to compromise. Some of those natural allies he has got to


have signalled they might be prepared to compromise more than


the British. You have got a long day ahead of you! Thank you for


joining us. What he has said I think is right, that the


negotiating position of the British Prime Minister is also the position


he must negotiate, he hasn't got much room to compromise. Not at all.


Coming off the back of the vote in the House of Commons, which pushed


for a stronger position, more of a cut, I don't think he has room to


compromise, I don't dig he wants to. He has been clear and consistent


throughout, which is to keep the rebate and push for real-terms


freeze. The other thing to bear in mind is that this isn't the last


point at which a position can be made. Brinkmanship is the classic


work in Europe. They can have this meeting and find another option, it


is likely that nothing will happen this time around. You have worked


with the Prime Minister. There are some Tory backbenchers are now


questioning his Eurosceptic credentials. In your view how Euro-


sceptic is he? A I think he is a Euro-sceptic, not to the extent of


some people in the party, who want to leave. He wants to see a


reformed Europe, he thinks our place is in a reformed Europe, that


is the message he is taking. I think it is extraordinary to be


thinking of adding 100 billion extra Euros, at a time when every


single government of the 27 is cutting costs, it does seem an


extraordinary proposition. We will see what happens. They will be


burning the midnight oil! 3 SERPS, that is what they call it. -- three


shirts. Now, David Cameron says the


prospect of giving prisoners the vote makes him "physically ill" -


but legislation to be announced later today could do exactly that.


The issue of giving prisoners the vote has been a problem for British


governments of all persuasions since the European Court of Human


Rights first ruled in 2004 that a In February, MPs voted by 234 to 22


to keep the ban, in response to a proposal to give the vote to


offenders sentenced to a custodial sentence of less than four years.


The government indicated it would respect Parliament's wishes by


doing the minimum needed to comply. 4pm tomorrow is the deadline for


Britain to respond to the court's latest order on the issue. So it is


expected that this afternoon the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling


will publish a draft Bill with offering MPs a range of options:


Votes for prisoners imprisoned for up to four years, for up to six


It is that blanket ban that annoys the European Court of. I'm now


joined by the Conservative MP Dominic Raab, and the Director of


the campaign Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti. Dominic Raab, let me


come to you first. I just want to get the policy here. A spokesman


for the Prime Minister said yesterday, "if people go to prison,


they lose the right to vote, that is our policy." but today the


government is introducing legislation that could change that


policy, so what is the policy? think the policy is that ultimately


the Prime Minister and the President of the Supreme Court have


also made his point, it is for Parliament to make these decisions.


There is a feeling this is being punted into the long grass.


Ultimately parliament will have to decide between the range of options.


I thought the government policy was that there should be no vote for


prisoners. Since when did you have a policy when you offered an


alternative to the policy? It is a reasonable point. Constitutionally,


the answer is that the Prime Minister wants to allow Parliament


to decide because ultimately it is for elected lawmakers to make the


law of the land. It is clear that Prime Minister does not want to


overturn the current band. Parliament but the way you did, --


votes the way you did, what will you do? I think what will happen is


the case will go back to the Strasbourg court, it will remain an


and implemented ruling. It will go to the committee of ministers, who


have been calling on Strasbourg to medal are less. There is no


realistic chance of being kicked out of the Council of Europe, the


worst we will get is a polite diplomatic rap on the knuckles.


is very depressing to hear Dominic talking about flouting a court


order. Because that is what we're talking about. Whether it is an


international court, the local magistrates' court, identical


majesty's government should pick and choose which court judgments to


obey. Why should a kid I council estate obey the ASBO of the local


magistrate if her Majesty's government want a baby this? There


is so much room for manoeuvre. do you think should happen?


