09/01/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/01/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning folks! Welcome to the Daily Politics. We have been doing


this for 10 years. It's my first day back at the coal-face here at


Westminster. So it's a Happy New Year from me!


Yes, of course I've already been here for two days! Some would be


talking about shirkers and strivers! Anyway, today's top


stories! Huge changes are being planned to


the way prisoners are supervised after they get out of jail. Private


companies may take over from the probation service for all but the


most dangerous offenders. And they'll be paid by results.


The actor, Geoffrey Palmer, will be taking a look at plans to stick a


high-speed railway through the heart of the Cotswolds where he


lives. And guess what? He's none too keen.


It's the first Prime Minister's Question Time of the New Year of


course! So stand by for the resumption of political hostility


that we've all so sorely missed over the season of good will.


And, it's happy birthday to us! Yes the Daily Politics is 10 years old


this week! We'll be looking back at some of the highlights of the last


decade. And, like all 10-year-olds, throwing an enormous strop if the


cake and presents aren't good enough.


All that in the next hour and a half. Prime Minister's Questions is


at noon of course. And joining us throughout today's programme is the


Treasury Minister, Sajid Javid, and the shadow Secretary for Work and


Pensions, Liam Byrne. But first, today the Government's


telling us how it plans to make private companies take over the


supervision of most ex-offenders once they leave prison. The role of


the traditional public probation service will be scaled back and it


will now only deal with the most violent of them. The new companies


will be paid by results, in an effort to reduce the hundreds of


thousands of crimes currently committed each and every year by


prisoners who have just got out of jail. This was the Justice


Secretary, Chris Grayling, earlier this morning.


Very often people walk out of the front door of a prison, �46 in


their pocket. Either with no support, or with the Probation


Service in a few days. I want them going straight on to a new rehab


course, if that is what they need, or if they dropped out of school.


We start to help them get their lives back together again.


Has the Probation Service failed to do its job properly? I wouldn't put


it like that, but if you look at the reoffending rate as a country,


it is probably one of the worst in the world. It is almost 50% of


people in terms of all prisoners released. If you look at people


convicted for 12 months or less, it is as high as 60%. It is


unacceptable, so we have to look at better ways. What Chris has talked


about, and the former Justice Secretary talked about, is have


rehabilitation, and these things we should be looking at. On those


figures, you would argue they have not done their job, or you wouldn't


be looking at this radical new approach? It would be unfair to say


it is all to do with the Probation Service. We have to look at new


ways of doing things. That means widening the scope of people who


can provide rehabilitation services, bring in the private sector and


charities. Also this approach of payment by results. Let's look at


payment by results. Why do you think that it will do a better job?


It sets the right incentives. If you get charities and private


sector groups involved, given the right incentives they can bring


about results in the criminal justice system we will be looking


for. They will get paid. It is a bit like the work programme put in


place. It has been criticised formed failing to meet its own


modest targets. Are these the sort of models you want to emulate?


is not fair. The work programme has just come into place. Then there is


800,000 people on it. It is bringing results. Let's look at the


reoffending rate so. It is even worse than you said. 90% of those


sentenced in England and Wales in 2011 had offended before. There


needs to be a rethink? Payment by results is an answer that can work.


What troubles us about this announcement is it is a bit of a


big bang approach to something that is high risk. Chris Grayling has


shut down a couple of important pilots. He has gone straight for


this kind of model, that he, as the minister put in place on the work


programme. It failed disastrously. The Government set its own minimum


performance standard at the work programme, with people needing to


be got into jobs. Only two people out of every 100 got into jobs.


you backing the idea of the versifying... The theory can work.


It is the practice. The devil is in the details and Chris Grayling has


a track record as a dodgy builder. Be very, very cautious about this.


Cancelling the pilots in the way we saw this morning is a mistake.


Proceed with caution. Let's go to harry Fletcher, who has been


listening to this, he is from the union that represents probation


staff. I'm not sure how much you heard about that, but let's look at


reoffending rates, because it was brought up by the minister. In 2011,


90% of those sentenced in England and Wales had offended before.


Doesn't this show the Probation Service as it stands has failed?


Ministers are confusing prisoners who got 12 months or less with


prisoners to got 12 months or more. Anybody under 12 months does not


get any assistance. The fact Chris Grayling has said this morning, in


future they will get assistance. The bad news is, the decision to


outsource two thirds of existing probation work, when the Ministry


of Justice's own statistics show that last year, we were set about a


dozen targets and we exceeded or hit absolutely everyone of them,


including reducing reoffending by the amount required by the Ministry


of Justice. The Probation Service has already been in receipt of


awards for excellence. The timing of this is bizarre. We have a


public sector organisation that is doing very well. But it is being


punished by the threat of privatisation. Why would you be


outsourcing on the basis of those results? It is nice to hear Liam is


welcoming the theory of this. so Harry's point. They have just


received an award for excellence and being touted abroad as a public


service to follow. The reoffending rate say it all. We need to look at


a new way of doing this. It is only sensible to look out new providers,


and frankly, have a bit of competition. There is nothing wrong


with competition in public services. If it leads to new ideas, it is a


good thing. Better results is a good thing, and value for money is


good as well. If the proposal was that Probation Service should work


in partnership with the private sector, we already work in


partnership with the private sector with tagging, that would be OK. But


they want to outsource two thirds of the work. And probation trusts


won't be able to bid for bat, it is a private sector monopoly. We have


spoken to the Ministry of Justice who has said you will be able to


bid for the work. If you are going to be able to bid for the work


alongside other providers, it is a level playing field? I want to see


the detail. Before Christmas I was being told quite clearly that the


probation trust wouldn't be able to bid for the work because it would


put public money at risk. If there has been a reversal, it is good


news. But we need to see the detail before we can announce further. If


this is a fair competition, and in the past competitions in the


justice sector has not been fair, Prison Service, maintenance


contracts, outsourcing of bail beds, that would be a different matter.


But our experience has been the actual process of competition is


not fair. What about the idea of payment by results, what do you


think about that? It would work if we were in a situation where the


economic climate it is very positive. The best way of getting a


criminal out of crime is to get them into work. The problems we


have is the vast majority of the people we deal with are illiterate.


They have problems with drugs and alcohol and they have more than two


mental health issues. We have to deal with those problems first.


Then we can look at pat ways to work. But there aren't the jobs out


there and if 50 people applied for one job and five of them are


criminals, I know who won't be shortlisted. That is the difficulty.


How do you measure a result if you pay someone? Is it someone who


comes out of prison never has to reoffend again and the company get


paid? Or do you cut the number of re offences, bearing in mind people


reoffend many times. How do pay the company? Part of the reason for


this announcement and the consultation as a result of that,


is to look at these ideas and get him put on this. But reoffending is


one of the measurements. If you can get that down, it is key. The.


