:00:43. > :00:45.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:45. > :00:48.Opposition mounts to the government's plans for gay marriage,
:00:48. > :00:54.as the former Defence Sectary and the Energy Minister line up against
:00:54. > :00:57.the policy. Will same sex couples be able to marry by 2015?
:00:57. > :01:02.It's 40 years since some at least celebrated our entry into the
:01:02. > :01:05.Common Market. This week, after warnings from the Obama
:01:05. > :01:08.Administration, how real is the prospect of a British exit from the
:01:08. > :01:11.EU and what would be the consequences?
:01:11. > :01:15.The House of Lords debates the Leveson Report - should the press
:01:15. > :01:23.be given time to put their house in order, or is a new law needed to
:01:23. > :01:33.curb their excesses? And free the Aberdeen One! Helena,
:01:33. > :01:39.
:01:39. > :01:42.the mannequin locked up for Two stories from Aberdeen this
:01:42. > :01:45.week! All that in the next hour, and with
:01:45. > :01:47.us for the duration today is, Mary Ann Sieghart, she's chair of the
:01:47. > :01:54.Social Market Foundation, a political commentator, and
:01:54. > :02:00.according to her website, a "Portfolio Woman". Not sure what
:02:00. > :02:04.that means. It means I do lots of different things, instead of being
:02:04. > :02:07.a wage slave. Danny Finkelstein has a portfolio but it's a bit thin. He
:02:07. > :02:13.gets by working for the Times where he's chief leader writer and
:02:14. > :02:16.columnist. Let's start with gay marriage.
:02:17. > :02:19.David Cameron has promised to change the law to allow gay people
:02:20. > :02:26.to marry by 2015, but opposition within his own party is widespread
:02:26. > :02:30.and apparently still growing. This morning, Energy Minister, John
:02:30. > :02:33.Hayes, says he has his doubts. And former Defence Secretary, Liam Fox
:02:33. > :02:40.- you may remember he once stood against David Cameron for the
:02:40. > :02:43.party's leadership - has come out strongly against the change. A
:02:43. > :02:53.letter from Dr Fox to his constituents has emerged, and in it
:02:53. > :03:05.
:03:05. > :03:15.He says he's sure that proponents of gay marriage are sincere, but
:03:15. > :03:22.
:03:22. > :03:25.Well it's no surprise perhaps that Liam Fox isn't fully signed up to
:03:25. > :03:31.the Cameron modernising agenda, but it does show the scale of
:03:31. > :03:33.opposition to this policy. We're joined now by Mike Judge, of the
:03:33. > :03:43.Coalition for Marriage who are campaigning against same sex
:03:43. > :03:45.
:03:46. > :03:55.marriage. Welcome to the programme. Pleasure
:03:56. > :03:56.
:03:56. > :04:01.to be with you. Is it your claim opposition to this policy is now
:04:01. > :04:07.growing within Parliament, within the Conservative ranks? Certainly,
:04:08. > :04:12.I don't think there can be any doubt. We had seen upwards of 130
:04:12. > :04:18.and more, and growing, backbench Tory MPs saying they will
:04:18. > :04:21.definitely vote against it. There are many more yet to declare. I
:04:21. > :04:27.suspect they on nervous about this policy and unsure about what has
:04:27. > :04:31.been proposed. And for Dr Fox to come out with his letter, he is a
:04:31. > :04:36.senior Tory figure, popular with the grass roots who have been
:04:36. > :04:45.disaffected by this policy. It is a devastating blow for David
:04:45. > :04:51.Cameron's plans. I wonder if it is devastating? In a free vote, given
:04:51. > :04:56.the attitude of the Labour backbenchers, Conservatives and the
:04:56. > :05:00.Lib Dem backbenchers, doesn't it get through? All observers on both
:05:00. > :05:04.sides of this debate expected to go through the House of Commons. I do
:05:04. > :05:09.think there will be a strong opposition within the Commons, a
:05:09. > :05:14.level of oppositions which will surprise many observers. Then the
:05:14. > :05:17.debate moves on to the House of Lords. Polling in the House of
:05:17. > :05:23.Lords shows the majority think it should be put on hold because it is
:05:23. > :05:27.yet to be demonstrated there is any kind of public appetite for this.
:05:27. > :05:32.am not talking to you about the rights and wrongs of this issue,
:05:32. > :05:37.just the politics of it. Your hope and perhaps expectation is this
:05:37. > :05:42.could be stopped in the Lords? certainly think it will be sent
:05:42. > :05:49.back by the Lords will stop I think also we will get a strong showing
:05:49. > :05:56.in the House of Commons. Stick with us, let's hear what on guests pink.
:05:56. > :06:00.Is he right? Is he right it is controversial? Yes. Is he right
:06:00. > :06:09.there may be a defeat in the House of Lords? I guess it is quite
:06:09. > :06:12.possible. Is he right the public don't support it? No. I am
:06:12. > :06:20.disappointed an organisation that says it is for marriage is against
:06:20. > :06:24.marriage and wants to restrict the number of people to marry. I don't
:06:24. > :06:29.know how two people getting married could affect my marriage or anybody
:06:29. > :06:35.else's marriage. I was just wanting to look at the politics, because we
:06:35. > :06:41.have debated the substance of it quite a lot. Assuming Mr Judge is
:06:41. > :06:44.right, it will probably get through the Commons. But if it is stopped
:06:44. > :06:47.in the Lords, it would be embarrassing for the Prime
:06:47. > :06:56.Minister? It would, and it is difficult for the Prime Minister
:06:56. > :07:02.because it wasn't in the manifestos. By tradition, the Lords tend not to
:07:02. > :07:06.block legislation that was in the governing party's manifesto. But I
:07:06. > :07:10.think it would be difficult for them to block something that has
:07:10. > :07:13.majority support in the country. Judge, it is said you are
:07:13. > :07:19.campaigning against something which the British public now seem more
:07:19. > :07:23.comfortable with and may have done for many decades? I think, public
:07:23. > :07:28.opinion, the more they have heard about this debate and they have
:07:28. > :07:33.understood the rights of marriage are already available to same-sex
:07:33. > :07:38.couples through civil partnerships, 70% have said, I don't see any need
:07:38. > :07:42.to redefine marriage. And that particular arguments is what has
:07:42. > :07:46.commenced a lot of MPs and the knock on effects of the civil
:07:46. > :07:50.liberties of those people who disagree. All of those reasons when
:07:50. > :07:56.the public look at a more detailed way of what is proposed, they are
:07:56. > :08:00.happy with the status quo. That has fed through to MPs, MPs sitting on
:08:00. > :08:05.marginal seats. They are saying there is not in need this, it does
:08:05. > :08:10.not have a popular mandate, we are not sure we will vote for it.
:08:10. > :08:18.do you mean defect of the civil liberties of people who disagree? I
:08:18. > :08:23.won't be effective if people of same-sex want to get married?