personally support boats for all prisoners, because I don't know how


you rehabilitate prisoners by saying they cannot vote. But the


point is not now about prisoner voting any more, it is about


whether we believe in the rule of law. I think the doublet to say, we


will just ignore the court and we will not get kicked out of the


Council of Europe, we might get kicked out one day. In the meantime,


what kind of signal to we sent to Vladimir Putin... Do you think he


is watching this? The Russian court floods that all the time. So this


is the signal we are sending, it doesn't matter. My point to you is


that we have never flattered the court before. The Russians have


flouted it regularly, they are the biggest at doing that. Why would


hours make any difference? I think that... I have heard in the past,


in the days of Mr Blair, wanting to lock people up for 90 days, lock


them up indefinitely without charge or trial, I heard Robert Mugabe's


ministers saying, if you can do it in Britain, we can do it. It gives


people a credibility that they do not deserve a for flouting


international law. I think the point she is making his it is the


job by ministers, they are bound to obey court rulings. You might not


like the court ruling, made you shouldn't have signed up to it in


the first place. You might not like the way it is going, but that is


It is precisely not what we signed up to. There is a big it issue. We


can talk about prisoner voting. -- a big debt issue. What happens when


you have this tribunal expanding? That is a legislative function.


That is the attack on democracy. You cannot have democracy without


the rule of law. Sometimes you need independent referees. This is now


like the Supreme Court in America was in the 1960s. It is an activist


court. It is making up its own rulings. There is no right to


universal suffrage in the Convention of Human Rights. There


is a right to participate in free elections. What the court rejected


was a Victorian, blanket ban on prisoner voting. Convicted


prisoners. There is no blanket ban. You had your say, now it is my turn.


I happen to believe in all prisoners voting. The court


judgment could be implemented by something much more subtle and


minimalist than that. Sometimes you do need to meet another institution


halfway to keep democracy alive. you go to prison in this country,


there is a blanket ban. If you are imprisoned for contempt of court


boy fine default, you can vote. -- or a fine default. The point is,


there are lots of common sense compromise ways... Given that you


are in favour of all prisoners getting the vote, what would the


compromise be? The minimalist option offered in this Bill is that


prisoners in for less than four months of... Six months, I think.


Or people about to be released. Instead of having a fight with the


European Court, we wrote the convention largely, why don't we


just agreed to six months? For most prisoners, there won't be an


election in that time. People are about to be released from prison.


The first point is, the six-month option would mean 5000 convicted


criminals at least notionally getting the right to vote them in -


- including many sexual offenders, violent offenders and homicide


offenders. Many people would have a problem with that. She seems to


think we are in a diplomatic haggle with the Strasbourg court. That is


contrary to the rule of law. Either they are right or they are wrong.


It is not applying the convention. Should you not come out? I support


the convention. That is a nonsense position. When Britain signed up to


the convention, we punted it 15 years later before we signed up to


the court. There were huge concerns about the court. Have laws without


a court to enforce them. That is an excellent position. The vast


majority of international human rights conventions do not have a


body enforcing them. I think the Supreme Court should have the last


word on this. They said prisoner should not have a vote. What is the


point in a British Supreme Court but does not have the last per --


the last word? Do we sometimes listen to judgments with which we


disagree? You have to do that as a citizen and a politician. It seems


there is civil war going on. There is a way important point about


sovereignty. It's the European Court has said this needs to happen,


if a parliament is not prepared to pass anything and the Government is


not prepared to do anything, how can anything happen? This is the


crucial point. We made the European -- the European Court superior to


Parliament. We said the European Court could judge the actions of


the British Parliament against the principles embodied in the


convention. We signed up to the convention. It requires a


Parliament to make policy. About the Supreme Court in the US, there


is a massive danger when High Court make rulings - policy decisions -


without proper debate in a parliamentary democracy, in that


kind of forum. That creates a culture. You are still seeing that


ridden in American politics. My danger is you get big policy


decisions made by judges who are not accountable, rather than


politicians. That erodes trust in politics. We will come back to this.