Harry made, I am glad he is welcoming competition. In needs to


be a level playing field. But also, as Harry said, up until now, people


that have been convicted for less than 12 months have not received


any rehabilitation help. But that wasn't the role of the Probation


Service. It is good to see the Government will include such people.


If we are going to get the reoffending rate down, we need to


include all offenders. Well, there were furious exchanges in the House


of Commons yesterday as MPs debated whether or not to cap increases to


benefits and tax credits to less than the level of inflation.


In other words, a real-terms cut. The Government won the vote,


insisting that it would be unfair to people who work hard and who


have seen their own pay hardly rising, if they did anything else.


Here's Jo. The Government's victory last night


means that most working-age benefits and tax credits will now


increase by 1% every year up to 2015. Because inflation is expected


to be considerably higher, that'll mean a real-terms cut for people


receiving payments including jobseeker's allowance, income


support and maternity pay. The Work and Pension Secretary, Iain Duncan


Smith said the move was fair because it brings the increase in


benefits closer to the rise in average earnings, which was 1.4%


last year. Mr Duncan Smith says he believes that this will all save


the taxpayer as much as �2 billion a year by the end of the Parliament.


Which is essential if the Government is going to cut the


welfare bill, which is �195 billion and projected to keep on rising.


Labour opposed the move in angry scenes in the Commons, arguing that


by the Government's own admission it would hit women, single parents


and disabled people. Let's take a look at some of last night's debate.


If you look at it over the period since the beginning of the


recession, payments for those in work have risen by about 10% and


for those on benefits have risen by 20%. What we're trying to do over


the next few years, get that back into a fair settlement and


eventually it will go back on to inflation. We want to create and


hand back society, not a handout society. It does not help those on


lower earners by cutting taxes and recycling their hard-earned money


on benefits. It is not Britain's millionaires picking up the tab, it


is working families. This is a 'The Strivers Tax Bill, pure and simple.


What would he say to the policeman in my constituency... Is it fair


that people out of work have seen their benefits go up by 5.2%. My


salary has been frozen when I risk my life every day. That is what


this bill is about. I am ready to say what we did wrong, I have not


heard a word to say what they have done wrong. It is intolerable to


blame the unemployed for their poverty and our deficit. That is


why I'm voting for the amendment and against this rotten bill.


Bill is part of a war waged by the rich, who are doing all they can to


divide individuals answer communities against each other. It


is a reckless and dangerous measure which is likely to be massively


counter-productive and destabilise already struggling groups in


society and push them into greater despair and desperation.


billion over this Parliament of savings have been opposed by the


opposition. It is equivalent of adding another �5,000 of debt for


every working family in the country. We hear much about taxing the rich,


yet in this Parliament, the richest will pay more in tax than under any


single year of the previous Government. More tax on capital


gains, more stamp duty, is available to avoid and have a tax


and more when they take out their pension policy.


That gives you a flavour Abbott was A lively debate. Sajid Jafid, the


Chancellor at the Tory conference talked about people getting up


early to go to work and passing by houses where curtains were drawn,


people were asleep, living on benefits. He obviously didn't like


that. It was an implication of exiefrz, so why on the changes have


-- skivers, so why on the changes have you made people will be poorer


and the year after that �534 poorer? Firstly, in those working


families, they would only be poorer if you looked at the changes in


isolation and that wouldn't be right. Those are library figures


and net figures. It isn't. I have to confirm what he has said. These


are for the �280 worse off that is from the House of Commons Library,


which I've looked at and that includes the personal allowance and


the figure of �534 worse off is from the Institute of Fiscal


Studies and includes the rise in the personal allowance. You'll find


it only includes a change in the personal allowance that was


announced in the Autumn Statement. It does not include the change in


the personal allowance. It includes all. There is also the VAT increase


going up. There's a council tax freeze. There is change in fuel


duty. On the tenth anniversary I was going to do my homework.


sure you do that. These include the personal allowance changes, which


do help, overall these families who you are talking about, walking past


the curtains of those who are supposedly not going to work, they


will be worst off? Well, I know you always do your homework. I've done


mine, but we won't get into that. The figure I have is the average


family will save because the personal allowance changes. �594,


for all the changes in the entirety a year. That is a significant


saving and then you have a council tax freeze and the increases in


fuel duty that did take place. There are other changes taking


place in the tax and benefits system that are helping working


families and we have to look at them in the round. There is a wider.


The tax credit system, which was part of the changes debated


yesterday was so widespread that under the previous government nine


out of ten families with children were receiving some kind of tax


credit. Nine out of ten families, that is. With universal credit a


lot less people will receive the benefits in their entirety, a lot


less families, but it will be targeted at people that need the


help and set up in a way that those families will be better off by


taking a job. So you can't have a system of welfare where nine out of


ten are receiving tax credits. We have changed that. It will be six


out of ten. We have got to have a welfare system that is better spent


and better targeted towards families. Can we establish that


these working families that the Chancellor was so keen to support,


as a result of the changes in yesterday's Bill, they will be


worse off? You can't have changes to the welfare system when tax


credits are such a big chunk, to which tax credits, as the system


has been set up, go to working families, without having an impact


on those recipients. The Chancellor is hitting the person walking in


street and the ones behind the curtains who are not working? He


has hit both, hasn't he? We are having a big change to welfare.


That was the importance of the Bill yesterday to try to bring about


savings and it's affected families both on tax credits and JSA.


does Labour support a 1% cap on people who go to work in the public


sector, but not a 1% cap for those who are getting benefits? Because


we set the 1% cap sudden be an average. So for those at the very


top of the income spectrum, we have said they shouldn't get a rise at


you will. Sure, but they're not. For those at the very bottom, there


should be an exemption. We always said there should be a value for


the public sectors under �21,000 and that's why you have Labour


councils introducing living wages for Dinnerladies and teaching


assistants, those who are paid the very least. 1% on average. A lot of


people in the public sector and protection for those at the bottom.


Even so, if I can give you the figures from recent years, if you


look at the benefit rises. Take 2009. Benefits up 5%, pay went up


1.5%. 2010, benefits 1.1%, payment up 0.5%. 2011, benefits up 3%, pay


up 2.5%. 2012, benefits 5.2%, payment up 2.3%. Every year in


recent history if you've been on benefits you have done better than


getting a pay rise. This is very important argument. Two points in


response. First, we always look not just at wages, but at the family


income. I personally want family income to rise faster when


someone's in work than when they're on benefits. That's why we wanted


tax credits to rise. But the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats


actually froze the rise in tax credits and that's 3,5,000 people


in his constituency and 11,000 in mine. The Bill squeezed them


further. What that means is that those people who are in work are


getting hit twice, they are hit by wages that are stagnating and hurt


by tax being squeezed. My second point is, now think about what is


coming in the years ahead. So, in the years that this Bill is in


effect, actually earnings are forecast to grow by the Office for


Budget Responsibility by between 3% panned 4%. That's -- and 4%. That's


earnings. That is absolutely right. If you look at the OBI. That's not


right. Outlook, earnings will grow. Public sector. Firstly, as this


government will tell you, basing any policy on OBR is fool's gold.