:08:23. > :08:29.Someone put on Umm Qasr that he was in favour of this proposal, and he
:08:29. > :08:37.was demoted and lost 40% of his salary. Will people working in the
:08:37. > :08:45.public sector be allowed to voice their opposition against this?
:08:45. > :08:49.same opposition that were shown on Section 28, age of consent and so
:08:49. > :08:55.will partnerships. Each time we have had the same debate, usually
:08:55. > :08:59.big red herrings are put about, and in the end it gets through. What I
:08:59. > :09:03.suspect it will happen, the same will happen, it will be
:09:03. > :09:08.controversial. It is difficult for the Government, because it divides
:09:08. > :09:12.Conservatives particularly between older and younger. Liam Fox
:09:13. > :09:16.referred to lifelong Conservatives. It probably is true of like long
:09:16. > :09:20.Conservatives, but younger Conservatives are more in favour of
:09:20. > :09:28.it. Isn't the problem, you face being on the wrong side of the tide
:09:28. > :09:33.of history? Within my lifetime, it was illegal to be involved in
:09:33. > :09:38.homosexual acts. I don't think many people would now propose to bring
:09:38. > :09:45.that law back. It is not that long ago you could smoke on an aircraft.
:09:45. > :09:52.The idea you could now smoke on an aircraft would be regarded as
:09:52. > :09:57.derisory. In a few years, won't we see gay marriage as part of life?
:09:57. > :10:00.Many things do change in life, but marriage has not been one of the
:10:00. > :10:04.things that has changed. Marriage between men and women has been
:10:04. > :10:08.around for thousands of years, it is before the Christian church and
:10:08. > :10:12.Britain as a nation. I'm sure it will be around for many years to
:10:12. > :10:18.come. But the public on not convinced of the argument it needs
:10:18. > :10:21.redefining, especially because there is in law, no discrimination
:10:21. > :10:25.for same-sex couples and the same rights married couple have are
:10:25. > :10:28.available through civil partnerships. And that point is put
:10:28. > :10:34.to people and then they are not convinced of the argument. Banks
:10:34. > :10:40.for joining us. Just before we move on, the politics of this is
:10:40. > :10:44.interesting. Mr Cameron has upset a lot of people in his party by being
:10:44. > :10:48.seen to champion this. He could probably have got away with this is
:10:48. > :10:52.the economy was growing by 4%, living standards were better and
:10:52. > :10:59.the Tories were 10 points ahead in the polls will stop none of the
:10:59. > :11:04.above is true. You have also got to show you are in favour of the
:11:04. > :11:09.things you are in favour of. You have to give heart to liberal
:11:09. > :11:12.Conservatives as well. And to broader, non-Conservative supported
:11:12. > :11:18.him at the last General Election and show them you have not lost the
:11:18. > :11:22.vision, when you are taking typical, economic decisions. Making people
:11:22. > :11:26.think the Conservatives have had to be hard-nosed. He is being true to
:11:26. > :11:31.that. It is because people are saying they have become the nasty
:11:31. > :11:41.party, they are cutting benefits. He has got to show, in other areas
:11:41. > :11:41.
:11:41. > :11:45.of life, more compassionate. And it gives people a lot of happiness.
:11:45. > :11:55.Time for the daily quiz. Which member of the Government was
:11:55. > :11:58.
:11:58. > :12:07.allegedly involved in throwing Damian Green, in fact off the
:12:07. > :12:13.bridge in Oxford during his student days? Was it Chris Grayling.
:12:13. > :12:18.Solicitor General Oliver Heald, or the Home Secretary, Theresa May.
:12:18. > :12:28.Will I have to answer? Not now, at the end of the programme. Do you
:12:28. > :12:32.
:12:32. > :12:38.know the answer? Yes. January is quite the month for
:12:39. > :12:44.birthdays. The Daily Politics celebrated its 10th this week. Mel
:12:44. > :12:47.C from the Spice Girls is going to be 39 tomorrow. And can you believe
:12:47. > :12:52.it's been 40 years since Britain joined what was to become the
:12:52. > :13:02.European Union? Doesn't time fly when you're having fun? Adam's been
:13:02. > :13:06.
:13:06. > :13:12.looking back at the events of 1st Jimmy Osmond was popular in that
:13:12. > :13:15.year. # I will be your long-haired Lover
:13:15. > :13:24.from Liverpool. Richard Nixon was preparing for his
:13:24. > :13:28.second term in the White House. And a village in Devon celebrated
:13:28. > :13:34.Britain's entry into the Common Market, joining France, Belgium,
:13:34. > :13:38.the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.
:13:38. > :13:43.It was also the year at the New London Bridge opened, so where
:13:43. > :13:46.better to meet Tony Blair's former man in Brussels, who is now the
:13:46. > :13:52.official historian between Europe and the British political
:13:52. > :13:57.establishment. They looked at a North Atlantic free trade area with
:13:57. > :14:02.United States. The Americans said, you must be joking. Then they look
:14:02. > :14:05.at going it alone. But we were no longer economically powerful enough.
:14:06. > :14:10.That is why Ted Heath signed us up to the Continent will clock, paving
:14:11. > :14:15.the way for the treaty in 1970 to stop but only after the French
:14:15. > :14:19.vetoed our membership twice in the previous decade. Then insisted we
:14:19. > :14:24.make a big contribution to the Budget. It also had to be written
:14:24. > :14:28.into British law by a knife edge vote in Parliament. On the old
:14:28. > :14:33.files there is the draft of the statement he had ready just in case
:14:33. > :14:37.he lost the vote. It was one of those bits of paper that never got
:14:37. > :14:43.used but it was there. Nowadays, hardly anyone remembers the
:14:43. > :14:47.occasion was marked by a Euro themed beauty contest on television.
:14:47. > :14:51.But the foundation had been laid for the Euro wrangles we see today.
:14:51. > :14:54.There was an underestimate and up the extent this would be dynamic
:14:54. > :14:59.and there would be growth in the number of laws and policies that
:14:59. > :15:03.would emanate from Brussels, even though we would play a part in
:15:03. > :15:07.negotiating them. The leaders at the time thought the European
:15:07. > :15:10.Community would be led by the three big countries. They underestimated
:15:10. > :15:15.the power of the institutional structure that had been set up.
:15:15. > :15:20.other words, the EU is a bit like the area around London Bridge, it
:15:20. > :15:30.looks pretty different now, but really it is still dominated by
:15:30. > :15:30.
