:00:40. > :00:44.Good afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Good news for
:00:44. > :00:48.the Liberal Democrats - they're not the only ones concerned about a
:00:48. > :00:51.possible British exit if the EU. Last night the Obama administration
:00:51. > :00:55.weighed into the debate, declaring that the special relationship is
:00:55. > :00:58.best served by the UK remaining at the heart of Europe - spare a
:00:58. > :01:02.thought for Dave. He's going to make a big speech about Europe soon,
:01:02. > :01:05.probably saying something a little different. Oh, well. You can't
:01:05. > :01:10.please everyone. I'm just wondering, are you a man
:01:10. > :01:17.of the people, and have you ever worn a onesie? Yes, Nick Clegg
:01:17. > :01:21.answers the big political questions in his first weekly radio phone-in.
:01:21. > :01:24.Aberdeen City Council wants to remove beggars from the streets.
:01:24. > :01:27.Not surprisingly, it's cooked up a bit of a political storm. The thing
:01:27. > :01:31.that always strikes me about England football - you probably
:01:31. > :01:35.think this is maybe wrong - always trying to thread the ball through
:01:35. > :01:39.the middle of the pitch rather than take it down the wings. Don't you
:01:39. > :01:48.just hate it when strange men talk to you on the tube? We celebrate
:01:48. > :01:53.150 years of minding the gap! What do they know about football?
:01:54. > :01:58.Quite a lot by the looks of it. read it on a script. All that for
:01:58. > :02:01.the next hour. With us is a venture capitalist, Jon Moulton. Welcome to
:02:01. > :02:05.the Daily Politics. Thank you. First, this morning, let's talk
:02:05. > :02:09.about the retail price index - the RPI because many people - I won't
:02:09. > :02:11.name name, just most of the BBC, including myself, thought that the
:02:11. > :02:15.Office for National Statistics would recommend changing it this
:02:15. > :02:19.morning. It had been expected that the ar, a which is used to set the
:02:19. > :02:22.level of pensions, would be brought closer into line with the
:02:22. > :02:32.Government's preferred measure of inflation - that's called the
:02:32. > :02:35.
:02:35. > :02:39.Consumer Price Index. Are you still following me? It's basically a
:02:39. > :02:44.European measure of inflation Mr Brown introduced. Anyway, nothing
:02:44. > :02:49.happened. We were all completely wrong. All that homework wasted.
:02:49. > :02:53.Jon Moulton, you have 30 seconds to explain what all this means. Your
:02:53. > :02:57.time starts now. Retail price index was being computed using a strange
:02:57. > :03:06.mathematical model called the Cali Index everybody else thinks is
:03:06. > :03:11.The Government were trying to cut the rate to cut the price of
:03:11. > :03:14.running the index-linked gilts and save about �3 billion a year.
:03:14. > :03:20.Unfortunately, the Office for National Statistics has said they
:03:20. > :03:28.don't want to do it. Nobody understands quite why. RPI is high
:03:28. > :03:34.largely because of the housing content. Brilliant! Have you been
:03:34. > :03:39.practising?! Do it again. Sheer the contract. You have got it. We are
:03:39. > :03:46.all on holiday now. Now a different type of quiz. David Cameron this
:03:46. > :03:50.week hosted a Downing Street reception for fashionistas. Where
:03:50. > :03:53.was our invite? You don't even know what it means. The Prime Minister
:03:53. > :03:56.impressed the crowd with a revelation that he always wears
:03:56. > :04:06.underpants from Marks & Spencer. Too much information. But where
:04:06. > :04:20.
:04:20. > :04:25.Later this month David Cameron is going to be the Netherlands. Why
:04:25. > :04:28.not? To make a speech on Europe. Netherlands being in Europe. To say
:04:28. > :04:31.it's long-awaited is an understatement. It's been delayed
:04:31. > :04:38.at least twice and has been the subject of endless speculation here
:04:38. > :04:41.in Westminster. He told the Commons lobby recently that it would be
:04:41. > :04:48.like tantric sex, it would be all the better when it happens. Can I
:04:48. > :04:52.say that on daytime television? I just did. He is expected to talk
:04:52. > :04:56.about how he wabs to renegotiate the relationship between Britain
:04:56. > :05:06.and the EU there.'s no shortage of advice being offered as Joe
:05:06. > :05:08.
:05:08. > :05:11.Some of his own backbenchers are demanding he loosens Britain's
:05:11. > :05:14.relationship with the EU. Some would prefer we leave altogether.
:05:14. > :05:17.On the other hand, many business leaders are worried about the
:05:17. > :05:21.potential consequences for the British economy. Richard Branson is
:05:21. > :05:25.one of a group of businessmen who have taken to the letters page of
:05:25. > :05:28.the Financial Times to warn against doing anything that could reduce
:05:28. > :05:33.British influence in Europe. They say that Britain must be very
:05:33. > :05:38.careful not to call for a wholesale renegotiation. Such a demand would
:05:38. > :05:42.be rejected by other member states and could put our relationship with
:05:42. > :05:45.the membership of the EU at risk. They're not the only people to have
:05:45. > :05:49.expressed concern. Yesterday, a senior member of Barack Obama's
:05:49. > :05:53.team explained that Washington believes the special relationship
:05:53. > :05:58.between Britained a America is best served by Britain remaining at the
:05:59. > :06:02.heart of Europe. He said it was essential and critical Britain
:06:02. > :06:05.shouldn't weaken its role in Brussels. In his speech later this
:06:05. > :06:08.month the Prime Minister will be looking for a way to satisfy people
:06:09. > :06:18.on both sides of the debate. It's not going to be an easy task.
:06:19. > :06:19.
:06:19. > :06:22.Now with us is the Conservative MP Nadim Zahowi and old Daily Politics,
:06:22. > :06:26.Christopher Mere. Welcome to you both. Can we establish there is
:06:26. > :06:29.nothing new - the timing may be significant. There is nothing new
:06:29. > :06:33.in what the United States is saying. It has always been the policy of
:06:33. > :06:37.the State Department to want Britain to be a part of the
:06:37. > :06:41.European Union and indeed even be at the heart of the European Union?
:06:41. > :06:43.That, in my experience is absolutely right. As long as I have
:06:43. > :06:46.had anything to do with the United States of America, they have always
:06:46. > :06:52.said this about Britain and about the European Union. It is, as you
:06:52. > :06:57.say, the timing which has turned out to be a bit explosive and
:06:57. > :07:01.assistant secretary Phil Gordon probably didn't expect when he lit
:07:01. > :07:07.the blue touch paper there would be an explosion of interest in what
:07:07. > :07:12.the Americans are saying. You may be surprised with the reaction, but
:07:12. > :07:15.he didn't say it off the cuff. He - the State Department knew what he
:07:15. > :07:20.was saying. This was absolutely to be expected. It was only a question
:07:20. > :07:22.of who would say it, where they'd say it and when they'd say it. I
:07:23. > :07:26.suspect this message is being delivered to the British Government
:07:26. > :07:31.in private over a period of months. What is concentrating American
:07:31. > :07:35.minds? It is the possibility, the reality, if you like, of an in-out
:07:35. > :07:41.referendum that could take us out of the EU altogether. Sitting in
:07:41. > :07:47.Washington, this is not in the American national interests. Do you
:07:47. > :07:52.begin to sense a growing force against Euro-scepticism beginning
:07:52. > :07:56.to flare up? We have had the businessmen, Richard Branson, and
:07:56. > :08:01.others saying, "Let's stop talking about leaving the European Union."