That's why they're in a mess. Public sector pay is frozen or


rising by 1% overall for the future. Private earnings are rising by less


than 2% at the moment. There is no - I know of no business currently


planning 3% or 4% pay rises. Tell me one. Let me bring you back to


this. That's why tax credits need to be protected. At a time when


wages are squeezed you need tax credits to take up the slack. It's


this government that is actually freezing tax credits and proposing


to squeeze them at a time that the very richest in our country are


being given a �2,000 a week tax cut. We can't see how that is fair.


knows that's wrong. Frankly, he is wrong. You set it up. He knows


about the tax cuts for the richest is completely wrong. He said tax


credits sudden go up. He voted against this Bill yesterday, so


really you need to explain how you are going to fund the changes.


There is up to �5 billion of savings to get the changes. How


will you do that and at the same time cut the deficit? Keeping in


mind, that Liam was the Cabinet Secretary responsible for spending


in the previous government and he left the note to the new government


saying, "There's no money left." He might have thought it was a joke. I


think it was a rare moment of honesty. Let's see more now and


tell us how you will do that. you wish you had never left that


note? It's a good joke, but it's haunted you. These notes go back to


Churchill in the 1920s and a little later on. There's an old tradition


of them. They are normally kept private. Only one successor has


meant it. I left a Budget that I co-wrote with Alistair Darling


which would cut the deficit in four years. The basic point is this - �3


billion a year is being handed back to Britain's top-rate taxpayers.


That's complete rubbish. It's an HMRC figure. It's not. They say


it's the static costs. Let him explain why he thinks it's not


right. I understand this. Let him explain why. What he conveniently


wants to ignore are behaviourial changes when you have a tax change.


When you have a tax change people change their behaviour. HMRC's


study said when you take behaviour into account it's about �100


million, not �3 billion. That's why if you want to tax the wealthiest


you need to do it in a way where it's not easy for them to avoid it,


stamp duty and changes in personal pension contribution allowances and


changes in capital gains tax and that's what we have son, so each --


son, so each year the wealthiest are paying more. We'll come back to


this. We have to move on. Very interesting. I did a lot more


homework than I needed to! Hold onto your socks for a moment - we


have an important announcement.. FANFARE


Yes, as you know each week we give away a prize that the rich and


mighty can only dream of. Yes, the Daily Politics Mug! But in honour


of our 10th birthday - have we mentioned its our 10th birthday? -


for one week only we've bust the budget, stuck a happy birthday


sticker on the side of it and we've got permission from the head of


finance to give away not one, but two! Oh, how eBay will groan! Sajid


and Liam have already got theirs - they're quick off the mark these


Treasury boys. But now two of you can try and join a club that is


surely unique. Let's see if you can remember when this happened.


# Everybody, move feet and feel united... #


# I will go down with this ship # And I won't put my hands up and


sursurrender... # -- and surrender... #


# I don't know what it is # That makes me feel like this


# I don't know who you are # But you must be kind of


superstar... # The people have spoken for the


# Danger, danger Lots of clues there. To be in with


a chance of winning one of our special special mugs, look at it,


send your answer to our special address: You can see the full terms


and conditions on the website. they can't guess what that year's


going to be, they should be banned from watching. Thereby cutting our


audience to close to zero. It's coming up to midday. There's Big


Ben behind me there. It's only meaning one thing, Prime Minister's


questions and also that Nick Robinson is here. Haby knew year.


Welcome back. -- happy new year. Welcome back. A cheap one. That's


all we can afford. The cheque isn't in the account yet! We have this


relaunch of the coalition on Monday, that's what Labour called it. We


read in this morning's papers that there's another document where they


mark their own homework. Even marking their own homework, we are


told, they failed on 70 promises. Thanks to a rather good political


photographer called Steve Back who has an extremely long lens, he


managed to get one of the political advisers to the Prime Minister,


Patrick Rock, who was carrying documents along, who said he might


have well as stapled it to his forehead and posted it to the


Cabinet. Which said and I quote, "I think the danger of bad headlines,


about the Government failing to meet certain targets, can be


avoided by simply publishing a document without any fanfare on the


Government's website." I don't think that plans going quite to


plan. "We might be accused of slipping out the difficult points a


couple of days we got more favourable coverage." It's just


possible! I wouldn't wish to predict. Only by churlish people.


Or people of an unkind disposition. Was there always the plan to


publish this? Well, the coalition document, they saw that this week.


No, marking your own homework? don't know about that. You have not


seen it. It talked about cutting the deficit. Welfare reform. I was


gob-smacked by it. Were you on holiday? I was working, watching


him, which is work! What about this new document, you must have had


input into this? I haven't seen such a document. I have seen the


coalition document, mid-term review which talks all about the successes.


What about 6% growth by 2012, failed. Cut the deficit by lots


more, no we only got 25% and it's rising again. Living standards


still being squeezed by as much as 1920s. Will it have all that in?


think the document would say that given the Interance that we had,


the world's largest deficit that we have done a damn good job of


putting the country back on its feet and also of cutting the


deficit and bringing back prosperity back to Britain. Is that


eight out of ten? Over to Prime This morning I had meetings with


ministerial colleagues and others and an additional to my duties, I


will have further such meetings today. The as the Prime Minister


agree if public servants are having a 1% pay rise, it is only fair that


those on benefits should be given the same increase? I think he is


entirely right. These are difficult decisions. But they should be made


in the context of the fact that over the last five years benefits


have gone up by 20%, average earnings are only up by 10%. It is


right to have a 1% cap on out-of- work benefits, a 1% cap on tax


credits and the 1% cap on public sector pay. What is inexplicable is


the position of the party opposite to support a 1% public sector pay


cap, but one more for welfare claimants. It is not fair, not


right and they should think again. Mr Speaker, can the Prime Minister


tell us that why am Monday when he published his mid-term review


committee failed to publish his audit of coalition broken promises?


We will be publishing absolutely every single auditor of every


single promise, or 399 pledges set out in the mid-term review. Unlike


the party opposite, this will be full, frank and completely on


varnished and will see it this afternoon. Let me perhaps remind


him of some of the pledges. We said we would cut the deficit, it is


down by 25%. We said we would cut immigration, it is down buys 25%.


We said we would rebalance the economy, one million public-sector


jobs. He is going to have to do better than that. Because this is


what his advisers said. Key said, they shouldn't publish the secret


ordered because it had problematic areas and V2 and favourable copy,


and identified broken pledges. It is a far cry from the Rose Garden.