:15:30. > :15:37.We are joined by the Times' European correspondent, who has
:15:37. > :15:43.written a book, Au Revoir, Europe, and Mary Ann and Danny are still
:15:43. > :15:47.with us. David Charter, let me come to you first, do you think, looking
:15:47. > :15:51.back, when we joined 40 years ago, did we realise it was going to be
:15:51. > :16:00.so rocky, that we would become so disillusioned with it as a nation
:16:00. > :16:07.overall? Well, happy birthday, Andrew! I think there is no
:16:07. > :16:12.question that people who voted in the 1975 referendum feel that they
:16:12. > :16:18.were a little bit hoodwinked in some way by what developed. Because
:16:18. > :16:22.within, say, five years of having that referendum, the assembly where
:16:22. > :16:27.we sent our MPs to talk about the laws in Brussels became a directly
:16:27. > :16:31.elected parliament, under all sorts of unforeseen developments then
:16:31. > :16:36.came from monetary union, which we did not take part in, of course, to
:16:36. > :16:40.the adoption of a European foreign minister, and of course now the
:16:40. > :16:44.plans for banking union, fiscal union, economic union. Little
:16:44. > :16:48.wonder that people say, we did not know what we were voting for in
:16:49. > :16:55.1975, when we had the referendum. We were not really told what we
:16:55. > :16:59.were in for in 1973. Whole lot of water has passed under the bridge
:16:59. > :17:06.since we joined, the country is more Euro-sceptic, the policy of Mr
:17:06. > :17:10.Cameron is to repatriate, and as the eurozone becomes a closer union,
:17:10. > :17:13.we are going to attempt to repatriate powers back to London.
:17:13. > :17:17.The Foreign Office has been briefing that the Germans are not
:17:17. > :17:21.there is against this as they might seem, that the Germans could be an
:17:21. > :17:29.ally in this, because they do not want to lose Britain altogether.
:17:29. > :17:34.You are sitting in Berlin, shed some light, is that really true?
:17:34. > :17:39.Well, up to a point, because the Germans are terrified, in fact, of
:17:39. > :17:44.being left without a big ally against what you might call Club
:17:44. > :17:48.Med, the group of countries that led by France, but including Italy,
:17:48. > :17:53.Spain, Portugal and Greece, there would like a different style of
:17:53. > :17:58.European Union with more social protections, and protections for
:17:58. > :18:03.their businesses and their farmers, for example, from foreign
:18:03. > :18:10.competition. So there is a very strong feeling in Berlin that, as
:18:10. > :18:12.much as possible must be done to give Britain in the club, but I do
:18:12. > :18:17.think that Angela Merkel's patients and the patience of others in
:18:17. > :18:22.Germany has a limit, and at the end of the day they will save the
:18:23. > :18:26.European Union, rather than saving David Cameron's neck. Before I
:18:26. > :18:31.bring in other guests, I am grateful to have you to date from
:18:31. > :18:38.Berlin, is it really credible for the British to expect the Germans
:18:38. > :18:42.and the French, but particularly the Germans, to repatriate so many
:18:42. > :18:47.powers that we get all the advantages of being in the single
:18:47. > :18:52.market and the open market, but we have almost none of the
:18:52. > :18:59.responsibilities or costs of club membership? I am very sorry, I have
:18:59. > :19:06.lost all sound from London. Is the status quo sustainable, given the
:19:06. > :19:12.state of British... Can we just carry on? No, but there is a big
:19:12. > :19:14.difference between status quo and the idea that you can somehow
:19:14. > :19:18.renegotiate meaningful powers back to Britain, and as you put it in
:19:18. > :19:22.your question, and remain within the single market, which is after
:19:22. > :19:26.all a British creation. We need the extension of the single market to
:19:26. > :19:31.include things like telecoms and energy, extended across services,
:19:31. > :19:35.and we have the problem of the EU budget, but you do all that from
:19:35. > :19:38.within the union, fighting your corner with allies. It is right
:19:38. > :19:44.that Germany has a lot of sympathy for us, but I would not push it too
:19:45. > :19:49.far. They are not about to give us meaningful powers. So is the prime
:19:49. > :19:55.minister's strategy credible, and can he do end up...? He now
:19:55. > :19:57.presides over the most Euro-sceptic mainstream party in Europe now, and
:19:57. > :20:01.repatriating the Working Time Directive and a couple of other
:20:02. > :20:08.things, that is not going to surprise, is it? The first thing to
:20:08. > :20:13.say it is not eccentric to be Euro- sceptic. It would have been a
:20:13. > :20:16.different model for this country, but we decided to stay out of the
:20:16. > :20:23.euro, that is a settled view in this country, and that requires a
:20:23. > :20:25.different relationship with the European Union. It is not just a
:20:25. > :20:29.question of the Prime Minister eccentrically wanting to repatriate
:20:29. > :20:34.powers for Tory Euro-sceptics, it is not possible for Europe to move
:20:34. > :20:37.towards consolidation of a single currency without changing, and that
:20:37. > :20:41.change cannot happen unless Britain's relationship from outside
:20:41. > :20:46.the euro changes. So this change is necessary, and does however much
:20:46. > :20:50.people have and Bath, in the country or out of the country, they
:20:50. > :20:53.will have to be a change, and that change will take either a limited
:20:54. > :20:59.or greater form. But unless we join the euro, we are going to be
:20:59. > :21:04.different from other countries who are inside. Are we really going to
:21:04. > :21:08.hold the ever closer union of the eurozone hostage to them giving as
:21:08. > :21:13.what Mr Cameron wants? I do not think it needs to be as dramatic as
:21:13. > :21:16.that, but yes, in 1973 lots of people said that we gave away
:21:17. > :21:21.sovereignty by agreeing to join, and that was absolutely correct. In
:21:21. > :21:31.return, what we got was a large say, and in places a veto, on how Europe
:21:31. > :21:34.develops.,... When Thatcher signed up to the European market, we
:21:34. > :21:38.decided to give up our veto, because we did not want the French
:21:38. > :21:43.vetoing the single market. What you think of the general proposition
:21:43. > :21:46.that if the eurozone wants to have more fiscal, more economic union,
:21:46. > :21:51.which is the cause they have to embark on if they want to save
:21:51. > :21:55.their currency, we will say, you can only do that if you let us go
:21:55. > :22:00.in the other direction? Is that credible European policy? It is a
:22:00. > :22:03.credible negotiating position, and people like Rowland will say, you
:22:03. > :22:07.cannot have a pick-and-mix Europe, but we already do have. Some
:22:07. > :22:11.countries have joined the euro, some have stayed outside. Some have
:22:11. > :22:15.joined the Shengen agreement with three borders, some have chosen to
:22:15. > :22:19.stay outside. That is how the union has developed. Can you tell me
:22:19. > :22:24.another major country that wants to repatriate powers? I don't know,
:22:24. > :22:29.I'm afraid. Going back to David Charter in Berlin, can you hear us
:22:29. > :22:35.now? I am back, yes! We have managed to get the director-general
:22:35. > :22:42.to put another shilling in the meter to keep you here. What I
:22:42. > :22:46.wanted to know, I know that, as you say, they would prefer us to stay
:22:46. > :22:49.in rather than leave, because in economic attitudes we share a
:22:49. > :22:53.generally liberal philosophy compared to the French and Club Med
:22:53. > :22:57.countries. What I wanted was whether Angela Merkel, because she
:22:57. > :23:03.is the one that will matter in this, is she prepared to lead Britain
:23:03. > :23:08.have all the advantages are one over market in Europe, and almost
:23:08. > :23:12.none of the responsibilities and costs that go with it? No, she is
:23:12. > :23:17.not prepared to go that far, and this will be subject to the most
:23:17. > :23:21.difficult negotiations, which is why David Cameron would be well
:23:21. > :23:27.advised not to over promises in his much vaunted forthcoming speech on
:23:28. > :23:33.Europe later this month. Because not all of it will be deliverable
:23:33. > :23:37.in terms of what his backbenchers are saying they want. You have got
:23:37. > :23:41.to remember that these directives that David Cameron does not like,
:23:41. > :23:44.and many of the Conservatives do not like, and many in business and
:23:44. > :23:50.British society do not like, are seen as absolutely fundamental
:23:50. > :23:55.parts of the single market in most of Europe. And the single market is
:23:55. > :24:00.what many Conservative MPs assay is the only thing they want. I'm
:24:00. > :24:05.afraid they therefore misunderstand what the single market is. It is a
:24:05. > :24:10.system of open and free-trading that has checks and balances to
:24:10. > :24:14.ensure social protections for workers. And that is the deal.