So, talking of Strasbourg, our very own Jo Coburn is there today. Why,


you may ask? Well, it's that time when those crazy MEPs leave


Brussels for a few days and head to the capital of Alsace at a cost of


180 million euros a year. Who better to ask about David Cameron's


attempt to trim the EU budget than Members of the European Parliament


who will, after all, have to agree any deal. Here's Jo. Negotiations


are under way. The bargaining in Brussels between the European Union


leaders. Even if they do agree a budget deal, and that is a big if,


it has to be approved by Members of the European Parliament here in


Strasbourg. The signs so far have not been great. With me to discuss


the prospects of success, are three MEPs. Richard, let's kick-off. What


do you think the chances of success on a budget deal? 50/50. Is that


better? Has had improved over the last few weeks? It is normal for


negotiations at this stage. You will note that different parties,


different countries are coming from very widely differing positions.


There is a certain amount of grandstanding. We'll know we have


to reach compromise at some stage. Will we reach it this time?


Probably not. Sooner or later, we well. Are you are as optimistic for


a deal over the next few days? not think so. Few countries are


extremely far away from a compromise. We have managed to come


together on different issues with different countries. Some countries


on the size of the Budget and some on social policy. Everyone has a


piece of cake. If they are wise enough to bring together a


compromise career that would be excellent but I doubt it. Do you


doubt it? It will be very difficult. I think around 55%. He has said


that everyone must compromise. If that is the case, all governments


are ready to negotiate and find a compromise so we can come to a


result. Do you think David Cameron will compromise in the sense that


he will not necessarily stick to the real-terms freeze that he wants


- that he will pay more? Some things are clearly defined. The


United Kingdom is going to extreme lengths to deal with the budget


deficit. People genuinely understand that. He will be


explaining to other colleagues of European nations that we are having


to lay-off nurses, policemen, give redundancy notices to soldiers and,


at a time, when we're going to turn round and ask for more money for


Europe. That is not acceptable. is that the red line in the sand?


It is one area we will be negotiating hard fall. It is a


multi-faceted thing and there are many angles to look at. He will not


move on that. What is wrong with national governments same, we were


not agree with increased spending in the EU when we're cutting


budgets at home? It is about freezing spending. The British


government wants to freeze them at some accounting figure. Free


something that you have. Do not freeze something that does not


exist any more. If we keep these levels until 2020, that is one


thing. The problem will be that the European Union were not be able to


achieve the political commitments in the same way it could. The


budget is an instrument that is not the purpose. Britain is not going


to get what it once was dug it can have a starting level but it will


have to agree to something above a real-terms freeze. If I hope we're


not getting too hung up on the figures. If you look at Britain and


Germany, the difference is not great. It is about how you spend


the money when you have got it. Priorities need to change to


reflect the times we are in. Germany also wants the overall


spending to come down. David Cameron and Angela Merkel wants the


money to come down. We do like a freeze? The European Union has


competences to fulfil. It has won new country, Croatia. A freeze


would mean a decrease, in fact, because of these reasons. This has


to be taken into account to come to a fair result. We should meet


somewhere in the middle. Everyone has to move. Also the European


Parliament needs to compromise. It means everyone has to move. Then we


will make it will start to say we're not just cut, become to


research, innovation questions, all those questions. That would be the


easiest way. The problem for the UK government is the pressure David


Cameron is under from his own party. Is the Conservative Party move into


a position of better off out? would not think so. That is extreme


territory to get yourself into. We have a clear message that we want


to be in the European Union but we think spending priorities need to


change. They need to take drastic action to restore the health of the


euros. The recognise the steps they have to take. They are not going


down that road. The world out there is changing around. If Europe wants


to fall behind, that is something we wish to avoid. Many in the


Conservative Party to support that view. Just recently in a vote in


Parliament, many rebels sided with the idea of a cut in the Budget.