This is what they said, we should throw open the doors to enable the


public to hold politicians to account. So, have another go. It is


a simple questions. Was it his decision not to publish the audit.


I quote from his adviser, "it would overshadow favourable coverage..."


it is early in the year, so calm down. You had difficult times ahead.


Was it his decision not to publish the ordered? It is my decision it


is being published this afternoon. Is this really the best he can do?


He has had a week, sitting in the Canary Islands with nothing else to


think about. He cannot ask about unemployment because it is falling.


P cannot ask about business creation because it is rising. He


does not want to talk about the deficit because we have got it down


for a start he cannot ask about welfare because he knows he is on


the wrong side of the argument. Speaker, the only people on the


wrong side of the arguments are him and his Chancellor, who are trying


to divide the country. Let's see if we can get a sneak preview of the


secret Audit. We have not seen it, but can we get a sneak preview.


This is what the coalition agreement said, "we will stop top


down reorganisations of the NHS". I think we can all agree it is a


promise that has been broken. Can he confirm that is on the list?


What will be Virk, 5,000 more doctors in the NHS, 6,000 fewer


managers. But he talks about wanting to divide the country, the


division is this, two parties that have come together in the national


interest to take the difficult decisions, and one party that


refuses to apologise for the past, refuses to talk about the deficit,


has no economic policy to think of. That is the division in British


politics. I have to say, if he cannot even admit he has broken his


promise on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, I don't


have high hopes for the secret Audit. Let's talk about another


broken promise, this time on women. He's had this in his modest way,


"he said we want to make sexual inequality history. That needs a


serious commitment, clear policies and clear leadership". Will the


secret audits acknowledge another broken promises that the changes he


is making... I think the part-time Chancellor should calm down. Will


he admits that the tax and benefit changes he is making are hitting


women three times as hard as men? There are more women in work than...


There is excessive noise in the chamber. The questions from the


opposition must be heard and the answers from the Prime Minister


must be heard. He will be able to see when this document is published,


there are more women in work than at any time in our history, pension


reforms are helping women and of public-sector -- public sector pay


freeze that excludes the lowest paid is helping women and we are


helping women with extra childcare. Mr Speaker, what a contrast between


a Government that is prepared to publish every piece of information


about every pledge and what has been achieved. And the party


opposite that cannot apologise for the mess they left this country in.


After that answer, it is no wonder he did not take any questions from


women jealous from his relaunch a press conference. -- journalists.


Let's turn to his biggest broken promise, the chancellor hits hard


working people and the most vulnerable with his strivers tax.


At the same time he is giving this April, a massive tax cuts to


millionaires. If his audit is going to be a candid assessment, won't he


have to admit he has broken that symbolic promise that we are all in


this together? He knows the facts about the top rate of tax. His move


to 50 pence Mensa millionaires paid 7 billion a less in taxes, than


they did previously. Under this Government, the top rate of tax


will be higher than it every year than under his Government. Let's


have an audit of his promises. He promised us a costed deficit-


reduction programme. Nothing. He promised us proper reforms of


welfare. Nothing. He promised us how he would show how he would have


a new policy and tuition fees. Nothing. I have audited all of the


Government spending programmes and I have identified one where waste


is appalling. The �5 million of money that goes to his party every


year. We get nothing from it. Speaker. Mr Speaker, the more he


blusters, the less convincing he is. He is cutting the top rate of


income tax at by an average of �107,000 for everyone earning over


�1 million in Britain. At the same time he is raising taxes on


everyone else. He is a PR man who cannot even do a relaunch. Halfway


through his Parliament, we know they are incompetent, break their


promises and other nasty party is back. If is perfectly clear what


has happened since the start of this year. It is this Government


that is setting out its plans for the future. It is his party that is


on the wrong side of the argument on welfare. It has nothing to say


about the deficit, no credible policy on the economy. He has a


shadow Chancellor who will knock back, but cannot sack. Nothing has


changed in politics, nothing has changed in labour. Does he agree


with me, that we should be cutting taxes for hard-working people in


Basildon it rather than taking money away from them, only to


return their own money through tax credits? He is entirely right. He


will know in April, every working family will see a �220 tax cut as


we left the tax threshold further. Everyone will benefit. In our view,


what we should be doing is cutting people's taxes, rather than take


more in taxes and recycle it through the massive tax credits


business. That is what we believe on the side of the house. Isn't it


a clear example of how out of touch this Prime Minister is, that while


the overwhelming majority of the public want to maintain the ban on


fox and stag hunting, that he actually plans to repeal it. Can he


tell us why? As I explained before Christmas, I have never broken the


law, and the only little red purse I pursue these days are in this


house. -- pests. Does the Prime Minister accept... Order, order. I


am sure the House wishes to hear the words. Does the Prime Minister


accept that under this Government that we brought in an 11% rise in


the child elements of the tax credit, followed by a 5% rise and a


recent rises build on those, meaning a cash increase of �470 in


the child elements of the tax credit, under this Government?


makes an important point on how we focused help on those most in need.


Because we have lifted the income tax threshold, someone a minimum


wage who works full-time has seen their income tax bill cut in half


under this Government. We are on the side are people who want to


work hard, get on and provide for their families. There are more than


one million children living in poverty who do not qualify for a


free school meal. Several children's charities are concerned


that number will increase when the Universal credit is introduced.


Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to allay their fears by


giving a guarantee that any child who qualifies for a free school


meal under the current rules, will keep the entire Commons when the


rules have changed? I will look carefully at what he says. By


universal credit will actually be extending help to more people and


more families, because it will be helping those people who are only


able to work a few hours a week, and helping them with childcare as


well. It is good to see the Prime Minister out running over Christmas,


and setting the pace on welfare reform. For I have been out


training for the London Marathon to raise funds for my local children's


hospice. Will he join me in praising or the fund raisers and


volunteers for local hospices, and reaffirmed Government support that


schemes like the capital fund for hospices, which my local hospice


are currently applying? First of all, can I wish him every good luck


for the London Marathon. It is more than I am capable of, I can


reassure him. We are continuing to support children's hospices by


carrying on with the �10 million funding. We have added an


additional �720,000, by making �60 million of capital funding


available to adults and children hospices. In the coalition


agreement, a full audit of which will be published today - we will


be demonstrating how we will fulfil our pledge for a per patient


funding system for palliative care. It will help or hospices. Can the


Prime Minister confirm that single mum, Magee from my constituency,


who works all the hours she can in Tesco, but does not earn enough to


gain from the new tax allowances, will, after these changes to tax


credit and Universal Credit, be a staggering �1,255 a year worse off?