:24:14. > :24:18.Roland Rudd, people like yourself are strongly pro-European, don't
:24:18. > :24:22.you have a fundamental problem these days, considering what Danny
:24:22. > :24:26.was saying, if we are not going to join the euro and no-one seems very
:24:26. > :24:31.keen to do that for the foreseeable future, I mean, you're not in
:24:31. > :24:35.favour, are you? No. This business about being at the heart of Europe
:24:35. > :24:39.is a nonsense. You cannot be at the heart of Europe if you are not in
:24:39. > :24:46.the inner circle. I do not believe that to be the case at all, and I
:24:46. > :24:50.think the reason that people always say that the remorseless logic of
:24:50. > :24:53.the euro is further integration is because politically that is their
:24:53. > :24:58.position and has always been our position, and it proves the point
:24:58. > :25:01.that they want proven. But it is proving to be right. But is not in
:25:01. > :25:05.Britain's interests to expend capital and energy in something you
:25:05. > :25:09.do not want to have happened. Far better to use our interests to get
:25:09. > :25:14.a more liberal, open market and to put our ethics with Germany.
:25:14. > :25:17.Germany has made it clear they will not allow the price of further
:25:17. > :25:21.integration to harm the single market. Look at what happened with
:25:21. > :25:25.banking union, it is a shadow of what was promoted by the French and
:25:25. > :25:31.Italians, because the Germans stood by the British, and we negotiated a
:25:32. > :25:35.good deal, Osborne worked with the Germans on banking union. You are
:25:35. > :25:39.not denying that the eurozone will become an ever closer union. I am
:25:39. > :25:43.sure that will happen. And we will not be part of it, rightly or
:25:43. > :25:48.wrongly. But let's not talk about it in the sense of edging them on,
:25:48. > :25:52.because it is not in our interest. We want to focus on the things that
:25:52. > :25:54.are important, British jobs and prosperity. Once we decided not to
:25:54. > :25:58.join, we created a different relationship with the other
:25:58. > :26:05.European countries, and you see this differently because eventually
:26:05. > :26:09.you want to join the euro. I keep an open mind. That is fine, sorry
:26:09. > :26:12.if I have misunderstood that, but in any case, you are creating a
:26:12. > :26:16.different relationship with the European Union, and that requires
:26:16. > :26:20.us to create a structural distinction. David Owen explains
:26:20. > :26:26.this very well in his recent book, it creates a structural distinction
:26:26. > :26:29.between the single market, with all of what David Charter has said, and
:26:29. > :26:35.the eurozone. It creates a difference. When are we getting the
:26:35. > :26:39.Prime Minister's speech? I think it is the 22nd. David, do we have a
:26:39. > :26:44.date for that speech? It is going to be in Holland, we understand.
:26:44. > :26:49.think it is 22nd January, finally we have a date, and finally we
:26:49. > :26:56.think it will be in the Netherlands, not here in Germany, unfortunately.
:26:56. > :27:00.Probably wise! But another country that, of course, has a mini rebate
:27:00. > :27:07.from its contributions to the European Union. If I could just
:27:07. > :27:10.come back, people asking me about what Merkel once, very quickly, we
:27:10. > :27:14.voted in 1975 for 40 years of surprises in the European Union.
:27:14. > :27:17.Merkel will not be around forever, there will be a Social Democrat
:27:17. > :27:24.chancellor one day in Germany, and perhaps he or she will decide they
:27:24. > :27:31.want a more social Europe. Unlikely to be one this September. Oh, very
:27:31. > :27:35.unlikely! Mrs Merkel is looking the top favourite there. Thank you for
:27:35. > :27:38.joining us in Berlin, we will try to come back to you to get the
:27:38. > :27:42.reaction of the Germans to Mr Cameron's speech when he delivers
:27:42. > :27:52.it on that date. Roland Rudd, thank you, we will continue this debate
:27:52. > :27:56.
:27:56. > :28:00.That is a real terms cut once inflation was taken into account.
:28:00. > :28:05.On Wednesday's Daily Politics, the Conservative Treasury minister,
:28:05. > :28:09.Sajid Javid, and the Chateau Work and Pensions Secretary, Liam Byrne,
:28:10. > :28:13.debated what the consequences of the cap would be. Because of that
:28:13. > :28:15.discussion, Sajid Javid made a specific claim about the state of
:28:15. > :28:20.the public finances when the current government came to office.