:08:01. > :08:07.We have had this statement from the State Department. Are the forces
:08:07. > :08:11.now beginning to get a against Europe from your point of view?
:08:11. > :08:14.it's healthy scepticism. Look at what they do for a Parliament. You
:08:14. > :08:18.have two Parliaments in two different cities costing hundreds
:08:18. > :08:23.of millions of pounds. What is happening is not just America but
:08:23. > :08:27.Germany - I had the head of the German CPI over here who made it
:08:27. > :08:37.very clear that Germany both politically and the business
:08:37. > :08:38.
:08:39. > :08:44.community want us to remain a major player. I think what the Prime
:08:44. > :08:47.Minister a has to do is make sure every settlement that comes in from
:08:47. > :08:53.the eurozone, every expert can agree on one thing - there is going
:08:53. > :08:57.to be a new settlement... Within the eurozone. When we know what
:08:57. > :09:03.that is, we need to renegotiate our position with that, make sure there
:09:03. > :09:06.are some things, whether it's repatriation of things like the
:09:06. > :09:09.Working Time Directives, stuff around the criminal justice and
:09:09. > :09:16.policing, all of those sorts of things we can negotiate, then we
:09:16. > :09:19.must put it to the country, because we need the backing and the good
:09:19. > :09:25.will of the British public. I think we'll win the referendum. That
:09:25. > :09:29.would depend on what you're going to repatriate. What is the absolute
:09:29. > :09:31.minimum that needs to be repatriated in your view, not the
:09:31. > :09:38.Government's view? We'll hear that from the Prime Minister. In your
:09:38. > :09:44.view, what is the minimum that needs to be repatriated for you to
:09:44. > :09:48.say we need to stay in I would like us to repatriate things around the
:09:48. > :09:58.Working Time Directives - the spending at the moment in the
:09:58. > :09:58.
:09:58. > :10:02.regions is done in a costly way, a CAP needs to be renegotiated.
:10:02. > :10:07.That's not going to happen. Do you want out of it? Let's see what
:10:07. > :10:10.settlement there is. I have asked you... Let's see what settlement
:10:10. > :10:14.there is and we will negotiate. are not going to be doing the
:10:14. > :10:18.negotiating. You are just speaking as an MP. I am speaking as a
:10:18. > :10:23.backbencher supporting my Government. But what is the minimum
:10:23. > :10:31.for - if you can't get all of that, do you say vote no? What I would
:10:31. > :10:37.like to see is - L oh n Brittain said if we can go back to the opt
:10:37. > :10:42.out. Labour gave up an opt opt out. If we can get that back, that's a
:10:42. > :10:46.good place to be, so develop that. You look at exsport and not just
:10:47. > :10:50.the big business. But small exporters in Stratford want us to
:10:50. > :10:54.be in the single market, to be taking advantage of it. But on
:10:54. > :10:58.different terms. Is it credible that the Europeans will allow us to
:10:59. > :11:02.stay in the single market with all the advantages that brings and
:11:02. > :11:06.almost none of the responsibilities? I think it
:11:06. > :11:11.probably is. The thing we need above all is free trade, that's one
:11:11. > :11:16.thing that stands on its own. Doesn't require all the other stuff
:11:16. > :11:21.definitely to exist. It's easier if it does. At the moment we are
:11:21. > :11:27.attached to a club which has low growth, unattractive financial
:11:27. > :11:31.characteristics, very poor future, why would we want to continue?
:11:31. > :11:35.understand. What I don't understand is why would the French and Germans
:11:35. > :11:39.agree to put their industries at a disadvantage by agreeing to make it
:11:39. > :11:43.a lot easier for us? I think there's a bunch of things here that
:11:43. > :11:49.haven't been properly discussed. The debate which we have had the
:11:49. > :11:52.European Union has been amazingly parochial. Only now I suspect is
:11:52. > :11:56.the Government seriously trying to factor in the American attitude as
:11:56. > :12:00.an objective element in the argument which has to go into David
:12:00. > :12:08.Cameron's speech. And there's a kind of another thing here, whether
:12:08. > :12:11.you are a eurosceptic or europhile. To think we can say all we want is
:12:11. > :12:15.the single market, don't want this, the common fisheries policy and
:12:15. > :12:19.then we are going to have a healthy relationship. On the other side of
:12:19. > :12:24.the Channel people are saying, you are not going to get this without a
:12:24. > :12:28.tough fight, if at all. This is going to be the mother of all
:12:28. > :12:31.negotiations with no guarantee of success at the end on terms that
:12:31. > :12:41.might be acceptable to those who would call themselves eurosceptic
:12:41. > :12:43.
:12:44. > :12:48.Are you prepared to say we should leave? I'm prepared to take it to
:12:48. > :12:52.the country and make the arguments because I think... What would you
:12:52. > :12:54.advise the country to do? My advice is we need to stay in the single
:12:54. > :13:00.market. We get that but with respect, again, that's not what I
:13:00. > :13:07.asked. I hear you, and it's all hypothetical. It may become a
:13:07. > :13:13.reality. We all want - LAUGHTER
:13:13. > :13:16.Go for it. Go on. Answer. I will make the arguments. When I see what
:13:16. > :13:20.that renegotiation has brought forward, I'll make the argument
:13:20. > :13:23.hopefully to stay in the single market. By the way, Christopher
:13:24. > :13:33.talks about Germany and France not wanting us to get what we want.
:13:34. > :13:39.
:13:39. > :13:43.They need our support to do what we need to do. We're prepared to hold
:13:43. > :13:47.the eurozone to ransom to stop them becoming an ever closer union if we
:13:47. > :13:52.don't get what we want. Is that what you're saying? It's a
:13:52. > :13:58.negotiation. Your point of highest leverage is when you need the other
:13:58. > :14:06.people to get something for you... So no fiscal union for the
:14:06. > :14:10.eurozone? No economic union for the eurozone? They don't do... If it
:14:10. > :14:15.damages the single market - David Cameron was already prepared to do
:14:15. > :14:20.it. It is unwise to negotiate with guns that are loaded. You can't
:14:20. > :14:24.fire that weapon. We would be such an enemy of Europe of Europe for so
:14:24. > :14:28.long, we'd go nowhere. We have to renegotiate a better position. Free
:14:28. > :14:33.trade is the basics. We want as little as the rest as is necessary
:14:33. > :14:38.to stay in. It's not easy to say where that'll drop. You wouldn't be
:14:38. > :14:41.frightened if we left? I wouldn't. That makes you a minority among
:14:41. > :14:47.business folk. It does indeed. At least I am in the UK, whereas
:14:47. > :14:50.Richard Branson is somewhere in the Caribbean. He has somewhat
:14:50. > :14:55.different views. Oh! A saucer of milk for our guest of the day.