Everybody is affected by these changes. Everyone on tax credits


will be affected by the fact there is only a 1% increase. Everyone on


out-of-work benefits will be affected by the fact there is only


a 1% increase. But the question is, if we are saving �5 billion through


these changes, which I believe our fair, how is it the party opposite


would fill in as �5 billion black hole? Would they take it off the


NHS? Take it off the defence budget? It is time we had some


questions from the party opposite. Can I thank the coalition


Government for allocating �10.7 million to Edinburgh Super


connected city with. It will revolutionise internet use been


part of my constituency. But like constituents are frustrated at


Edinburgh council's year-long procurement process. What can we do


It's vitally important that everyone has access to broadband


and increasingly we have the overwhelming access to superfast. I


suspect that Edinburgh City Council has seen some of the same problems


that councils up and down the country have seen about getting


state aid clearance. We now have that for broadband in England, but


I'm happy to look at his situation, but that's been one of the problems


that has been holding back this vital programme. You shouldn't have


to fill in long forms from the Revenue, you're working, you need


help, we want to help you. I'm sure the Prime Minister recognises his


words to families receiving child benefit. How many families could


face a fine for not filling out a long tax form? The point about the


child benefit change is that 85% of families who receive child benefit


will go on getting that benefit. But the question we all have to ask


is, is it right for people earning �20,000 or �30,000 to go on giving


child benefit to people earning �70 or �90,000? We don't believe it is


right, but apparently the Labour Party think it's right to give


child benefit to millionaires. We don't think that's a good use of


money. The Prime Minister rightly recognises that there needs to be a


new relationship between this country and the EU. He has said,


and I agree, that the British people must be offered a real


choice with regard to our continued membership. I hope he can confirm


to the House that it's his intention to seek a fresh


settlement and then to seek the consent of the British people to


that settlement. I can confirm that is exactly what I believe this


country should do. I think it's the right thing for Britain, because I


think it's right that we are involved in the single market, we


are active players in the EU, but there are changes we would like in


our relationship that would be good for Britain and Europe. I think


because of the changes taking place in the eurozone, which is driving a


lot of change in the EU, there's every opportunity to achieve that


settlement and then seek consent for it. A college of Lord March


land's said he likes foreign travel, meeting foreign leaders, but he's


not too keen on the detailed policy of his new job, I wonder if the


Prime Minister knows anybody else like that? Is that - all morning


he's had to this of that -- had to think of that! It's important that


we ministers in both Houses who are linking up with the fast-growing


countries in the world and that's why our exports to China are up 50%


and to India 50% and we are connecting Britain with the fast-


growing parts of the world. Bearing in mind that Bills that may be


thought to effect the Royal prerogative require the sig -- sig


indication of the -- the signature of the Queen at second reading, can


the Prime Minister tell us whether he has yet heard from the Palace


whether if regards any of the major constitutional changes proposed in


the suck succession to the crown bill is intruding on the Royal


prerogative or on the corn nation both, which the Queen took? -- core


nation oath, which the Queen took? Throughout the process of bringing


forward this proposal, which is a proposal that the heads of all the


Commonwealth realms have also signed up, throughout that process,


there's been very, very thorough contact between Number Ten and


between the Palace. All of the issues are settled and agreed.


People in high flood risk areas cannot understand why the


Government has effectively abandoned efforts to reach


agreements with the industry and fear they will not be able to


insure their homes after June 2013. Why is the Prime Minister fiddling


while the country floods? I'm happy to put the honourable gentleman


right. The discussions are still under way. They've made very good


progress. I'm confident that we will reach an agreement, as he said.


The current agreement doesn't run out until June this year. I'm


regularly updated on the discussions. I know from my own


constituency, which has been subjected to regular flooding, just


how important they are. We have put in an extra �120 million in terms


of flood defences and I think everyone can now see that the flood


defence work that has been done over recent years has made a


significant difference when we have had high levels of rainfall.


the Prime Minister confirm to the House that disability benefits are


being uprated as usual and will not be subject to changes? She is


entirely right. Disability living allowance, which is the key benefit


received by disabled people, is not subject to the 1% cut. The cap is


for benefits that are for people in the in-work benefits area. It's


very important we go on paying disability living allowance in the


way we have been. Can the Prime Minister confirm that my


constituent who is a nurse, as well as a single father to two children,


will lose �400 a year as a result of the Chancellor's cuts to child


benefit and other benefits? result of the cuts to child benefit


are that the best-off 15% families in this country will no longer


receive child benefit at all. That is what is going to happen. That


safes around �2 billion a year and again, Labour has now voted against


83 billion of welfare changes. You have to start filling in the blanks


of where you are going to make up this money. I think it is right


that we say to people earning �60 up to �80,000 or more you shouldn't


be receiving child benefit. It's not an easy decision. The


Government is about making decisions and frankly opposition is


frankly about making them too. I recommend that the Prime Minister


takes a look at Monday's excellent backbench debate on corporate tax


avoidance and can I ask what he hopes to achieve on this vital


issue at the G8? I will certainly look closely at the debate and read


the Hansard, because this is a vital issue for not just our


country, but it needs to be settled internationally. That is why I've


put the issue of corporate tax avoidance at the heart of the G8


this year. We are also looking closely at what we can do here in


the UK. Further to the question from my friend in Hacky South, may


I ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number


of families who are still unaware they are no longer aware to child


benefit, particularly bearing in mind the bill will come through the


nation's letterboxes in April 2015?! Obviously, we have written


out to 800,000 families. There's been a huge advertising cam tape.


This has been properly covered right across the media. I have to


say, it's absolutely extraordinary, in a week when Labour are


complaining about difficult welfare decisions for people who are in


work and for people who are out of work, they also want to make a


priority of opposing taking away child benefit from people earning


�100,000 or �150,000. You really have to start taking some


responsible decisions about how we deal with our deficit and get our


economy under control. Will the Prime Minister join me in


congratulating the businessman and entrepreneurs and staff who work at


the job centre in my constituency, whose efforts over the last two-


and-a-half years have ensured that unemployment in my constituency is


down by a quarter since last election? I will certainly join my


honourable friend. People in our job centres in the country do an


excellent job helping people to find work and to make sure they get


all the help they need. The fact is that the unemployment rate today is


now lower than the rate that we inherited at the last election.


Over the last year, job creation in Britain was faster than in any


other G7 country. We still have a long way to go to rebalance the


economy, to get the growth in the private sector that we need.


However, we are on the right track. One million new private sector jobs


over the last two years. The fastest rate of new business


creation for decades. There are good signs that the economy's


rebalancing. We need to encourage that by staying on top of our


deficit and getting the deficit down, rather than just giving in on


every decision as we have seen today from the Labour Party.