:28:20. > :28:28.Let's listen to what he had to say. During the last decade, welfare
:28:28. > :28:32.spending in real terms went up by 45%. It represents, in total, one
:28:32. > :28:38.in every �3 that is raised in taxes, it is a Budget that was out of
:28:38. > :28:41.control. When you are using divisive language, talking about
:28:41. > :28:46.shirkers and strivers... You have had your chance, you have had your
:28:46. > :28:50.chance. You are having trouble answering the questions, I want to
:28:50. > :28:53.about a bit. The problem is that he does not want to acknowledge the
:28:53. > :28:57.reality, and I wish she could be honest again, as he was before,
:28:57. > :29:01.talking about there being no money left. I thought you were trying to
:29:01. > :29:05.help them out! I want to be straightforward and acknowledge
:29:05. > :29:08.that the welfare budget was out of control, and if you are going to
:29:08. > :29:13.deal with the largest deficit of any industrialised country when we
:29:13. > :29:17.came to power, you have to deal with the welfare budget. So Mark
:29:17. > :29:25.these words, the largest deficit of any industrialised country when we
:29:25. > :29:30.came to power. That was, of course, in May 2010. But was he right? A
:29:30. > :29:34.loyal viewer, Eugene Zelem, e- mailed us to ask us to look into
:29:34. > :29:38.them had the biggest deficit and the highest overall debt, so we
:29:38. > :29:43.have asked Paul Johnson from the IFS to cast some light on the
:29:43. > :29:49.situation, and here he is, welcome! Let's go back to basics, as a prime
:29:49. > :29:53.minister once said, let's clear up first of all, because it is often
:29:53. > :29:59.mixed, sometimes intentionally by politicians, what we mean by
:29:59. > :30:08.deficit and what we mean by, I think, probably best called the
:30:08. > :30:12.The national debt is the total of many outstanding that as a country,
:30:13. > :30:18.we still owed. It is more than a trillion pounds. The deficit is the
:30:18. > :30:23.amount we borrow every year. And that is around �120 million this
:30:23. > :30:28.year pulls up the deficit is the flow of additional borrowing.
:30:28. > :30:34.time we borrow more than we spend a year, that amount we borrowed gets
:30:35. > :30:41.added to the national debt? Exactly right. You can only reduce the
:30:41. > :30:48.national debt, it can become a small amount if the economy grows,
:30:48. > :30:51.is that right? That is exactly right. All politicians, I hope you
:30:51. > :30:56.use that distinction. The Government's aid they had cut the
:30:56. > :31:06.deficit by 25%, the public think they have cut the overall national
:31:06. > :31:07.
:31:07. > :31:12.debt by 25%. The national debt is growing a lot. A proportion of the
:31:12. > :31:19.size of the national income, it is going to go up above 80% of
:31:20. > :31:27.national income, which it is the highest that it has been. Savage
:31:27. > :31:31.jabbered said we had the highest debt the city of any industrialised
:31:31. > :31:37.country when the coalition came to concrete -- came to power, was he
:31:37. > :31:47.right? What was understood at the time in 2010, he was basically
:31:47. > :31:56.
:31:56. > :32:00.right. The OCD was saying... Americans are higher. Although at
:32:00. > :32:05.the time we thought our deficit was the highest, in fact when we looked
:32:05. > :32:11.at the figures again, the Americans were higher. The Americans were
:32:11. > :32:21.slightly above us in 2010. The story does not change, we did have
:32:21. > :32:25.
:32:25. > :32:30.the want or two highest deficits Our public finances were not in a
:32:30. > :32:35.good place. So he is not quite right, he may have thought it at
:32:35. > :32:41.the time, but we now know the Americans had a bigger deficit as a
:32:41. > :32:50.percentage of GDP, and we had. We had the second biggest question
:32:50. > :32:54.mark a century. Was it bigger than Greece? Coming back to the national
:32:54. > :33:00.debt, the accumulated deficits from over the years. Where are we in
:33:00. > :33:05.terms of the national debt? In the middle of the pack. We are rising,
:33:05. > :33:15.but it in 2010 card debt was a bit less than the average across the
:33:15. > :33:25.
:33:25. > :33:28.own. The Italians could be there as well. If you are spending 113% of
:33:28. > :33:36.your national debt, and it has not worked by now, you would think it
:33:36. > :33:46.would have worked. The United States is ahead. As you said, it is
:33:46. > :33:50.It is rising and it is rising very fast. One of the reasons the
:33:50. > :33:56.Government is missing its fiscal rules is it will be continuing to
:33:56. > :34:02.rise in 2015, when they had said it would be falling in 2015. So he was
:34:02. > :34:06.not entirely right, he was a bit wrong, but not way-out wrong?
:34:06. > :34:11.basic story was right, we were one of the two countries with the
:34:11. > :34:19.biggest deficits in 2010. In 2010 we did think we were the biggest.
:34:19. > :34:23.We did have a very big deficit. the one thing this coalition cannot
:34:23. > :34:27.save the other conceivable future is that it is cutting the national
:34:27. > :34:33.debt? It is increasing the national debt? The national debt is going to
:34:33. > :34:37.carry on rising we think at least until 2016. The proportion of
:34:37. > :34:42.national income is forecast to fall after that. It depends on how well
:34:42. > :34:47.the economy does. Is there any time in your crystal ball, when this
:34:47. > :34:54.national debt in absolute terms, starts to fall? I don't know when
:34:54. > :34:58.it starts to fall in absolute terms, but assuming it goes terribly well,
:34:58. > :35:03.it will be the 20 30s. It is a generation and a half before we get
:35:03. > :35:10.back to where we were. Which is not in a very low level of national
:35:10. > :35:14.debt. There was another controversy on Wednesday as well. It was about
:35:14. > :35:23.how much families would lose by the 1% cap and other things the
:35:23. > :35:30.Government, the coalition has done. Why on the changes you have made,
:35:30. > :35:35.were working families by next year be �280 poorer, and the year after
:35:35. > :35:38.that �534 poorer. These are the men walking past the curtains? Those
:35:38. > :35:45.working families will only be poorer if you look at the changes
:35:45. > :35:51.in isolation. That wouldn't be right. The House of Commons library
:35:51. > :35:55.figures are there. I have to confirm what Liam Byrne has said.
:35:55. > :36:02.There the �280 been worse off next year, that is from House of Commons
:36:02. > :36:07.library. That includes the personal allowance. And the figure of �534
:36:07. > :36:11.worse off by 2016, is the Institute of Fiscal Studies and includes a
:36:11. > :36:14.rise in the personal allowance. only includes the change in the
:36:14. > :36:17.personal allowance that it was announced in the Autumn Statement.
:36:17. > :36:23.But does not include the change in the personal allowance for the
:36:23. > :36:29.entire period. Does it include all the changes in
:36:29. > :36:32.the personal allowance? The �534 No. We are looking at, is just the set
:36:32. > :36:36.of figures that were announced in the Autumn Statement, which
:36:36. > :36:42.includes some of the increase in the personal allowance, but not all
:36:42. > :36:45.of it. It includes the benefit of rating. It includes restriction of
:36:45. > :36:50.pension tax relief for the rich, and a restriction of the higher
:36:50. > :36:54.rate tax relief. A significant chunk of that money is coming from
:36:54. > :36:59.those right at the top of the distribution. Given what they're
:36:59. > :37:05.doing, for those in working families, the coalition argument is,
:37:05. > :37:11.all right, we are tapping your tax credits by 1%, but we are taking a
:37:11. > :37:16.huge chunk of your early income out of tax altogether by raising the
:37:16. > :37:20.personal allowance. Does your calculation take that personal
:37:20. > :37:24.allowance rise into account? have done a bunch of calculations.