:14:55. > :15:01.There is a danger here - stepping back from the Euro-sceptic, Euro
:15:01. > :15:05.Phil argument - there is a danger here taking the American position
:15:05. > :15:09.and taking what I think would be the likely arrangement of the
:15:10. > :15:14.countries that would matter in that we end up with no friends? It is
:15:14. > :15:18.possible. I don't think that'll happen... Because America doesn't
:15:18. > :15:23.want us to leave as ambassador. America doesn't want to go down the
:15:23. > :15:28.route he's talking about either. think the big worry in all of this
:15:28. > :15:31.- it's a completely unknown factor at the moment - is we have more
:15:31. > :15:36.foreign direct investment from the United States in this country than
:15:36. > :15:40.from any other country - more or less a million people go to work
:15:41. > :15:44.every day from American firms investing in the UK. Indeed. When
:15:44. > :15:49.we did not go into the euro, American business didn't care, but
:15:49. > :15:52.if we were to leave the European Union as a whole as a result of a
:15:52. > :15:57.referendum, I wouldn't like to bet that all of that investment would
:15:57. > :16:01.stay in the UK with the jobs... thing they want is the free trade.
:16:01. > :16:04.That's what those Americans really want. The other things are very
:16:04. > :16:09.secondary. The Americans really don't want to have to pay for the
:16:09. > :16:14.Working Time Directive, for the social stuff for, the unnecessary
:16:14. > :16:16.regulation and the nonsense. would remind you when it came to
:16:17. > :16:21.the European budget, who was the cool significance it was the UK,
:16:21. > :16:24.Germany, France, the Netherlands and Finland going back to vam rum
:16:24. > :16:34.boy and saying you can't have the increase in the budget you would
:16:34. > :16:38.To coin a phrase, in that you were all in it together. You all wanted
:16:38. > :16:42.the same thing. That isn't going to be true when you are going to tell
:16:42. > :16:46.German business your costs will be hugely high and we will cut our
:16:46. > :16:50.costs because there will be no no European directives. Let's see what
:16:50. > :16:56.happens then. We have to leave it there, but I think we will be back.
:16:56. > :17:04.If this speech ever happens! When is it going... It is going to
:17:04. > :17:09.happen. I will be patient. It's the first time a serving cabinet
:17:09. > :17:13.Minister has agreed to a weekly onair grilling. Nick Clegg has his
:17:13. > :17:18.own half hour radio slot now in which members of the public can
:17:19. > :17:24.call, e-mail text or tweet questions to the Deputy Prime
:17:24. > :17:33.Minister. His first slot on London's LBC radio station was
:17:33. > :17:37.broadcast today. Let's move on to other callers. It's John in London,
:17:37. > :17:44.you are on the radio. Good morning. Nick Clegg, I am a Liberal Democrat
:17:44. > :17:48.who's just torn up his membership card. I joined the party first in
:17:48. > :17:56.1973. I am afraid I cannot now say that I want to represent the Lib
:17:56. > :18:01.Dems. I am an ex-County Councilor and I am ashamed of what the
:18:01. > :18:05.party's doing. Have you got your membership card with you? Not now
:18:05. > :18:10.Jew remember what it -- not now. You remember what it says on it?
:18:10. > :18:14.The Liberal Democrats exist to build a fair and free open society
:18:14. > :18:17.in which we seek to balance fundamental values of liberty
:18:17. > :18:21.equality and community and no one shall be enslaved by poverty,
:18:21. > :18:26.ignorance or conformity. Can you tell me how you reconcile that with
:18:26. > :18:30.what this Government's attacks on the poorest in society? You say you
:18:30. > :18:34.are ashamed. I am immensely proud that facing one of the biggest
:18:34. > :18:39.economic crises this country has seen in a generation, possibly the
:18:39. > :18:42.post-war period, the Liberal Democrats took a big collective and
:18:42. > :18:44.brave decision, at some political cost, to say we are going to step
:18:44. > :18:48.up to the plate, work in a coalition because no one won the
:18:48. > :18:53.general election and try and fix this mess and fix this mess while
:18:53. > :19:00.also trying to make society fairer. How have we done that? You sold
:19:00. > :19:04.out... Wait a minute. With a promise on the front page of our
:19:04. > :19:10.manifesto to raise the point at which people start paying income
:19:10. > :19:14.tax to �10,000, that's the biggest change in the system. The pupil
:19:14. > :19:17.premium, on the front page of our manifesto, we are delivering �2.5
:19:17. > :19:21.billion of extra money targeted directly for the first time at
:19:21. > :19:25.those children on free school meals, from the most disadvantaged
:19:25. > :19:28.families who need more support in school. For the first time ever as
:19:28. > :19:31.of this April, because of something I personally pushed through
:19:31. > :19:35.Government, thousands of two-year- olds for the first time ever will
:19:35. > :19:38.get 15 hours of free pre-school support and child care in a way
:19:39. > :19:43.that's never happened in this country before. Those are just
:19:43. > :19:47.three examples. If do you go ahead and leave the party which party
:19:47. > :19:53.would you support? I am afraid I can't support any party at the
:19:53. > :19:58.moment. They're doing exactly the same thing. Thank you. Deputy Prime
:19:58. > :20:06.Minister, a question from Harry in Sheffield. I am wondering are you a
:20:06. > :20:12.man of the people and have you ever worn a onesie? I was actually given
:20:12. > :20:17.a big green onesie in Sheffield which I have kept in its packaging.
:20:17. > :20:25.I haven't worn it yet but I have one, I possess one. I am not sure
:20:25. > :20:33.he should be boasting about owning that. More of that later. He knew
:20:33. > :20:37.what it was, more than I did! Joining us now are Nick Ferrari and
:20:37. > :20:42.Gillian Reynolds. How do you think he did? I think he did really well.
:20:42. > :20:46.You saw live radio in all its ugliness with the calls you heard,
:20:47. > :20:52.the councillor who decided to tear up his card. We have done a couple
:20:52. > :20:56.of one-offs before, and I am sure he has done phone-ins. The joy of
:20:56. > :21:00.the radio is you don't know what's coming your way. None of the calls
:21:01. > :21:04.are vetted, he didn't know what was coming up? Credit to him and his
:21:04. > :21:08.team. They didn't even ask. They knew that's how it was. They
:21:08. > :21:11.probably know what to expect. Had he got what he would have expected,
:21:11. > :21:16.a question on child benefit, something on welfare and a member
:21:16. > :21:19.ripping up the pledge card from the party and tuition fees. The big
:21:19. > :21:23.question is are you going to be able to sustain it, is he going to
:21:23. > :21:28.be able to sustain it every week? This man projected confidence and
:21:28. > :21:32.enjoyed it at the end, he wasn't beaten. He said how much he was
:21:32. > :21:37.genuinely enjoying it. He said I look forward to seeing you next
:21:37. > :21:43.Thursday and meant it. He is up for it. What is I imagine if you look
:21:43. > :21:49.at it, he is not doing particularly well, what has he got to lose?
:21:49. > :21:59.did you think? How would you review it? Very swift show. Went in the
:21:59. > :22:03.blink of an eye. I listened to the first 15 minutes. I listened to it,
:22:04. > :22:07.I I don't know how you did it, the control of the timing was masterly.
:22:07. > :22:11.Two questions before the first break, four questions afterwards.
:22:11. > :22:21.If you compress the time down, you are talking about 25 minutes.
:22:21. > :22:25.