According to the Children's Society, up to 40,000 soldiers, 150,000


teachers and 300,000 nurses will lose out as a result of his


decision to cut tax credits and other benefits. Why are hard-


working people like this paying for his economic failure?


honourable lady needs to remember why we are having to take the


decisions in the first place. It's to deal with the record budget


deficit for the mess left by the Labour Party. That is the


background to this. But the real question about public sector


workers and soldiers and teachers and people who work in our public


services, they are being restricted to a 1% increase, so why on earth


does the Labour Party think that people on out-of-work benefits


should see their incomes go up faster? That is the question you


need to answer. We are being fair, because we are restricting the


increase on tax credits, on public sector pay, but also asking the


same of those on out-of-work welfare. What we see that is unfair


is backing the public sector pay increase, but wanting welfare to go


through the roof. It's wrong and not fair and Labour must see they


have to change their mind. Last week I visited TH White Group and


herd about their healthy order book and recruitment plans for this year.


However, like many British employers, they cannot find enough


engineers to hire. Britain's universities lead the world in


teaching science and engineering and yet we have an annual short


fall of 60,000 graduates and nine out of ten post-graduate students


in those subjects are from overseas what more can we do to plug this


critical skills gap? I think she is entirely right and we have to


tackle this problem at every level. That means making sure we are


teaching maths and science and stem subjects properly in schools and


there are signs that the number of people taking those subjects are


increasing. We need to make sure that universities are properly


funded and tuition fees will make sure that is the case. We also need


to raise the profile about engineering and that's one of the


reasons why we introduce the �1 million prize for engineering. That


combined with the 34 university technical colleges will help to


make sure we train the engineers we need for the future. It's more


important than ever in Northern Ireland that we seek to continue


moving forward, away from violence. We need to create stability and I'm


sure the Prime Minister will agree that full participation in and


support for the political and democratic process by everybody, so


the people's issued can be addressed and politicians address


those is vital. In that context and the context of what is happening,


will the Prime Minister agree to meet with us to discuss the


forthcoming legislation in Northern Ireland, so we can look at measures


to increase democratic participation by people in deprived


communities, look at the deplorable state of the electoral register in


Northern Ireland, which is in a bad state and also deal with the


discrimination against elected members of this House from Northern


Ireland, who play by the rules while others get money while not


taking their seats? All that needs to be addressed. I agree to meet.


We have a meeting with a number of members of his party straight after


to talk about the issue of how to make sure we can cover the military


covenant. He makes a number of points. I would throw back that


part of the challenge to him and his party, as to others, we need to


build a shared future in Northern Ireland, where we breakdown the


barriers, barriers of segregation that have been in place for many,


many years and I think that is part of the challenge to take away many


of the tensions that we have seen in recent days. Just in case


anybody was ever in any doubt, could the Prime Minister confirm


who he is closest to politically? Is this Lord Tebbit or the Deputy


Prime Minister? I managed to get through Christmas without spending


any time with either of them. I am closer to all Conservatives than I


am to anyone from any other party. Yesterday the Secretary of State


for Health received a report recommending that the downgrading


of maternity services and closure of the A&E department at Lewisham


hospital, does the Prime Minister recall the coalition promise to end


the enforced closure of A&E and maternity services? If this is not


to be on the list of broken promises will he ensure that these


closures do not go ahead? What the Government and I specifically


promised is that there should be no closures or no re-organisations


unless they had the support from the GP commissioners and unless


there was public and patient engagement and evidence. Let me be


absolutely clear. Unlike under the last government, when the closures


and changes were imposed in a top- down way, if they do not immediate


those criteria they will not happen. The Prime Minister will remember


that this House gave the green light to stem Cel research some


years ago. We now find that the court of justice of the EU is


hindering progress by bringing into question the patent researches.


Will the Prime Minister do what he can to clear the block snadges


blockages? He makes an important point, because it's a competitive


advantage that we have in this country, that we took difficult


decisions about stem Cel research. It's important that we continue to


lead in that area, not only for economic and scientific reasons,


but because we want to make sure that people with long-term


conditions, that children with disabilities and other concerns,


that we crack those problems for the future and without that level


of research I don't believe we shall. I'll look carefully and


write to him with an answer. Is the Prime Minister proud of the growth


of food banks across this country, including in my own constituency?


Has he visited one and if not, will he? I'm proud of the fact that in


this country there are one million more people in work than they were


when this Government came to office, that we have made sure that the


lowest paid are not paying income tax, that we protected the poorest


families in our country. I'm proud of all of those things. But unlike


him, I don't look down or talk down at people who work hard in our


The first Prime Minister's Questions of 2013. Just two more


years of back to go until the next election. The leader of the


opposition went on this about to be published Government marking of its


own homework. What promises it kept, what it hasn't. It did not deliver


it with the mid-term assessment and Monday afternoon. But it is coming


out this afternoon. No doubt that is what will dominate tonight, as


we seek what promises the Government has kept. Interesting Ed


Miliband went on that rather than continuing the argument yesterday


on capping of welfare payments. We will ask why he did that in a few


moments, but first we get what you thought of it.


The Ed Miliband might have gone on something different, but dealers


focused on the welfare debate. A lady in Manchester so this


Government is only hitting workers on low incomes. My husband as a


civil servant and has not seen his wage rise for two years. I am a


carer for a disabled daughter. This from Ray Jones in Kent. Today


I witnessed again, Ed Miliband going on about broken promises when


he chooses not to recognise the world is a different place than


when those promises were made. Jacklin says, someone needs to be


putting a stop to the campaign of hatred with shirkers and strivers


nonsense. Mr Miliband does little to inspire confidence.


Another man says, Ed Miliband had an open goal, had six attempts but


missed the goal. And David in Blackburn, but 13


years I have held the view that previous governments have the most


incompetent collection of ministers ever assembled. Now, I am not so


sure. Interesting scene, on the one hand


you have the Government worried about some aspects of the welfare


debate. Hence a couple of questions allowing the Prime Minister to say,


we're not freezing that benefits, we're not freezing VAT benefit,


pensioners will be fine. Ed Miliband went on the publication of


the document about promises kept and promises broken. It was a gift


Ed Miliband could not resist. You open your newspaper this morning,


and there is the story that Government tried to bury, an


assessment of their own broken promises. In a sense, when you are


leader of the opposition, sometimes you have to go with the news. I


think that his wife. But but sides are nervous. There is no doubt that


Labour, they have fought very hard on the idea of welfare. He will be


seen as being a friend of shirkers and not workers. Plus the Tories


are nervous. A whole series of planted questions by Government


whips, allowing the Prime Minister to produce these facts as PMQs was


going on. We are not hitting the disabled, we are not hitting


pensioners. It suggests to me, along with their abandonment of the


wording of workers and shirkers. You won't hear them using it any


more. David Cameron and Nick Clegg made it clear that they won't use


it. You're getting a nervousness on both sides of politics, as they


tried to grapple with this will Furman them. Does this mean you


will desist from using this language? I have used it before


reporting a conversation I had on a doorstep in my constituency.


said at the Labour conference, many people on the doorstep at the last


election felt too often we were for the shirkers and not the workers.