:37:24. > :37:30.To some calculations if you look at the consolidation package as a
:37:30. > :37:34.whole. It takes everything into account since 2010. It you look at
:37:34. > :37:39.that there is a clear pattern. People on modest to higher earnings
:37:39. > :37:44.of the least affected. The most affected are those at the top of
:37:44. > :37:49.the distribution, lost their child benefit, paying 50 pence tax. The
:37:49. > :37:55.next group most affected of those dependent on benefit, particularly
:37:55. > :37:59.those out of work and also those in work. The people at the bottom are
:37:59. > :38:03.badly affected. The people in the middle of the least affected and
:38:03. > :38:07.the people at the top of the most affected. Would it be fair to say
:38:07. > :38:10.that because of the families at the very top had been most affected,
:38:10. > :38:16.because they don't get the benefit of the personal allowance, it does
:38:16. > :38:22.not feed through to them. This business of families being �534 was
:38:22. > :38:29.up by 2015, that is an average. Isn't that skewed by the number of
:38:29. > :38:32.well off families that are being very seriously hit? At �500 number
:38:32. > :38:38.is one very specific families, single earner families with
:38:38. > :38:41.children. That has been chosen in the debate because it is the
:38:41. > :38:47.biggest number affected by the Autumn Statement. It is skewed by
:38:47. > :38:51.the fact it takes effect of some of the high corners and some of the
:38:51. > :38:55.smaller things that were changed. Would it not be better to give the
:38:55. > :39:04.median figure? A medium figure would be good. We have looked at
:39:04. > :39:09.the effect of the Autumn Statement changes on families, the operating
:39:09. > :39:13.effect on families with children, who are in work. That is one to
:39:13. > :39:22.�200 a year on average for the group who are affected. The
:39:22. > :39:28.majority are not affected. I am still a little bit confused. Was he
:39:28. > :39:33.right when he said that �534 figure does not take all the personal
:39:33. > :39:38.allowances into account? Yes, he was right because it is a number
:39:38. > :39:40.which was announced in the Autumn Statement. In the autumn statement
:39:40. > :39:44.there was a small increase in the personal allowance but it does not
:39:44. > :39:49.take into account all the increases into the personal allowance.
:39:49. > :39:53.didn't you do that? We have. There are hundreds of numbers you can
:39:53. > :40:00.produce. If you look at the changes made by the Government since 2010,
:40:00. > :40:03.what you find is those on modest too high incomes in work have been
:40:03. > :40:07.less affected than those on benefits at the bottom end and
:40:07. > :40:12.those are well up at the top end. We can get this on your website?
:40:12. > :40:15.is all on the website. Government wants a Royal Charter.
:40:15. > :40:18.Labour and campaigners are calling for full implementation backed by a
:40:18. > :40:21.new law and the press have recoiled from any suggestion of statutory
:40:21. > :40:23.regulation. Negotiations have continued this week between the
:40:23. > :40:26.Government, political parties and the industry over how best to
:40:26. > :40:32.implement Lord Justice Leveson's report into the, "Culture, practice
:40:32. > :40:42.and ethics of the press". Today the Lords are debating the issue. Let's
:40:42. > :40:46.
:40:46. > :40:51.The Prime Minister has said he does not believe statutory legislation
:40:51. > :40:56.is necessary to achieve the principles outlined by Leveson.
:40:56. > :40:59.Noble Lords should be aware my Right Honourable friend, the
:40:59. > :41:04.Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has been clear that
:41:04. > :41:10.if the industry does not deliver a tough, new self regulatory system,
:41:10. > :41:13.she won't shy away of going down the legislation route. We do have
:41:13. > :41:18.some concerns about the Government's proposals that an
:41:18. > :41:22.independent regulator be underpinned by a Royal Charter. We
:41:22. > :41:26.welcome the fact this represents an acceptance of the need for a legal
:41:26. > :41:31.framework to underpin the role of the regulator, but we had some
:41:31. > :41:35.doubts as to whether this is the best mechanism. What we need, what
:41:35. > :41:39.we have always needed is a regulatory regime which is
:41:39. > :41:44.independent from the Government and the media. And is about the
:41:44. > :41:49.regulation process and not content. This is what Lord Justice Leveson
:41:49. > :41:52.proposes, a set of voluntary regulations. It is a voluntary
:41:52. > :41:58.regulation based on incentives, with a guarantee of proper
:41:58. > :42:02.standards. It is not a liberal, state regulation. For those who say
:42:02. > :42:09.the press cannot be trusted to put its house in order, I say now it
:42:09. > :42:15.has no choice. If that sounds like a threat to legislation, it is. And
:42:15. > :42:18.the press would be very foolish to ignore it. My Lords, we won't need
:42:18. > :42:27.another enquiry if there are more scandals on the scale we have
:42:27. > :42:33.witnessed. Legislation will be inevitable. The 2000 pages of the
:42:33. > :42:37.Leveson report makes it seem like a light weight document. It is
:42:37. > :42:42.important to remember why the report was written. It was the
:42:42. > :42:48.consequence of national, moral outrage. Anyone who believes
:42:48. > :42:53.Britain's moral conscience is worse than it was, might reflect on our
:42:53. > :42:58.collective response to the phone hacking scandal. Long ago I worked
:42:58. > :43:03.as a journalist for four newspapers, including one owned by Rupert
:43:03. > :43:08.Murdoch. I was sacked by him, and experience of which I am
:43:08. > :43:14.unequivocally proud. I was also sacked by Robert Maxwell, but I
:43:15. > :43:19.won't go into that here! The Leveson report, which we are here
:43:19. > :43:24.to debate is immensely impressive. I basically supported its approach.
:43:24. > :43:29.Especially to the need for a fine delicate layer of statutory
:43:29. > :43:33.underpinning. I am much more accustomed to defending the press
:43:33. > :43:38.and much more comfortable in that role. Why is it in the last two
:43:39. > :43:41.years I have campaigned for change? Basically it is because I had seen
:43:41. > :43:46.the values that I am much journalists hold high, trampled
:43:46. > :43:49.into the dirt. It is because I have seen so called journalists
:43:49. > :43:55.attacking the public rather than carrying out their essential duty
:43:56. > :44:00.of standing up for their rights. am optimistic of a good outcome. We
:44:00. > :44:04.shall seek a profound change of culture, and an end to sloppy
:44:04. > :44:09.journalism ruining the lives of innocent people, without losing all
:44:09. > :44:13.that is good in our press. We shall demonstrate that for a good
:44:13. > :44:19.journalist, freedom of expression and professional principles can,
:44:19. > :44:27.and must be inseparable. Indeed symbiotic. And to the victims I say
:44:27. > :44:37.this, the clear message must be, never, never, never, never, never
:44:37. > :44:37.