:22:25. > :22:30.Nobody was hurried. He did well. There you go! A great review. Will
:22:30. > :22:38.you listen next week and week after week? Yes, I will. If you are
:22:38. > :22:42.talking about what is if for Nick Clegg? What's in it for LBC? It's
:22:42. > :22:47.got a national audience. Via digital radio and online, it's a
:22:47. > :22:52.national audience. It's suddenly demonstrated, it's also a younger
:22:52. > :22:57.audience than the usual one. choose a London station, he will
:22:57. > :23:05.have done things in Sheffield. asked him. There is that. What
:23:05. > :23:08.about this idea of a masochism strategy? Boris Johnson comes on
:23:08. > :23:11.once a month and he has had terrible times. David Cameron last
:23:11. > :23:15.year, you may have covered this, he took a call from the woman who asks
:23:15. > :23:24.why are we spending billions on foreign aid, I am dying of cancer
:23:24. > :23:27.and can't get drugs. And the UKIP clip. That was on my show, when he
:23:27. > :23:33.was leader of the opposition, before he was Prime Minister. He
:23:33. > :23:37.knows. I guess it comes back, what's he got to lose? Maybe it is
:23:37. > :23:42.that streak. But at least perhaps David Cameron doesn't listen to him,
:23:42. > :23:45.perhaps he doesn't get a word in at home with Miriam. I will be quiet!
:23:45. > :23:50.He said something interesting, when you explain things to people they
:23:50. > :23:54.understand them. There was a lot of stick afterwards from the students
:23:54. > :23:57.in Sheffield, we wouldn't vote for him, we didn't like him. Too many
:23:58. > :24:02.statistics. Actually, you could feel in the first half hour that he
:24:02. > :24:09.did that once he started explaining things people did listen and as you
:24:09. > :24:12.say, might have made a nice change. Will you listen? No. I am
:24:13. > :24:18.interested that he could do it without the hand gestures,
:24:18. > :24:25.typically when he does speak all I do is watch his hands going. If he
:24:25. > :24:31.was in a onesie, it wouldn't be his hands you were looking at. I was
:24:31. > :24:38.impressed he did know what it was. Andrew and I did not. In the ad
:24:38. > :24:43.break, what was he like? He enjoyed it. He didn't go, how did I do?
:24:43. > :24:48.was absolutely buoyant. He really was was. He thoroughly enjoyed it.
:24:48. > :24:52.I am not just saying that, he was in the studio and his body language
:24:52. > :24:57.was upbeat. Do you think he was too technical? These are complex
:24:57. > :24:59.questions about child benefit and about welfare and benefit caps. Do
:24:59. > :25:09.you think there was a little bit too much in terms of statistics and
:25:09. > :25:13.figures? No one knows better about the Radio than Gillian. It's a
:25:13. > :25:16.personal medium. In a newspaper they do a box and TV you put up a
:25:16. > :25:21.graphic. I don't blame him, politicians do it. They hit you
:25:21. > :25:24.with figures. You lose the audience. It's about human stories. A couple
:25:24. > :25:28.of students you mentioned reflected too many numbers, people can't
:25:28. > :25:36.process them all. He is not presenting. There is a big
:25:36. > :25:41.difference between being a guest on a show, and actually, Tony Blair
:25:41. > :25:46.when he did a show he was driving - would you like to hear him present
:25:46. > :25:51.the programme rather than taking calls? Well, I think after a couple
:25:51. > :25:54.of weeks or months - I am happy for him to do half an hour and to
:25:54. > :25:59.address the questions of the minute. Because I don't think there's any
:25:59. > :26:03.harm in a politician appearing to be accessible and that's quite a
:26:03. > :26:06.clever thing he's done. He appears to be accessible to a national
:26:06. > :26:11.audience who can ask him anything S there any other politician who
:26:11. > :26:15.would take that risk? Is it desperation? Would you come under
:26:15. > :26:20.pressure from Ofcom to say if you are doing this with the Lib Dems,
:26:20. > :26:23.you have to let Labour politician on of their choice, a UKIP and a
:26:23. > :26:26.Conservative? The answer is not until you move into an election
:26:26. > :26:32.period. Representations have been made by one of the other parties,
:26:32. > :26:35.we would welcome David and Ed and they can have Friday and Monday and
:26:35. > :26:39.carve it up between them. At the moment we are confident there are
:26:39. > :26:44.no problems. The invitation is there. If they want to... You are
:26:44. > :26:54.not going to say no? No, name your hour and come in. We will tune in
:26:54. > :26:55.
:26:55. > :27:01.next week. Thank you very much. The pay of Britain's top executives
:27:01. > :27:05.has been a thorny subject since chief executives were invented. But
:27:05. > :27:08.it's especially controversial in times of austerity. The wealth
:27:08. > :27:12.wealth gap between those at the top and those struggling has led to
:27:12. > :27:21.calls for a cap on executive pay. All three main parties agree that
:27:21. > :27:25.something must be done. But what? David Thompson reports.
:27:25. > :27:29.The spoils of capitalism, affordable to the few, not the many.
:27:29. > :27:33.These days the gap between those who shop here and the rest of us
:27:33. > :27:37.feels ever wider and ever more irritating. If there's one thing
:27:37. > :27:41.guaranteed to wind people up, it's the megapay packets of those at the
:27:41. > :27:46.top largely because it doesn't seem fair. While it might be tempting to
:27:46. > :27:51.cap executive salaries, in reality, pretty unlikely to happen. There is,
:27:51. > :27:54.however, more than one way to skin a fat cat. Many viewers will have
:27:54. > :27:58.pensions or savings wrapped up in different investment funds. We
:27:58. > :28:01.would like to empower them more to take action to be able to do
:28:01. > :28:07.something about this by forcing fund managers to disclose how they
:28:07. > :28:12.vote on issues of remunneration. If you have a pension you deserve to
:28:12. > :28:14.though if they're voting in favour of excessive irresponsible pay
:28:14. > :28:18.packets or whether they're actually doing the right thing. Unless you
:28:19. > :28:21.know you can't do anything about it. It's not just Labour. The
:28:21. > :28:25.Government wants shareholders to have a binding vote on executive
:28:25. > :28:31.pay every three years with details of salaries and golden handshakes
:28:31. > :28:36.made public. In Brussels, the the European Parliament's economic and
:28:36. > :28:40.monetary committee hopes to push through on weeks. Is it their job
:28:40. > :28:43.to tell private businesses what they should pay? If you are doing
:28:43. > :28:48.it for no particular reason, but we are doing it for a reason. There
:28:48. > :28:51.has been an excessive amount of risk-taking happening in the
:28:51. > :28:58.financial sector. These high bonuses have brought it about.
:28:58. > :29:07.There has been a consequence effect upon society. Therefore, that
:29:07. > :29:17.overrules having a complete Libber attitude of you can take what you
:29:17. > :29:19.
:29:19. > :29:24.However, bonuses fell by 5% with increased share options largely
:29:24. > :29:31.making up the increase. Don't feel too sorry for them
:29:31. > :29:35.though, the medium bonus was still over �600,000 and average earns of
:29:35. > :29:40.chief executive a micely �4 billion. What would be wrong with an overall
:29:40. > :29:43.cap on pay? I think having a flat rate cap applying across the board
:29:43. > :29:47.in all different businesses in industry will be impractical and
:29:47. > :29:51.will represent far too much of an interference in the day-to-day
:29:51. > :29:56.management of a company. Actually very few politicians want to cap on
:29:56. > :30:01.total salaries which some fear pay campaigners think is chickening out.