The new told the London School of Economics last year, we are the


party of workers, not shirkers. Who are the shirkers? There are people


in Britain who we do not think are doing enough to get a job. What I


was doing was reporting conversations I had on the doorstep


in my own constituency. What we won't do is use this as a political


strategy in the way George Osborne tried to do when he presented his


wealth or built. This well For our rating Bill is not needed. Non-


Labour Government comes to Parliament. George Osborne wanted


to frame this in unnecessary legislation to force the vote so he


could try and present Labour as on the wrong side of an argument. What


he forgot to tell the House when he presented the Budget, is that


overwhelmingly, this bill hits tax credits and 68% of the people hit


are in work. We did a lot of that at the beginning of the programme.


You were worried Labour was seen as a party of shirkers and not workers,


why was that? I heard those conversations from my constituents.


Why do people think that? I think there is the sense we did not move


fast enough to reform incapacity benefit. We introduced some


important changes. We wanted to test it, and get it right. The


Government went on a different approach, and now we have the chaos


in the work capability assessment. They moved to fast before getting


the foundations strong. This is an important debate and we have said,


there is a Labour way to bring down spending, there is a Tory wait. The


Labour way his -- the Tory rate is to hit her working people. Up to


the crash in 2008, employment rose in this country, unemployment


wasn't rising. But the welfare bill still rose. The wood two parts of


the welfare bill, it went up by �70 billion. Overwhelmingly it was


pensions and tax credits. We make no apology for and reducing tax


credits. But my point is, you were saying that if only unemployment


would come down further, if there was more people in work, we would


cut the welfare bill. You had more people in employment, and the


welfare bill rose under Labour. What happens to out-of-work


benefits? GSA, BSA, income support and housing benefit fell by �7.8


billion. But the welfare bill rose, even at the time of rising


employment and living standards, over all, you increased spending on


welfare. You can have the semantic conversation or you like. Pensioner


went up by 30 billion ANH tax credits went up by nearly 30


billion. We think those are good things. I understand, but it does


not automatically follow, as the experience of the last Labour


Government has shown, just because unemployment is falling and


unemployment is rising, welfare goes down. We think there are good


parts to the social security system, tax credits and pensions. Tax


credits mean you are better off in work. Tax credits have been cut so


hard you are better off... could earn �60,000 a year and get


tax credits and the you? You could earn �60,000 a year under Labour


and get tax credits for stopped giving it is right? We said over


the last couple of years there should have been an increase in the


Tax credits have been hit so hard, you are better off on benefits than


you are in work. Working families are being forced to pay. During the


last decade, welfare spending in real terms went up by 45%. It


represents a total today one in every �3 that is raised in taxes.


It was a Budget out of control. When Liam used divisive language


talking about shirkers... Please let me answer. You had trouble


answering the question, I want to help out. The problem is, he did


and want to acknowledge the reality. I wish he would be honest again


when he was talking about there being no money left. I want him to


acknowledge the welfare budget was out of control. If you are going to


deal with the largest deficit of any industrialised country when we


came to power, you have to deal with the welfare budget. If this is


you helping him out, what are you like when you are being unhelpful?


This is a debate we might have to have until 2015. What I thought was


interesting about the debate yesterday was David Miliband's


contributions. He stood up and said, I don't want any more to have an


argument that says if Labour is opposed to a welfare cap, that it


is in favour of higher deficits and more borrowing. I want to have a


debate about what changes you want to make. It is an interesting


debate. If Labour are going to say they are uncomfortable with this 1%


blanket cap on a series of benefits and tax credits as well, and


certain Liberal Democrats like Charles Kennedy us saying, we want


to amend the Bill. Are there things they would like to cut more in


order to allow tax credits to rise with inflation. Pension benefits,


for example. On the front pages today, he I am doing a programme on


Radio Four at 8pm tonight. Do you means test winter fuel allowance or


the bus pass? Is that a debate you want to get going? We want to bring


down out of work benefits. More people should be got into work.


That is what is happening. They can only be two years you can spend on


JSA. We have said there is a cap on the amount of time you can spend on


JSA. It you cannot get a job, we will invest in making sure there is


one for you. It is a clear message we want to send. We are the party


of work. Bringing down unemployment is how you make welfare savings


first. It is only the start of what is going to be a big debate. Nick


Robinson, thanks for being with us. Mind you Cup. -- my new Cup.


If you are watching this in Birmingham and want to get to


London in a hurry, help is at hand. The Government is planning to build


a new high-speed line connecting the capital and the West Midlands.


But you'll have to wait until 2026 to use it! Later this month, the


Secretary of State for Transport is expected to announce the route for


phase two of the scheme connecting the East Midlands, Manchester and


Leeds. But the High Speed Rail scheme or HS2 as it's known, has


its opponents. Former cabinet minister, Cheryl Gillan, described


it as a cancer at the weekend. And campaigners have gone to court to


get the project delayed, altered or stopped. Nowhere has opposition


been as vigorous as in the Chilterns, where the actor,


Geoffrey Palmer, lives. We asked him to explain why he's so opposed


I had lived in the Chilterns for nearly 50 years. Lovely countryside


and an Area of Outstanding, natural beauty. It is quiet and peaceful.


But it will mark the on much longer if Mr Cameron thrusts a high-speed


railway from Birmingham to London through it. It will cost equivalent


of 60 hospitals. It would be the most expensive railway in the world


and the single most expensive infrastructure project undertaken


by a British Government. Do we need it? The Government, having lost the


business and Baron mental arguments, last year the Transport Secretary


said the reason she was giving the project to go ahead is because we


were sitting on a capacity time bomb. If we don't act now, the West


Coast Main Line will be full. But now we know her figures were wrong.


Just last month, after several appeals under the Freedom of


Information Act, the Government was forced, reluctantly to disclose the


true, official figures. They show that in 2011, during the evening


rush-hour from 4pm until 7pm on weekdays, long-distance trains


leaving Euston station had, on average, just over half of their


For me, that's it. End of story. We don't need it. So, Mr Cameron, stop


this vanity project and leave our Jeffrey Palmer couldn't have been


clearer and here with us is Stephanie Boston the director of


Conserve the Chilterns and Countryside. There is political


commitment to this project. Is your campaign effectively over? It's


going to happen. Absolutely not. Please don't think for one minute,


despite the fact we have been called NIMBYs we are not anti-high


speed rail. You just don't want it through your area? We don't believe


that the current route is the right route for a number of reasons.


Indeed, even in April this year, at a Public Accounts Committee, which


was reviewing the lessons that could be learned from HS1 the major


projects authority highlighted this project as being on amber and red.


That means viability is actually in question. Now, that report has not


been released, despite a letter to Frances Maude, signed by 12 MPs and


despite many requests from many other people. We have not had


access to that. It seems that the Government are ploughing ahead.