:44:37. > :44:43.We are joined by Jacqui Hames, formerly of Primark's, who speaks
:44:43. > :44:51.for the Hacked Off campaign. Reminders why you got involved. --
:44:52. > :44:56.remind us. 10 years ago now, I and my family were put under
:44:56. > :45:00.surveillance by the News of the World. I husband took over the
:45:00. > :45:05.reins of a very prominent murder inquiry into the death of a private
:45:05. > :45:09.detective, a very complex issue I will not going to, but in basic
:45:09. > :45:14.terms, our phones were hacked, we will put under surveillance, our
:45:14. > :45:18.mail was tampered with. He felt the News of the World behaved in a
:45:18. > :45:23.disgraceful way towards you. Completely. That is what motivated
:45:23. > :45:27.you in this. Yes. I think everybody accepts that the press has to
:45:27. > :45:32.change and that it needs a new code of conduct and it has to be able to
:45:32. > :45:37.account quite stiffly on a new code of conduct. The argument is down to
:45:37. > :45:41.whether it should be statutory or not, and Hacked Off wants statutory
:45:41. > :45:45.underpinning. What is your reaction to this idea that is being floated
:45:45. > :45:49.by Oliver Letwin that they should be some sort of royal charter
:45:49. > :45:52.instead that would be the mechanism by which the press was held
:45:52. > :45:55.accountable to new standards and ways of doing things?
:45:55. > :46:00.difficulty at the moment is that we have not seen the detail of that
:46:00. > :46:03.discussion. Clearly, he is having a discussion of the newspaper editors
:46:03. > :46:08.and proprietors about that. We have not been privity to that
:46:08. > :46:14.information, and I do not know the full extent of what he is proposing.
:46:14. > :46:18.The idea of a royal charter, I am not a legal expert, does seem a
:46:18. > :46:23.rather draconian measure which does not seem to have the teeth that I
:46:23. > :46:29.and other victims of Hacked Off would want to see. But we have got
:46:29. > :46:32.an open mind. This idea of a royal charter has been bandied about,
:46:32. > :46:40.although Letwin is the man behind it, he was floating it before
:46:41. > :46:44.Christmas. -- Oliver Letwin. argument on statute has changed.
:46:44. > :46:51.The original wave was that it would make sure that people could not opt
:46:51. > :46:55.out of the regulatory system. Brian Leveson ruled against that. The
:46:55. > :46:58.argument on statute is in a different place and now, it is
:46:58. > :47:04.whether or not you actually need, in order to have independent
:47:04. > :47:08.regulation, to have a statue. My position is, if a way can be found
:47:08. > :47:13.whereby you do not need to do that, it is preferable not to, but you
:47:13. > :47:19.have to be reassured, of course, that the system will deal with the
:47:19. > :47:23.issues that Lord Leveson's report talked about. There has been a lot
:47:24. > :47:26.of conflating from the newspaper side of statutory regulation and
:47:26. > :47:30.statutory underpinning of independent regulation, which is
:47:30. > :47:34.what Lord Justice Leveson called for. He did not say the government
:47:34. > :47:38.should regulate the press. He said the government should create the
:47:38. > :47:42.circumstances in law whereby an independent regulator could
:47:42. > :47:45.regulate the press. The press has started talking about statutory
:47:45. > :47:51.regulation as if it is the government regulation. Conflation
:47:51. > :47:55.has taken part of all sides. The reason that Hacked Off wanted it
:47:55. > :48:04.was to have statutory regulation. Conflation has taken place across
:48:04. > :48:09.the board. I do not think Hacked Off wanted that. Absolutely not.
:48:09. > :48:14.order to ensure... But in order to achieve compulsory membership of
:48:14. > :48:18.the regulatory body, and Sir Bryan Leveson ruled against that, so now
:48:18. > :48:21.it has been decided that he wants statutory regulation for a
:48:21. > :48:27.different purpose. I was not convinced it was necessary. We will
:48:27. > :48:31.see whether that is the case. draft bill follows Leveson, as I
:48:31. > :48:37.understand it, it is not compulsory to be part of this, but there would
:48:37. > :48:40.be penalties, as he recommended, if you are not part of it. It is just
:48:40. > :48:47.taking the regulations side of the recommendations about the fact that
:48:47. > :48:51.they should be independent central regulation -- there should be
:48:51. > :48:56.independent self regulation. But there should be another body to
:48:56. > :49:01.underpin that, and that should be in legislation, and the hack of
:49:01. > :49:04.draft bill takes those simple recommendations and shows how
:49:04. > :49:10.simple and easy it is and how straightforward it is and how
:49:10. > :49:14.nobody has anything to fear. -- the Hacked Off draft bill. It also
:49:14. > :49:19.enshrines this feeling of free speech being part of the country's
:49:19. > :49:23.DNA. No-one is trying to... I do not doubt your sincerity in this,
:49:23. > :49:28.it is very tricky, but you cannot say there is no need to fear. If
:49:28. > :49:32.you introduce legislation, this is my concern, it may be very
:49:32. > :49:36.difficult to draw the line that Mary Ann wants to draw between this
:49:36. > :49:43.and statutory regulation. But maybe the intent, that may be the desire,
:49:43. > :49:46.but it is difficult to do. We have been overrunning on almost every
:49:46. > :49:50.item this morning because I have been enjoying the discussion so
:49:50. > :49:54.much. Isn't there a sense the press are dragging their feet on this? If
:49:54. > :49:59.they really wanted to scupper your thing, they would be more
:49:59. > :50:03.enthusiastic about coming up with their own proposals. You can never
:50:03. > :50:06.put two editors in a room and they will agree on anything. We have got
:50:06. > :50:14.30 in a room trying to agree on something. They are dragging their
:50:14. > :50:17.feet, but it is like trying to herd cats. Thank you very much.
:50:17. > :50:27.It is well known that Aberdeen is Scotland's richest city, it is
:50:27. > :50:33.probably Britain's richest city. On Wednesday, we talked about that. It
:50:33. > :50:38.does not just both its wealth to oil and gas, it is a goldmine for
:50:38. > :50:41.new stories. We heard about its attempts to ban begging, today it
:50:41. > :50:46.is the mannequin locked up for seeking election to the council. In
:50:46. > :50:49.a moment, we will be speaking to the mannequin's agent, but to
:50:49. > :50:58.explain the story, here is Kevin Keane.
:50:58. > :51:03.Cleared of electoral corruption,... It was a nomination which was to
:51:03. > :51:10.land her in court. This is Helena Torry, a shop dummy who was to
:51:10. > :51:16.stand as a councillor. No win in the election, but now a victory in
:51:16. > :51:22.court. I feel vindicated anyway, it has been stressful at times, but I
:51:22. > :51:26.never felt guilty, so I was not as stressed as maybe I could have been.