:30:01. > :30:05.The idea executive pay should be a no-go area is risible and it's
:30:05. > :30:10.because in the main they're terrified of the threat that
:30:10. > :30:15.they'll be seen as anti-wealth generation as it's posed, if they
:30:15. > :30:20.challenge the highest executive pay packets in the world which is
:30:20. > :30:24.nonsense and there's been a good lobby in favour of high executive
:30:24. > :30:27.pay which they haven't dared to take on. It's easy to say red over
:30:27. > :30:36.the trappings of executive wealth. Coming up with realistic plans to
:30:36. > :30:42.scale down the perks of those at I didn't know you'd parked your car
:30:42. > :30:44.there. I think it's yours. small one. We're joined by the
:30:44. > :30:50.former Deputy Leader of the Unite union, Jack Dromey and our guest of
:30:50. > :30:54.the day, Jon Moulton, is still with us. In 1985 Margaret Thatcher said
:30:54. > :30:58.the top fare makers in the city make one gasp they're so large. Do
:30:58. > :31:07.you ever gasp at the size of salarys in your industry? I am not
:31:07. > :31:10.in the City with the FTSE 100 lot. Their pay is remarkably high, 4
:31:10. > :31:16.point something million average. It's hard to believe that you
:31:16. > :31:20.actually need to pay that sort of money to get people to perform well.
:31:20. > :31:24.You know? You can get perfectly good TV presenters for a lot less.
:31:24. > :31:27.You certainly can. A great deal less. Before you answer that we're
:31:27. > :31:29.going to welcome our viewers from Scotland who have been watching
:31:29. > :31:33.First Minister's Questions in Holyrood. Welcome to the Daily
:31:33. > :31:37.Politics. Let's come back to perhaps not the pay of TV
:31:37. > :31:41.presenters but yes, your point about the fact people are paid too.
:31:41. > :31:45.When you say those salaries are too high, what is too high? They're by
:31:45. > :31:49.international standards - the UK is pretty well the highest payer of
:31:49. > :31:53.CEOs now. We're way ahead of Germany, France, Italy, even the
:31:53. > :31:57.United States. We're ahead of the Americans? We are. Why has that
:31:57. > :32:02.happened? I think the main thing that's happened is the perversity
:32:02. > :32:07.is when we set up these remuneration committee at the
:32:07. > :32:10.boards these became part of corporate governance, saying we'll
:32:11. > :32:16.pay in the top quarter of the industry. As a result they started
:32:16. > :32:18.chasing each other at pace. It's most of the last 20 years you'll
:32:19. > :32:23.see much higher rates of acceleration of senior pay than
:32:23. > :32:26.middle and lower. Should there be a cap? A firm cap probably doesn't
:32:26. > :32:32.need to exist. I think the right answer is gradually drifting into
:32:32. > :32:35.sight, which is shareholders voting on remuneration packages and voting
:32:35. > :32:41.some down. Some have done that we have some notable examples. Jack
:32:41. > :32:47.Dromey, isn't that a better way to go than to have a blanket cap?
:32:47. > :32:51.Let's start with what the nature of the problem is. We have had soaring
:32:51. > :32:53.boardroom pay - it's not based on merit. If you look at the
:32:53. > :32:57.performance of the companies compared to what they have been
:32:57. > :33:02.getting in the boardroom, it's not based on merit. All too often it
:33:02. > :33:06.rewards failure. Why? Because you've got this cosy old-boys club
:33:06. > :33:13.of remuneration committees. They all fix one another's salaries.
:33:13. > :33:20.It's a you-scratch-my-back, I'll- scratch yours. There is a second
:33:20. > :33:24.problem - the way remuneration works it insent rises short termism
:33:24. > :33:29.in our country. The gap from top to bottom is half what it is in
:33:29. > :33:33.Britain in Germany. What would you like to see? If you're not
:33:33. > :33:38.convinced by shareholders beginning to take action and voting with
:33:38. > :33:42.their feet, why do you think a cap proposed by the Europeans would be
:33:42. > :33:46.a good idea? You need complete transparency, the publication of
:33:46. > :33:49.top and medium pay. If there are significant changes in future you
:33:49. > :33:53.have to justify that the other thing is proper accountability. Why
:33:53. > :33:58.not workers on the board of remuneration committees? I know
:33:58. > :34:02.from my own past experience in the union workers would not begrudge a
:34:02. > :34:06.good governor a decent pay increase and also, crucially, that the
:34:06. > :34:09.investors, the pension fund managers - they should have to
:34:09. > :34:15.justify how they make their decision ass well. What do you say
:34:15. > :34:21.in response to those points? very basic point - these packages
:34:21. > :34:26.are very complicated. That's part of the problem, though. Long-term
:34:26. > :34:29.incentive plan, one-option scheme, three option scheme... Should they
:34:29. > :34:33.be simpler? Absolutely they should. There is no need for the complexity
:34:33. > :34:37.of some of these. The long-term incentive plans of most senior
:34:37. > :34:40.management are incomprehensive to., So even those who work in the City.
:34:40. > :34:43.Should politicians be getting involved in dictating what top
:34:43. > :34:47.executives should get or at least guiding them? I think they should
:34:47. > :34:51.be influencing it. We do need some sort of legal backing. It might be
:34:51. > :34:56.reasonable to have - if the Chief Executive is paid more than 20
:34:56. > :34:59.times average pay of the workforce you need a 70% share of the
:34:59. > :35:09.shareholders to vote for it. think it's absolutely right the
:35:09. > :35:14.
:35:14. > :35:18.politicians act, not the least Regularly people say to me how
:35:18. > :35:23.wrong they think it is that your boardroom pay soars whilst their
:35:23. > :35:27.pay either is constrained or falls. What about the point that people
:35:27. > :35:31.will go elsewhere? You say Britain is ahead at the moment. That
:35:31. > :35:36.situation can change. These people are very mobile. If indeed the
:35:36. > :35:39.competitive pressure is there, that's fine. It isn't there in most
:35:39. > :35:44.cases. That's right. Do you think it's a myth put forward by people
:35:44. > :35:48.in the industry who say if we don't pay top dollar... What is
:35:48. > :35:54.remarkable is how it's so concentrated at the top. This isn't
:35:55. > :36:00.in the middle ranks in the same way. This is a UK phenomenon at its
:36:00. > :36:04.extreme. Why don't Labour take a leaf out of the Social Democrats'
:36:04. > :36:09.book? What they were considering? If a company pays a Chief Executive
:36:09. > :36:12.�20 manage, say, a big salary, all of that �20 million is tax
:36:12. > :36:16.deductsable before that company pace corporation tax. It's a cost.