Many think the relationship with Europe has to change. That is what


the Prime Minister is saying. He has talked about a review of


competencies and taking a hard line on the Budget. Do you think the UK


is heading towards the exit door? The UK would not like to keep the


budget - that is the decrees. This is the structure of the Budget. The


UK veto will come because that budget is not well-structured and


the spending is not well directed. Just to say, for the EU expanding,


this is 0.827 % of public expenditure. You will not save much


money out of that. More than half the exports would go to the single


market in Europe. The benefits are much larger than that. I would


think twice. The way of spending is extremely important. We need to


have the amounts for filling the policies. From the perspective of


Germany, do you think the UK is heading out of the European Union -


may be slowly - but that is the way they are heading? You always


admired the British ability to be practical. I do not believe the


minority in the Tory Party would win. We would like to have Britain


in four lots of reasons. The place of Britain is in Europe and cities


in the interests of Britain to be in Europe. Thank you very much.


There was see how negotiations go over the next 36 hours. -- we will


see. So, it's a big day for David Cameron but, after two and half


years in the top job, how well do we really know the man himself?


James O'Shaugnessy worked closely with the Prime Minister, first in


Opposition then in then in Government. Before we ask him for


his perspective on Cameron the man, here's Giles, who's been taking his


own soundings. When you aspire to be, and then become Prime Minister,


people ask, and probably have a right to ask who you are as a


person. David Cameron hasn't been shy, early on we were invited to


see him behind the scenes, but actually such insights are


carefully managed. And it's his personality in so far as it shapes


how he does his job that's of real interest. Before the election he'd


explained his ambitions. I was there that night when David Cameron


was asked why he wanted to be Prime Minister. His response was, I think


there would be good at it. Critics say, the main point of what he's


doing is that he wants to be Prime Minister and he wants the job for


his own sake but he is not driven by a sense of mission of vision to


change the country and lead it in a particular direction. I think he


has that very English temperament about him that distrusts ideology.


He thinks ideas have their place. He would not be a politician if he


did not. He even distrust the harshness and absolutism of


political ideology. That might explain why many of his critics


have won the right of the party to fill their politics are forged from


heart and belief, it not strategy. He is not a deeply ideological


Thatcherite. He does have to deal with a coalition. He did have to


deal in the past with a hostile media environment. I do not blame


him for that. It got him into Number 10. He took with him a crowd


of people who have long been personally and professionally loyal.


One of the features of Cameron the man is that he tends to rely on


people he has known for a very long time. It is rare for an outsider to


be committed properly into the inner circle. Some people will see


that as a strength. Critics will say, if you want a Prime Minister


who is going to change things and get stuck in, he must sometimes be


prepared to fire his friends. David Cameron has never really done that.


I think Cameron is a man who does not suffer fools gladly. In my


experience, he was fair but firm as a boss. If people are not up to the


job, they won it pretty quickly. They say No. 10 reflects the


character of the person at the top. That seems very true of this PM


compared with other characters at the top of the party. Osborne likes


the clean, sharp, clinical operation. Boris like delegating to


people who he trusts. David Cameron does like a certain muddy mess - a


certain lack of definition - is certain relaxed quality in the


atmosphere. That seems to be part of he hears. Anyone's character can


be analysed for strength and weakness. Some traits can be either.


Nobody is perfect. It is just the stakes are much higher getting it


Let's come into what is happening at the moment in Brussels. How good


is he at negotiating? How good are his negotiating skills? A think the


coalition, the fact of the coalition, stands as a pretty good


testament to those skills. He got what he wanted to get, which is to


become Prime Minister and to form a stable government. I think he gets


the kind of outcomes he wants. you foreseen that as an option, did


he have a game plan for that, is that what unfolded after the


election or did he make it up as he went along? I think there was a bit


of both. If he worked at the polls throughout the campaign, it never


looked like anybody would have a convincing majority. The Lib Dems


were doing things -- well during things like the leadership debates.