:51:26. > :51:29.At one point during the proceedings, the mannequin was produced as
:51:29. > :51:33.evidence, wheeled into the courtroom by the clerk, still
:51:33. > :51:40.wearing the red hat, long coat and scarf, and bearing a placard with
:51:40. > :51:43.the words, support Helena Torry, the voice of the silent majority.
:51:43. > :51:47.Two police officers were asked to identify it. The name never made it
:51:47. > :51:50.onto the ballot paper, but it was published on the initial list of
:51:50. > :51:55.candidates. The returning officer said he received information the
:51:55. > :52:01.next day about Helena Torry and contacted the police. He maintains
:52:01. > :52:06.this was the right action. I am absolutely certain of that, and the
:52:06. > :52:10.situation arose again, I would do the same thing. In April last year,
:52:10. > :52:14.Rene Slater was interviewed and charged. Afterwards, she brought
:52:14. > :52:20.police to this cafe in Aberdeen city centre, where the mannequin
:52:20. > :52:24.was being scored. It was handed over to officers and taken away in
:52:24. > :52:28.a policeman. Right now she is still behind bars but expected to be
:52:28. > :52:32.reunited with their agent within weeks.
:52:32. > :52:35.We did try to get in touch with the returning case -- the returning
:52:35. > :52:40.officer who brought the case, but we have been surprisingly
:52:40. > :52:45.unsuccessful. But we are joined by the manic and's agent, Rene Slater,
:52:45. > :52:51.thank you for coming on to the Daily Politics. -- mannequin. Why
:52:51. > :52:56.did you put it up for election? There have been a lot of problems
:52:56. > :53:00.in Aberdeen in terms of lots of closures happening within things
:53:00. > :53:03.like mobility, people with mobility issues, people with learning
:53:03. > :53:07.difficulties. It was all disappearing to some extent because
:53:07. > :53:11.they have stopped ring-fencing it, but many of these people have no
:53:11. > :53:16.voices, so I thought it would be useful to bring in someone who had
:53:16. > :53:19.no voice to speak for the silent majority. The one not try to imply
:53:19. > :53:25.that the mannequin had more personality and character than some
:53:25. > :53:31.of the people standing for election. -- you were not. So you were trying
:53:31. > :53:38.to imply that! I understand they put you in jail for a while. Well,
:53:38. > :53:43.yes, I was in a police cell for six hours. They would not let me out
:53:43. > :53:51.until I handed in Helena Torry. It was a bit of a prisoner exchange.
:53:51. > :53:59.Let me get this right, Helena Torry is the name of the mannequin, and I
:53:59. > :54:04.think it is to do with Helen of Troy. It came from that
:54:04. > :54:13.amalgamation, but it is also a place within Aberdeen itself, an
:54:13. > :54:17.area of deprivation. Where I worked, I have done youth work for 30 years,
:54:17. > :54:25.they had programmes there for use projects, and they have all
:54:25. > :54:29.disappeared to some extent. -- use projects. It is about losing
:54:29. > :54:33.resources from local areas. there was a prisoner exchange, you
:54:33. > :54:39.were allowed out in return for the incarceration of the mannequin.
:54:39. > :54:42.That is correct. And is it still in jail? I am going to see if I can
:54:42. > :54:48.collector after three weeks. assumed the mannequin has not been
:54:48. > :54:55.maltreated. I do not think so. She is all over the place. She has not
:54:55. > :55:00.been waterboarded. She needs a change of clothes, I think.
:55:01. > :55:06.suspect she does. A final question, briefly, what do you think the
:55:06. > :55:10.political import of these will be? Well, I mean, it is difficult to
:55:10. > :55:16.tell, actually, what could happen in the future. She might get
:55:16. > :55:20.involved in the fight against the gardens being dug up. I think it is
:55:20. > :55:24.quite important to be involved in some local issues as well. She has
:55:24. > :55:31.a voice, even though she did not speak herself, she has a voice and
:55:31. > :55:38.charisma, and people enjoy a bit of humour after all. Give our best to
:55:38. > :55:42.the mannequin. Thank you very much, Andrew. We will organise a Daily
:55:42. > :55:45.Politics campaign to spring air, if it comes to that. Thank you for
:55:45. > :55:51.joining us. Now, it is hard to think of
:55:51. > :55:56.anything newsworthy that we have not covered today, not just the
:55:56. > :56:05.waterfront here. He is a round-up of the week's political news in 60
:56:05. > :56:09.Monday saw the eagerly awaited, well, awaited coalition review.
:56:09. > :56:12.David Cameron called it the Ronseal deal, it does what it says on the
:56:12. > :56:17.tin, but just before an audit of what the government has actually
:56:17. > :56:22.delivered and what it has not was published, it was Ed Miliband's
:56:23. > :56:26.turn to give him a coating. A PR man who cannot even do a relaunch!
:56:26. > :56:31.Meanwhile, the lesser spotted Miliband attacked the Government
:56:31. > :56:36.benefit cuts. This rancid Bill is not about affordability. Then Lords
:56:36. > :56:41.were leaving, not Strathclyde and Lord Marland leaving frontline
:56:41. > :56:46.politics. Apparently Lord Strathclyde found the Lib Dems too
:56:46. > :56:52.much to bear. Still, he did resist the temptation to call me, as he
:56:52. > :56:58.launched a radio phone-in on LBC. Have you ever worn a onesie? I was
:56:58. > :57:08.given one. So now you know. And as you might say, see you same time,
:57:08. > :57:11.
:57:11. > :57:14.Right, this business about benefits for pensioners, taking it away from
:57:14. > :57:18.the better-off pensioners. Nothing is going to happen this side of the
:57:18. > :57:23.election, but as the election approaches, is it back on the
:57:23. > :57:29.agenda? You can make an economic case, a social case, a political
:57:29. > :57:34.case. We are all in it together, surely. I am just saying that I
:57:34. > :57:41.think it would be very difficult. I can understand the public policy
:57:41. > :57:46.argument, but it is not the vote. It sounds like could use an
:57:46. > :57:50.Aberdeen word, you are at the end. He made that promise in the first
:57:50. > :57:54.place because of the votes. He was bounced into the Labour campaign,
:57:54. > :57:59.which was very effective. Keep your eye on that subject. Before we go,
:57:59. > :58:04.the answer to the quiz. Which member of the Government was
:58:04. > :58:14.allegedly involved in throwing the police minister Damian Green of a
:58:14. > :58:14.
:58:14. > :58:19.bridge in Oxford during their All of them responsible for up
:58:19. > :58:24.holding the law! I think it was Dominic Grieve. I know it was.
:58:24. > :58:31.did he do it? They had some sort of argument over the presidency of the
:58:31. > :58:36.Union. I have forgotten! Nothing to do with the Bullingdon Club. All
:58:36. > :58:41.right! So it was Dominic Grieve, the police will be knocking on your
:58:41. > :58:48.door, Attorney-General! Thank you to all my guests. The news is