:36:16. > :36:21.What the Social Democrats said was anything over, say, a million, you
:36:21. > :36:26.can still pay them more than a million but none of it over a
:36:26. > :36:28.million is tax deductible. Sure. You do learn - we have been arguing
:36:28. > :36:33.very strongly for transparency and accountability as a first step. I
:36:33. > :36:36.think at the next stages, absolutely, we need to draw upon
:36:36. > :36:43.European examples, in particular, Germany, because in Germany, the
:36:43. > :36:47.gap is half what it is in Britain, and Germany is a successful long-
:36:47. > :36:55.term-ist economy. Why don't you go for that idea? We learned very
:36:55. > :36:59.valuable lessons from Germany. Watch this space because Chukka
:36:59. > :37:03.made it very clear earlier on that it is wrong at a time like this,
:37:03. > :37:07.but also, if we're going to put right our economy - deep-seated
:37:07. > :37:13.difficulties over 30 years, this is a nettle we have to grasp. There is
:37:13. > :37:18.one thing I would like to chuck in. Chuck in, Chuckca! The FTSE 100 now
:37:18. > :37:20.is very largedy... They're not British companies. There is
:37:20. > :37:30.confusion there. Thank you very much.
:37:30. > :37:51.
:37:51. > :37:55.This morning, Britain's most Senior The Prime Minister decided on the
:37:55. > :38:01.basis of the genuine interests to draw a line under the matter. That
:38:02. > :38:05.was what his position was. I work for the Prime Minister. So it was
:38:05. > :38:08.decided to possibly accept that Andrew Mitchell was lying? I don't
:38:08. > :38:13.think the Prime Minister at any stage thought Andrew Mitchell was
:38:13. > :38:17.lying. If he was telling the truth, then somebody else was lying.
:38:17. > :38:20.in life you sometimes have a difference of view as to what was
:38:20. > :38:23.said. You didn't feel it was part of your investigation to get to the
:38:23. > :38:26.bottom of that? No, it would be impossible for me to do that
:38:26. > :38:34.without investigating the police. It's not my job to investigate the
:38:34. > :38:38.police. Did you ask to see the police log? No. No. Can you just
:38:38. > :38:41.explain why you didn't ask to see the police log? Because I didn't
:38:41. > :38:45.think it was appropriate for me to be investigating the police log. I
:38:45. > :38:49.didn't think it was necessary for me... Investigating the police log
:38:49. > :38:55.- it was a question to see whether Mr Mitchell was telling the truth
:38:55. > :38:58.or not. Would you not have wanted to see the police log? It's very,
:38:58. > :39:02.very important not to get confusion here. My review, set by the Prime
:39:02. > :39:05.Minister, was into the e-mails, not into the police log. I didn't think
:39:05. > :39:09.I needed to see the police logs in order to draw the conclusions that
:39:09. > :39:12.I did about the e-mails, which were that they were not reliable and
:39:12. > :39:21.therefore that Andrew Mitchell should be kept in his position.
:39:21. > :39:26.Your remit was very limited? Very Every now and again the curtains
:39:26. > :39:29.pull back and you see the senior Civil Service in action in this
:39:29. > :39:38.country. You can decide whether or not it's a pretty sight. We're
:39:38. > :39:47.joined by Conservative MP Alan Johnson. -- Kerns. Did Heywood make
:39:47. > :39:51.a complete horlik of all of this? As he analysed the evidence there
:39:51. > :39:57.was clearly inconsistently from the e-mail to the log to the CCTV. He
:39:57. > :40:01.hadn't brought them all together. If he had, that would have showed
:40:01. > :40:11.serious tkwheas should have been brought to the police or the IPCC
:40:11. > :40:25.
:40:25. > :40:30.Is it not his job to mark the Prime Minister's card? Is it not his job
:40:30. > :40:36.to say, look, Prime Minister, I've seen the police - the police log.
:40:36. > :40:39.I've seen the CCTV footage. The two don't mesh. You'd better be careful
:40:39. > :40:42.about this? That's the point. Sir Jeremy Heywood said he hadn't seen
:40:42. > :40:47.the police log, but the challenge I made to him is it was in the Daily
:40:47. > :40:50.Telegraph. Exactly - or was suggested to be the police log. He
:40:50. > :40:53.wasn't sure that was the police log in the Daily Telegraph, but I would
:40:53. > :40:57.have thought there was sufficient evidence there to warrant further
:40:57. > :41:01.investigation. After that displace, would you get him to organise the
:41:01. > :41:04.proverbial in a brewery? That's the right question. Was he the right
:41:04. > :41:08.person to do it. That's what the chairman of the committee was doing
:41:08. > :41:10.should it have gone to the Prime Minister's advisor on the
:41:10. > :41:15.Ministerial Code. If the Prime Minister - in the United States,
:41:15. > :41:20.the president would have got one of his senior political advisors to do
:41:20. > :41:24.this, and to be aware with political antennae because this
:41:24. > :41:26.involved a Cabinet Minister, a Prime Ministerial appointment - and
:41:26. > :41:30.a political advisor would have raised all of these things with the
:41:30. > :41:34.Prime Minister. Well, I'm not sure it has to be a political advisor
:41:34. > :41:38.because I think the press itself would then say you've got a
:41:38. > :41:41.politician investigating a politician. That would undermine it.
:41:41. > :41:46.I am not talking an official investigation. I am talking the
:41:46. > :41:49.Prime Minister to one of his senior advisors, can you go find out about
:41:49. > :41:54.this Mitchell business? Go and get the facts. The Prime Minister did
:41:54. > :42:00.say, will you investigate the e- mails and look at the case? He kept
:42:00. > :42:03.on saying, "But I was only asked to look at the e-mails, nothing else."
:42:03. > :42:06.That's what I would expect Sir Jeremy Heywood to come back to the
:42:06. > :42:10.Prime Minister to say this needs widening if that was the limit of
:42:10. > :42:15.the investigation in the first. Your lot weren't impressed with him
:42:15. > :42:19.this morning, were you? He left some questions unanswered.
:42:19. > :42:23.LAUGHTER We need to remember... Say what you
:42:23. > :42:27.mean. We were limited, in fairness, in terms of what we could say. I
:42:27. > :42:30.was called to order on one occasion because there was a police
:42:30. > :42:33.investigation ongoing. We don't want to prejudice that inquiry.
:42:33. > :42:37.What was also important to me is Sir Jeremy Heywood responded to a
:42:37. > :42:41.complaint by Yvette Cooper before, I would suggest, he went into the
:42:41. > :42:46.CCTV and he looked at the police log, if he looked at the police log
:42:46. > :42:50.at all. I thought on the one hand he said having received a complaint
:42:50. > :42:55.from such a senior politician I had to investigate it. I am not clear
:42:55. > :42:59.he did so. I find this incomprehensible. You have an event,
:42:59. > :43:02.a police log, some e-mails and some CCTV. How can it take an
:43:02. > :43:06.intelligent person more than 15 minutes to review the bloody lot
:43:06. > :43:09.and come up with the right answer? Whether that was somebody from the
:43:09. > :43:12.Attorney General's office, a political advisor, one of the
:43:12. > :43:18.Number Ten staff? Anybody would have come to a conclusion in very
:43:18. > :43:21.short order. He also later said he suspected there was the possibility
:43:21. > :43:26.of a gigantic conspiracy. That was investigated, and I'm a bit
:43:26. > :43:29.confused by that, particularly in he was looking at in isolation each
:43:30. > :43:34.element rather than bringing them all together. We're now waiting on
:43:35. > :43:39.the police investigation? That's got to be given a run... This is
:43:39. > :43:42.just the police investigating themselves. Yes, absolutely and the
:43:42. > :43:47.IPCC if necessary. Even again, though, why would that take more
:43:47. > :43:51.than a day? This is not a monumentally complex event? They
:43:51. > :43:56.need to pursue the evidence. We're going to Aberdeen now. All of us.