So clearly he was thinking of a what-if scenario, but you do not


know how things will pan out. Having seen the position as it was,


within 24 hours, he was making an open, comprehensive offered to the


Lib Dems, and it was on the morning of that Friday. By the Tuesday,


they were in government. In Europe, coalitions of can take weeks to


come together, so that was extraordinary. He is not good on


detail, say his critics. Very much not true. He has an incredible mind,


and superb judgment, which is why I always thought he would be a good


Prime Minister. He really does read all the briefs and is across the


details? John Major always said he was proud to be. This idea of him


slacking off is not true, he gets off -- get up incredibly early, he


is across there are things he needs to be. What he has is a willingness


to delegate to his cabinet ministers the broad bones of a


programme, and trust them to get on with it. He looks in on them from


time to time, where there are issues, he get deeply involved.


said to have a bit of a temper in private, have you seen the rough


end of that? I have never seen that. At the end, he doesn't really stand


for anything, he is a managerial Conservative, when asked why he


wanted to be Prime Minister, he didn't say because he wanted to


create world peace or alleviate the condition of the people, along


Disraeli lines, he said, I think I would be rather good at it. I am


not sure he would say that was a complete description of why he


wanted to be a Prime Minister, but I would say firstly, he is a


classic conservative, not an ideologist, but look at his


principles. Look at the stance he has taken on a gay marriage. One of


the first things he said when he was running for the leadership of


the Conservative Party was he believed in marriage for a man or


woman, or a woman and a woman ought to man. I think he is consistent on


the things he believes passionately in, and you have to judge him on


what the government does, he is overseeing a government which has


Ken Clarke in it, Iain Duncan Smith, William Hague, a huge range of


talent across the party, that no Prime Minister has managed to unite


for a long time. That is in itself an extraordinary achievement. They


are doing a lot of things history would judge as being pretty radical.


We have been joined by Mr -- viewers in Scotland. Our guest of


the day is setting up not just one or two academies, but a whole chain


of them, in conjunction with Wellington College. Before we hear


about that, and his academies only take place in England, not in


Scotland, let's recap on where we are with the government's flagship


education policy. According to the Department for Education there are


2,456 six academies open in England. The government says academies


benefit from greater freedoms that innovate and raise standards,


because they are free from local authority control. They can set


their own pay and conditions for staff, have freedoms around the


curriculum, as well as the ability to change the length of terms and


school days. Now successful academies are setting up sister


schools, creating so-called "chain academies". So far there are around


48 academy chains covering nearly 350 academies. Critics claim


academies are the privatisation of education, and that they benefit


more affluent neighbourhoods with the extra money they receive. And


today the National Audit Office has said a tenfold increase in the


number of schools converting to academies has resulted in �1


billion of extra costs - which the Department for Education was


unprepared for. Which I think is a polite way of saying it didn't have


the money! James O'Shaughnessy is in the process of setting up a


chain academy, and Alasdair Smith is from the Anti-Academies Alliance.