They are not considering all the other proposals that have been put


forward. Where would you like the route to go? The best route we can


currently see is the Heene row hub route. That still goes through the


Chilterns, but it's in a tunnel, and it provides more connectivity


and the connectivity that was originally specified by the


Government, is it picks up on Crossrail and at strad Ford to go


to Europe and it goes -- Stratford to go to Europe and it goes north


to Birmingham, which are on the current route and west as well. Can


I just add one more point? This Heathrow hub route is also


partially privately funded, so I don't know why we are looking at


spending all the taxpayers' money when actually there is a better


route. It's supported by the institute of directors and Unite


and the investors. Why are you ploughing on ahead, to use


Stephanie's words, when there is a much better and viable alternative


that won't cost as much? I respect Stephanie's case and she is


standing up for her region. And the country. But as they said, she is


not against HS2 as a concept. We could debate the particular route


all day long, but the important thing is, which I don't think came


through in the clip, there is going to be a capacity problem.


Projections do show that by the mid-2020s there will be a capacity


issue on the West Coast Main Line. Why do the figures show something


completely different? Long-distance trains leaving Euston on week days,


between 4pm and 7pm, only 52% of seats were occupied on peak trains


it went down to as low as 34%? That is not capacity. We are looking


ahead to 2026. You are saying it's going to be right up to 100%?


course. It's been growing. If you look at the trends in the last


decades, it's been going up. Not just on the West Coast Main Line,


but across the country. The question really is that we are


going to need new capacity in the UK and when we develop that


capacity should we have traditional rail lines that are outof date, or


modern rail lines -- out of date, or modern rail lines like the


countries we are competing with? You are both West Midlands MPs? Is


the money well spent here, Liam Byrne, bearing on mind it won't be


online until 2026? Of course. There are already huge capacity issues


within the West Midlands. It's the cross-roads of the country and


unless you can get trains through it, then it has a knock-on impact


on the rest of the country. I do think this is a vital bit of


infrastructure. With one condition, which is that they don't build a


marshalling yard taking out a third of the industrial land in the city


of Birmingham, which is in my constituency. That site is better


developed more thousands of jobs. Overall, this infrastructure is


right. I think HS2 and their leaderboard needs to do a --


leadership, needs to do a better job about listening. There are big


concerns about the hub in London. Also concerns in Birmingham. Let's


try to get as much support as possible behind the route and lock


it down and let's get on. We need it, but they need to listen to


valid concerns. Stephanie, what do you say to that? I do believe that


we shouldn't modernise the country and my group do as well and so do


many people, but it's how we do. Aat some point we will reach


capacity, but we have time to consider how to do it right. This


is the biggest infrastructure project in the history of the UK.


We must investigate every option and there are voices clamouring to


the Government to say, why rush this through? Why deposit this


hybrid Bill within the five-year term? Is it a legacy project for


David Cameron? Is that why? If you look at the environment assessment


we have not, considering this is going through a major consultation,


we have not covered them proper. We'll have the results on the


judicial reviews at the end of the month. There are bet are routes for


the rest of the country. Thank you very much for making your case. So,


its been 10 years and something like 1,500 programmes since we


first brought you the Daily Politics. We've lived through boom,


we've lived through bust. We've seen Mr Blair and Mr Brown ride off


into the sunset and a coalition of former enemies emerge. There have


been Budgets, election campaigns and periodic outbursts of loathing


across the Despatch Boxes that would make your hair curl. Thank


you for watching, if you've stuck with us throughout the last decade.


And, just to celebrate this landmark in public service


broadcasting, well, maybe, more of a bump than a landmark, here are a


Good morning, folks. It's a new year and new term at Westminster


and a new look to the BBC's political programmes. Welcome to


the first-ever edition of the Daily Politics. Joining me is George


Osborne. Straight to the first caller. It's Bill. The one piece of


advice I would give to Bill is there are some pretty clever


financial products which enable you to, in effect, pass on your home or


the value of your home to your son or daughter and then get personal


care paid for by the State. I probably shouldn't be advocating


this. And with these people, expect the unexpected! How we provide


education and opportunity for children with learning difficulties


and disabilities is vitally important. What I want to know is,


do you want David Cameron to be Tory leader? When the time comes


then I'll make my position absolutely clear. I got in


Parliament in 2001. Give me a break! Andrew and Jenny were in


confident mood. Under 20 minutes. That's optimistic. It's one mile.


Our flowers Andrew and Jenny were wilting. Well, we waited and waited.


And there they were, plucky, but pathetic. The cookies are four of


the Tory policies that you have stolen. David Cameron gets a policy


and 24 hours later it's in tatters. It's in pieces. Because you stole


it. Would you like to be Prime Minister? I'm very, very happy. No,


no, no. I'm very happy. They are shouting, yes. I'm very, very happy


doing what - you know and I know how lucky am to be in the job I am.


Lucky, lucky, lucky, Boris. We are joined by Peppa Pig. The question


to the Labour Party is you have all the Civil Servants and all the data.


We have a mug for you. Have a bite of that Oh, yeah. Delicious! It's a


glorious day opposite Parliament here in the heart of Westminster.


Oh, yes, and the studio's also run out of power. I told Anita to get a


shilling. I'm wearing a frock with no pockets for change, so sorry


about that. I'm sometimes mistaken for a former England team football


manager, but one thing you'll never mistake me for is a Liberal


Democrat. We are celebrating the coalition's first birthday with a


cake. Would you like to join in? That's what Lord Prescott thinks!


Welcome to the new all-singing and dancing Daily Politics. I know you


and Mr Osborne like to play up differences, but when you drill


into the figures you are not that far apart. When I talked about the


equivalents the viewing figures plummeted so I'll not get into that


again. The bonus tax will raise much? I haven't got quite the - I


know we have worked out that figure. I'll have to get back to you on


that. Cup, saucer or thorm os! -- thermos! # Happy birthday to you.


# Happy birthday to you. # Happy birthday dear Daily


Politics. # Happy birthday to you!


Did you bake that? Nick Robinson knew there would be cake. Are you


ready, one, two, three. I'm covered in glitter! This is why Nick has


come. I've been given a knife, but I've been told not to use it. Who


is going to answer that question?! What a wonderful cake. We'll have


that now. You have have to answer the quiz. Time for the result of


the Guess the Year competition. Very, very easy this week, really.


Yes, it was... 2003. You press the buzzer, Liam. Look behind. Two


winners. Emma and Lynne. Of course, we have two winners. Nick, thank


you for coming in to share. Thanks to all the viewers who sent


birthday wishes on our tenth anniversary. Will we let the guests


have a piece of cake? We will, but it's capped at 1%! We are dividing


it equally. Except for pensioners and the disabled. Happy birth,


Andrew? Thank you. And to you too. Thanks to all of the guests over


Download Subtitles