:43:56. > :44:00.Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much. It may be one of
:44:00. > :44:06.Scotland's wealthiest cities... Scotland's wealthiest cities...
:44:06. > :44:10.Thank you. Let's not qualify that! Doesn't take too kindly to its
:44:10. > :44:20.poorest inhabitants. The city council wants to ban beggars from
:44:20. > :44:24.its streets. From and, a Kevin Keen It's something politicians the
:44:24. > :44:28.world over have been trying to find a solution to, probably before
:44:28. > :44:31.money ever existed. A string of plans here in Aberdeen in recent
:44:31. > :44:36.years have all failed. Now the latest administration at the
:44:36. > :44:40.council is trying again. In 2008, these giving boxes were installed
:44:40. > :44:44.at key points across the city centre. People were urged in ad
:44:44. > :44:48.campaigns not to give their loose change to beggars. Instead, the
:44:48. > :44:52.contents of the box would be given to homeless charities. But some of
:44:52. > :44:57.them were broken into, and crucially, the number of beggars in
:44:57. > :45:02.Aberdeen stayed about the same. attempt was then made to introduce
:45:02. > :45:06.a bylaw so the beggars could be moved on, but legal advisors
:45:06. > :45:09.advised the then-administration you can't make it illegal for someone
:45:10. > :45:14.to just be in a public place and that aggressive begging is already
:45:14. > :45:19.covered in law. So it's back to the drawing board. A new administration
:45:19. > :45:21.has now taken over in Aberdeen, and they're keen to re-examine the
:45:21. > :45:27.bylaw option, saying they're more confident now that it can be
:45:27. > :45:31.brought in. Joining us now from Aberdeen, Scotland's richest city
:45:31. > :45:35.is the leader of the city's council, Labour's Barney Crockett and Mark
:45:35. > :45:38.McDonald from Edinburgh, who is the Scottish National Party MSP for the
:45:38. > :45:45.north-east region. Welcome to both of you. First of all to Barney
:45:45. > :45:50.Crockett - how big a problem is How big a problem is begging in
:45:50. > :45:54.Aberdeen? It's not a huge problem, it's something that is significant
:45:54. > :45:58.and there are growth features in. We are looking for tools to try and
:45:58. > :46:03.help that situation and we think one of the things we need is the
:46:03. > :46:06.ability to control it through legal methods as is in other parts of the
:46:06. > :46:10.United Kingdom. But why? Begging is something that happens in most
:46:10. > :46:15.cities. If it's not a particularly big problem in Aberdeen and if the
:46:15. > :46:19.beggars aren't being aggressive why do you think you need to go down
:46:19. > :46:21.the legal route to ban it? First of all, we have a strong record of
:46:21. > :46:25.helping people in difficult circumstances and I think that we
:46:25. > :46:29.want to take that further and I think this gives us a way of making
:46:29. > :46:33.an intervention. It can be effective. Also, we face - it was
:46:33. > :46:36.mentioned, that we are perhaps the only UK city that's doing
:46:36. > :46:41.particularly well at the moment and we are certainly one of the key
:46:41. > :46:46.growth cities in the UK. We do attract people in. We welcome
:46:46. > :46:49.people. We need people to be coming in. But we want to give them
:46:49. > :46:54.positive futures than begging on the streets and we think this is
:46:54. > :46:58.one of the possible ways. What's your problem with that, Mark
:46:58. > :47:01.McDonald? This is entirely the wrong approach. It's essentially
:47:01. > :47:06.criminalising people who are vulnerable, it doesn't tackle the
:47:06. > :47:13.causes of why people end up begging. It tackles the effect. It may make
:47:13. > :47:16.streets look nicer to put beggars off into the justice system but it
:47:16. > :47:19.does nothing to resolve problems that allow people to fall into that
:47:19. > :47:22.position, whether that's through people who have found themselves
:47:23. > :47:27.homeless, find themselves with mental health problems, addiction
:47:27. > :47:30.problems. There are many route causes of why people beg,
:47:30. > :47:33.criminalising them isn't going to make it go away. Are you going to
:47:33. > :47:41.try to stop this going through? Scottish Government's made it clear
:47:41. > :47:45.they see no reason for a buy-law banning begging. The piece there
:47:45. > :47:50.said aggressive begging is dealt with. We have breach of the peace
:47:50. > :47:54.laws which can deal when that arises. The key thing is to have
:47:54. > :47:57.agencies working together to help these people not to victimise and
:47:57. > :48:01.criminalise them. I think you will struggle to find any of the key
:48:01. > :48:05.charities, either in Aberdeen or nationally who deal with beggars
:48:05. > :48:09.who are saying they want to see a bye-law introduced. You haven't
:48:09. > :48:15.really got the support for this then? I think we have the support
:48:15. > :48:20.in the city. I think that... Do you from charities? I think that the
:48:20. > :48:23.problem I have is that cities must have the ability to make their own
:48:23. > :48:27.decisions in looking at the future and I think that it's important
:48:27. > :48:31.that Aberdeen is not put at a big disadvantage compared to cities in
:48:32. > :48:34.the rest of the UK. A recent survey said Aberdeen was one of the three
:48:34. > :48:38.best places in the UK for investment. But the warning was
:48:38. > :48:43.there that cities and devolved regions were doing slightly better
:48:43. > :48:47.than in England but the warning was that an undue influence from
:48:47. > :48:51.central Government could be a big problem and I think here we have,
:48:51. > :48:55.we are looking for a local solution to a local problem. I don't think
:48:55. > :49:00.it's helpful to have a a Scottish Government wading in. There is a
:49:00. > :49:04.clear message there. But basically stop interfering. If devolution is
:49:04. > :49:07.going to work they should be allowed to make their own mind up?
:49:07. > :49:11.Any bye-law requires Scottish Government approval and that's the
:49:11. > :49:15.nature of the law in Scotland. I am simply saying - I think that I
:49:15. > :49:22.don't want to see people begging on the streets either. The difference
:49:22. > :49:30.with myself and the Councilor Crockett, I think you should help
:49:30. > :49:35.to look people begging. It's a Dickensian approach to criminalise
:49:35. > :49:45.those people. Rather than helped appropriately. Thank you both very
:49:45. > :49:48.
:49:48. > :49:51.much. Looks nice in Aberdeen behind him
:49:51. > :49:52.there. We should do the programme there one day. A great city. Ken
:49:53. > :49:55.Livingstone loves it, Boris thinks it annihilates distance, liquidates
:49:55. > :50:01.traffic and is the throbbing cardiovascular system of the
:50:01. > :50:03.greatest city on the earth. I am not talking about happy in our the
:50:03. > :50:13.West End, but the London Underground which which opened its
:50:13. > :50:15.
:50:15. > :50:19.doors to passengers 150 years ago # It's your train...