I think we know his position! Give me the case for academies. They


work, quite simply. The evidence we now seek for academy set up under


Labour, so-called sponsored academies, Gwent and they take over


failing school and improve it, they are on average perform better than


schools that didn't go down that route. And Labour idea that this


condition has picked up? Some work, some don't, that is the problem. It


is not about an average. Some have been very successful, but some


academies, the Basildon academies, these are academies in special


measures. There is nothing magic about academies or sponsorship, and


we have been sold a pass by both New Labour and the coalition that


there is some kind of magic dust, it doesn't exist. You point by


dismissing something on average, you cannot have a proper argument


about anecdotes. You need to add value it at type of programme in


all its forms and see that is more or less effective. It is true that


there are academies at haven't worked, no one would disagree but


that. Similarly, there are maintained schools that have done


brilliantly and some that hadn't worked. But the LSC did a review of


the sponsored academies that were set up under Labour and found that


not only were they are performing better than schools that hadn't


gone down that route, but they also brought benefits for neighbouring


schools. So there was a competition effect that raised... A so it is


really important not to say, they don't do a good job, but to


evaluate the programmes are crossed the range. You say that is what the


report says, it cannot identify... All the new Labour academies had


with than �30 million of new buildings, generous transitional


funding, changes in school leadership. It wasn't the academy


status, it was the bricks and mortar, the changing in teaching


and learning, in leadership. It is nothing about academy status. The


evidence is that the London challenge has been the most sister


-- successful form of school improvement, and much cheaper. So


I'm happy to acknowledge some academies have been successful, but


some of failing, and we can't tolerate that situation. We need to


look at the school improvement system that works for every school.


But quite a few comprehensives file, and we tolerate that. I don't think


we do. We tolerated that for the best part of 20, 30 years. It


wasn't until James Callaghan, in 1976, talked about the secret


garden speech, when the public have an interest in what is going on in


schools. What was going on then was appalling in many instances. No


attempt to do things like children the basics. The long march back in


favour of standards, that has happened under consecutive


governments, find its latest expression in the Academy movement.


The reason for that is in many cases, the secondary schools were


able to throw off appalling local authorities he did nothing for them,


who did worse than nothing, who dragged them down. They took the


power of entrepreneurs to do something different. Some local


authorities, Tower Hamlets, Camden in London, who have been


fantastically successful. Just to say that the local authority model


was bad because it didn't work in some places is nonsense, it is


costing us a fortune. What would you do in those places? We need to


beef up local authorities. You can look at examples like Alberta in


Canada, where the local authority works in an effective way. There


are lots of models of making them accountable. It is having a


democratically accountable middle to here. Who is that? Sir Michael


will trot, the chair of Ofsted! some academies are failing, why is


that allowed to happen? It is a good question, one of the problems


we are facing his there used to be 200 academies, and there are a


handful of those below the accepted standard. It used to be the case


that the DFE had a capacity to intervene in those and try and sort


them out. We are now in a situation that there are 2500, and the


question is, who is intervening, if you like? De chair of Ofsted is


intending that they should start inspecting, not just all academies


but Academy chains, and working out if they are good or not. I


absolutely welcome back. I think anybody who believes in the


programme needs to be transparent. Is it your view that everybody


should go to a local authority comprehensive? I think everybody


should go to a good local school. It is not about it been a


comprehensive. Do you think there should be other state schools that


are not local authority schools? think we need a good local school...


That is not what I asked. Do you think they should be the sole


providers? I think we need local, democratic accountability. If you


look at systems like in Finland, there is a local authority system,


but not the same as we are familiar with in here. You need to have a


middle Tear, democratic accountability, planning, or cannot


Collaboration, these are simple, technical things we need. We can


get this without this headlong drive into privatisation. Hang on a


minute, privatisation... We are running out of time. Legally, they


are called exempt charities, they are charity is regretted by the DFE,


taking issue share capital, they cannot even raise debt. Let's leave


it there, I'm afraid. Interesting original principles of the welfare


state, where you have to pay in before you get the benefits, and


with a renewed emphasis on individual responsibility. That is


what a Conservative MP is arguing in a new pamphlet published today.


We'll discuss his ideas in a moment, but first let me take you back to


1942, when Sir William Beveridge laid out his plan for an all


Oxford has had the unusual experience with Sir William


Beveridge working at the college producing a social document of


revolutionary importance. He has put the immense store of economic


learning, human sympathy and Social Administration, accumulated in her


long life of service devoted to his fellow men. If adopted, no one in


Britain who is willing to work will ever again suffer absolute want.


This proposes first a unified social insurance system. By paying


a single, weekly contribution, through one Insurance stamp,


everyone will be able to get all the benefits that he or his family


need. The Beveridge Report shows had to begin overthrowing the five


giant evils. Pittsburgh as all too great effort. Much can be done to


peace. -- it spurs us all. Men and women in the armed forces do not


require more incentive to do their utmost but we must believe a fuller


life and better Britain awaits us after the war. Commentary from a


time when currently was not entirely neutral in what it said.


And I am joined by Chris Skidmore, Conservative MP and author of his


own report, A New Beveridge, which marks the 70th anniversary of the


original, Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of his party's Beveridge


Group, John Pugh, and the Labour MP, Lisa Nandy. Welcome to all. Lay out


your soul. What is Beveridge mark two? If it set about creating a


national minimum and the safety net. People had to contribute. The


understood they were putting into the state. It was a contract


between the individual and the state. The safety net has become


too high. We have become 53 presentable people becoming net


recipients of state benefits. 70 years on, we have a huge


demographic challenge. The average life expectancy was 59. It is


rising dramatically. The need to go back to the original principles in


understanding that, if we want a welfare state sustainable for the


21st century, we cannot go along the original model of the pre-war


report. We need to adapt it. problems which are outlined, such


as affordability and people taking advantage of the welfare state and


not exercising personal responsibilities. They were


highlighted in the day of Beveridge and wear a dress them. Chris is not


coming up with any solutions to the problems. -- were addressed then.


Chris is proposing something much more radical. Making them repay


their JSA. That is the jobseekers allowance. Reducing universal


benefits. Beveridge understood very clearly that some element of


universal benefit was essential. My worry is, if we go down that route,


we Wallander with a more divided attitude on welfare there we have


currently got. -- we will go down a more divided route on welfare.


we lost sight of the very important part of Beveridge - the


contributory principle? Weather Report is helpful is he does


resurrect the idea of national insurance and social security. --


where the report is helpful. Ashlyn shares today is really another tax,


isn't it? -- national insurance. What was important is full


employment. Mine are absolutely desperate for work. The vast


majority of the 2.5 million people unemployed in this country want to


work. It seems odd to me that what you have proposed in this report is


based on the idea that people do not want to work. Take the proposal


you made about young people. You say a young person who has not


contributed much to the system should take unemployment benefits


as a loan. How does that help? It that young person does not want to


work, how does it encourage them into work when they know they would


be paying more back into the system inconsequence? For London 50,000


young people are claiming benefits. That is �25 million a week. What we


have lost and the welfare state is incentivising individuals to do the


right thing. How does that incentivise the young person who


does not want to work? The vast majority do and they are not the


jobs. Why would paying more, when they're getting work, incentivise


them to get work? misunderstanding that everybody


belongs to a society where they put-in. If you have not paid the


tax, you have to owed the money to the State. That should apply to


student fees as well. With the situation of women - women who


choose to take time out of work in order to have children and bring up


those children - presumably would not be arguing they should be


penalised because they put less into the system than men? Of course


not. The coalition government has looked at flexible paternity leave


and I agree with that. The broad point is, if we want to have a


welfare state with good schools and good hospitals, there is only a


certain limited amount of money. We have to ensure that where


millionaires are claiming winter fuel allowance, Beveridge would


have turned in his grave. What would beverage have thought of the


criticism that what was a rigid sign to be a hand up in the bad


times -- was originally designed to be a hand up in the bad times has


become a lifestyle? Beveridge was acutely aware of the Victorian


distinction between the undeserving and the deserving poor. There are


such people. Some are poor despite their best means. Any welfare


system has had difficult half of -- task of differentiating these two


categories was dubbed this view of human nature, he described the


British working public as some of the biggest idlers on the planet.