:50:19. > :50:23.Ah, the tube, I couldn't get to work without it. Apart from when
:50:23. > :50:26.they're on strike and it's been serving Londoners for a century and
:50:26. > :50:32.a half, it's also being a magnet for politicians when they want to
:50:32. > :50:38.ditch the limo and look normal but what are the tube habits of these
:50:38. > :50:45.well known London MPs? How much do you love or loath the tube? I love
:50:45. > :50:49.the tube. It gets a pad press, un-- a bad press. It's reliable,
:50:49. > :50:55.sometimes lines go down, engineering work at weekends, but
:50:55. > :50:59.it's the quickest way of getting from A to B. I love the tube. I
:50:59. > :51:04.learned to drive about four months ago so all my life I have used the
:51:05. > :51:09.tube. I love the tube. I use it often and London wouldn't be London
:51:09. > :51:13.without the tube and my constituency would not be linked to
:51:13. > :51:19.the rest of London without the tube. Do you stand up when there is an
:51:20. > :51:25.elderly person or pregnant laid? -- ladyy. Tkoeu stand up for the
:51:25. > :51:30.elderly, although I get nervous sometimes about pregnant women! And
:51:30. > :51:35.getting it wrong. Have you ever been caught fare-dodging? Certainly
:51:35. > :51:41.not. I wouldn't admit it to you anyway! Do you always mind the gap?
:51:41. > :51:45.I always mind the gap. I get scared. I always stand behind the yellow
:51:45. > :51:51.line. I also, if people aren't moving along so other people can
:51:51. > :51:56.get on, I become a supplemental conductor to say, move on, come on!
:51:56. > :52:01.And they normally do. Which Tube Station is the only one that
:52:01. > :52:08.doesn't contain any of the letters in the words mackerel? Oh, you are
:52:08. > :52:15.joking! Oh, I do know, is it Vauxhall? No. I am afraid I have to
:52:15. > :52:21.pass on that one thrfrpblgts's so many --. There's so many tube
:52:21. > :52:25.staugss -- stations. I haven't a clue. St John's Wood. I have been
:52:25. > :52:29.there once or twice. I have been there, normally actually with the
:52:29. > :52:33.pheriest of hearts because I am on the way to watch cricket at Lords.
:52:33. > :52:38.Oh no, I forgot to ask them the most important question of all -
:52:38. > :52:46.what do you do when you are really annoyed by the person who sits down
:52:46. > :52:51.next to you? You try to ignore the Prime
:52:51. > :52:56.Minister if you found him on the tube, wouldn't you? It used to be
:52:57. > :53:03.said of Mussolini, at least he used to make the trains run on time. One
:53:03. > :53:13.reason why no one could ever mistake our next guest for a
:53:13. > :53:19.fascist. Bob Crowe. Do you happen by tube. On London. Why does it
:53:19. > :53:26.always stop in Hendon? It should never have stopped at Hendon. It
:53:26. > :53:34.was shut down by the Labour Party. Glenda Jackson as the transport
:53:34. > :53:40.Minister was to shut down that line. It should have been extended.
:53:40. > :53:47.you offer up your seat? Certainly, yeah. To whom? No one younger than
:53:47. > :53:55.me. We are narrowing it. A woman pregnant, baby on board. Elderly
:53:55. > :54:01.person. People with kids, yeah, certainly. John? Do you travel by
:54:01. > :54:08.tube? I may be younger by him. you travel by tube? Occasionally.
:54:08. > :54:13.Would you give up your seat? course. Best and worst experience?
:54:13. > :54:19.Best experience is every day, actually. To get from parts of the
:54:19. > :54:25.suburbs into London in 25 minutes, no way to beat it. The worst
:54:25. > :54:28.scenario was stuck down a tube tunnel for over an hour and being
:54:28. > :54:34.evacuated. You had to walk along? It didn't concern me but for
:54:35. > :54:38.elderly people it was stressful for them. Shall we do our quiz? Do you
:54:38. > :54:44.agree with Boris, this isn't the quiz, you and Boris that the tube
:54:44. > :54:52.is the throbbing cardio vase skhrar system of the greatest city on
:54:52. > :55:00.earth. Absolutely. Ets do the quiz. Which chat show host was reportedly
:55:00. > :55:07.born in a in station. Springer. What is the mosquito named after
:55:07. > :55:11.the tube called? They thought about that! I thought might be trickier.
:55:11. > :55:19.We call it the tube and the Americans call it the subway.
:55:19. > :55:25.What percentage of the underground is under grown? -- underground?
:55:25. > :55:29.say probably 60%. 40%. You say 40%. You are closer, it's 45%. We could
:55:29. > :55:37.be done under the trade descriptions act. The underground
:55:37. > :55:45.is actually 55% overground. Chesham, Watford, Epping. Most of the
:55:45. > :55:50.Metropolitan line out in the suburbs. They are talking about
:55:50. > :55:53.Crossrail two. North to south. see. A fantastic way. Only way you
:55:53. > :55:57.are going to improve the tube is more capacity. That's why Crossrail
:55:57. > :56:03.is a fantastic opportunity. The extension of the the Northern Line
:56:03. > :56:09.is fantastic. Crossrail is not the tube? It's the overground route
:56:09. > :56:13.going underground and joining? will be joined to the tube, coming
:56:13. > :56:19.to Whitechapel and Liverpool Street and through to Heathrow. But north
:56:19. > :56:26.to south will be the next. How many mice live on the tube? Never
:56:26. > :56:30.counted them. Who's counting them? The rats! Must be in the ten
:56:30. > :56:35.million. It says half a million. I think that's underestimated. It's
:56:35. > :56:44.got to be. Has anyone counted them? What is
:56:44. > :56:52.the London Underground known in Cockney rhyming slang? That's a
:56:52. > :57:00.good one. Must have heard it on Minder years ago. The Oxo. Never
:57:00. > :57:04.heard that before. The cube, tube. Never heard that. Do you think they
:57:04. > :57:11.shared a Christmas cracker? They're similar. The first journey on the
:57:11. > :57:16.tube, it took place today in 1863. Amazing it was the mid-19th century
:57:16. > :57:19.they could do all this. It shows you the engineers capacity in this
:57:19. > :57:26.country then. Paddington and Farringdon. Which notable person
:57:26. > :57:31.turned down the invitation? Good point. I guess he probably did,
:57:31. > :57:41.because the politician who first went on the overground train
:57:41. > :57:43.
:57:43. > :57:47.journey he fell off the train and died. The Prime Minister? It was,
:57:47. > :57:55.Lord palmisson. He departed on a snooker table, didn't he? What was
:57:55. > :57:59.he doing? Not for this time of the day. Didn't he sire a child when I
:57:59. > :58:07.was about 70 and Disraeli said keep it quiet or he will be swept to
:58:07. > :58:10.power in an overall majority? We taught you about the Oxo. Let's
:58:10. > :58:20.carry on the theme of quizzes. We have just time to find out the
:58:20. > :58:23.
:58:23. > :58:29.answer. Where does David Cameron What do you think, John? I don't
:58:29. > :58:37.think he would wear Hush Puppies. Or go to Sports Direct that leaves
:58:37. > :58:42.us with the third option. Well done! It is Oliver Sweeney. He is a
:58:42. > :58:47.trendy designer. Never heard of him. Thank you to all our guests. The