Deduce say that? It said we are among the worst idlers. -- did you


say that? We have a huge problem with productivity in the Western


world. In the 21st century, the Rules of the game have changed and


we must adapt. Where do you come in? Something interesting happened


in the 1960s. We took about deserving and undeserving. Benefits


were based on what is deserved to what you need. The difficulty that


people on the left have, which has been exposed for what Chris has


written today, when we hear the Labour Party talking about the can


to be due principle, are we happy about getting themselves into a


position where they can say to themselves that people who have not


been earning - immigrant families - large immigrant families, you will


get a larger rate of benefit and someone who has been hit a long


time? When Beveridge came up with his support for a mass immigration


was not an issue. There was a sense of, if you had been serving in the


Army, working in factories and so on, we have had people without that


record. I prepared to say to those people, you will have a lower


standard of living where you will be in poverty because of having a


differentiated benefit system. Labour Party must have a welfare


reform policy by the next election. Absolutely. There are two things


that are missing from this discussion. The best way to cut the


welfare bill is to get people into work and stimulate the economy into


creating jobs. The good way to do that, and take people out of the


welfare system, is to make work pay. A huge number of the people that


are being talked about art in it, receiving tax credits, will be


receiving the universal credit because work, quite simply, does


not pay. That has been a problem for a government minister as long


as I had been covering politics. Is there traction him what you have


been saying in the Conservative Party? People realise we are in


desperate economic times are we must realise this is unsustainable


and must move with the times. -- and we must realise. This is for


the future. We must look at the future. It is the start of a great


debate. Get out the turkey, get in front of the telly. No, we're not a


month early for Christmas, today our American cousins are


celebrating Thanksgiving. It is a great holiday. One thing Barack


Obama will be feeling especially thankful for is his campaign's top


notch private polling operation. It is widely credited with giving him


a mathematical edge over Mitt Romney in last month's presidential


And it's left Republican pollsters scratching their heads over how


they managed to get their numbers so wrong. Adam's been meeting one


of them, Fox News favourite Frank Luntz. He has the immediate


reaction. We have some of the most important people in America seated


right here. For a glance has made his name folks sing -- filming


televised focus groups. He said Mitt Romney would triumph in the


popular vote. Barack Obama has empathy and Mitt Romney does not.


He came across as a no-nonsense businessman that he did not


understand the challenges. Barack Obama may not have been able to fix


the problems but he proved he understood them. Some boffins did


get the result right. The Republican polling establish what


was also universally wrong. Why? establishment. You have to work out


who will vote. Those that are supported Barack Obama turned out a


much higher numbers than anyone expected. It is not just judging


what people think, it is judging the intensity - the passion - the


commitment of that thought. There are lessons for the pollsters but


also for the politicians. Number one, whoever defines first wins the


election. Number two, if you don't have a positive, proactive


visionary approach, they will not vote for you. There is no not


candidate X. They have to vote for someone and not just against


someone. Their third is knowing who will they do making sure it will


supporters actually participate. -- the third is knowing who they will


vote for. It is about understanding good difficult challenges of hard-


working people. The challenge for Labour is not just to be critical.


Critics don't just get votes, they need a positive alternative. The


plan for the Lib Dems is to be relevant. You cannot win people


over amnesty to something that is distinctive. You wrote the last


Conservative manifesto. I bet the next one is pretty different.


might not have so much in it. not think you will have a big


society and I do not think you will be saying vote Ploo, go green. What


do you think the thrust of it should be? We heard in the


conference speech this year, deficit, welfare schools. Those of


the big issues for him. He thinks layback are on the wrong side of


all of those issues. That is what and see the manifesto been built


around. They have a mountain to climb. Mr Obama could lose lots of


votes and still win that your party has to gain a lot of votes. I do


not think that has been turned by a sitting Prime Minister since 1955.


Possibly. -- has been done. Two things give me confidence. The


Prime Minister identifying strivers. It took a while. And Disraeli. And


Blair indeed. What the Obama victory shows, is the campaign he


would like to fight, Britain is on the bike track, do not turn back,


can That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The One O'clock News is


starting over on BBC One now. And I will be back here tonight for This


Week with Anne Atkins talking women bishops, Richard Bacon on gossip


and Ann Leslie looking back over the news of the week. So join me,


Michael Portillo and Alan Johnson at 11:35am on BBC1. And I'll be


Download Subtitles