:00:45. > :00:49.Afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Today it is all about the
:00:49. > :00:53.bells - wedding and division. Yes, it is the big day in the Commons,
:00:53. > :00:56.but will Dave's proposals for gay marriage lead to a divorce with his
:00:56. > :00:59.party? We will have the latest before tonight's vote.
:00:59. > :01:02.Farewell Chris Huhne. But will a coalition war break out over your
:01:02. > :01:06.seat? We will be looking ahead to the Eastleigh by-election.
:01:06. > :01:09.We'll meet one of the most powerful men in British politics. Recognise
:01:09. > :01:13.him? No? Then you had better stay tuned.
:01:13. > :01:19.And talking of powerful men. Who would have thought the bones of
:01:19. > :01:23.Richard III would cook up a political storm?
:01:23. > :01:29.All that in the next hour. With us for the duration is the Guardian
:01:29. > :01:32.columnist, Polly Toynbee. Welcome. Now, first today, let's talk about
:01:32. > :01:37.something that has been dubbed the bedroom tax, which isn't a tax at
:01:37. > :01:41.all. People in council homes with a spare room have been told they will
:01:41. > :01:44.have their housing benefit reduced unless they move to a smaller home.
:01:44. > :01:49.Yesterday, the Labour MP Kerry McCarthy raised the issue in the
:01:49. > :01:52.House of Commons. She was worried about what would happen to people
:01:52. > :01:56.who couldn't afford to stay in their homes but the Lib Dem
:01:56. > :02:01.Minister Don Foster said that Labour had supported a similar idea.
:02:01. > :02:05.The department's assessment says that more hundred -- more than
:02:05. > :02:10.660,000 claimants would be affected by these changes and it is
:02:10. > :02:14.ridiculous to assume they can find the money from their own pockets.
:02:14. > :02:20.They will be forced to lose their home. What assessment has been made
:02:20. > :02:24.of the availability of smaller accommodation? Want to be pushed
:02:24. > :02:30.into more expensive private accommodation? -- won't they be
:02:30. > :02:33.pushed? There are a very large number of properties that are
:02:33. > :02:38.currently under occupied and that will help enormously in a policy
:02:38. > :02:43.that is identical, are identical, to the one that was adopted by the
:02:43. > :02:47.label government in respect of housing benefit being paid in the
:02:47. > :02:53.private rented sector! We are taking the advice of the Labour
:02:53. > :03:01.Party who said a year ago, housing benefit is to hire and we need
:03:01. > :03:05.tough minded reform. -- housing benefit is too high a.
:03:05. > :03:09.Isn't this a fairly practical way to reduce it? The reason housing
:03:09. > :03:15.benefit is so high is because the value of housing has gone up so
:03:15. > :03:18.much, rent has gone up so much, and unless one government or Another
:03:18. > :03:24.find a way of pegging it to inflation at least, that will keep
:03:24. > :03:27.happening. One story from Hartlepool, one from Liverpool.
:03:27. > :03:32.Families whose children have recently died and were told they
:03:32. > :03:39.had to move because they have now got a spare bedroom. Not only do
:03:39. > :03:43.they lose their child but they have got to moves. Where to? There often
:03:43. > :03:47.are not smaller council properties available so they are told they had
:03:47. > :03:53.got to go but without being given the place they can go to. There
:03:53. > :03:57.will always be these tragic cases when you design legislation. There
:03:57. > :04:01.will be deserving people who lose out. But in terms of what changes
:04:01. > :04:06.could be made to bring down the bill of housing benefit, isn't this
:04:06. > :04:11.a fairly easy way of freeing up some living space if there spare
:04:11. > :04:14.rooms are not being used? A lot of those people will have to go into
:04:14. > :04:19.temporary accommodation and bed- and-breakfasts, which will cost the
:04:20. > :04:25.earth. The councils have no discretion. This is very rigid. The
:04:25. > :04:29.council cannot say, we do not have any one-bedroom property, you are
:04:29. > :04:34.in a two-bedroom property with your child, and they do not have the
:04:34. > :04:38.discretion to say, so we will leave things as they are. Often, absurdly,
:04:38. > :04:42.councils will end up picking up the bill for trying to temporarily
:04:43. > :04:47.house these people who have been thrown out. But to call it a
:04:47. > :04:50.bedroom tax is to imply something different to what is suggested,
:04:50. > :05:00.which is a way of reducing the amount of housing benefit paid to
:05:00. > :05:01.
:05:01. > :05:04.people? It is a shorthand. The with political implications. If one of
:05:04. > :05:08.your children go to university and may be coming back in the holiday,
:05:08. > :05:14.suddenly you are told you cannot be in a two-bedroom place any more,
:05:14. > :05:17.your student has gone. We all know students don't go! They come back
:05:17. > :05:22.home. And David Cameron is proposing they come back home until
:05:22. > :05:25.they are 25, but their bedroom will not be there because while they are
:05:25. > :05:29.at university, it will have been gone.
:05:29. > :05:33.You can hardly have failed to notice that there has been a bit of
:05:33. > :05:36.a barney going on about gay marriage. David Cameron raised the
:05:36. > :05:39.issue when he spoke about it at the Conservative Party conference in
:05:39. > :05:43.2011. But despite getting warm applause at the time, it by no
:05:43. > :05:46.means pleased everyone in his party. The argument has been going on for
:05:46. > :05:49.months but so far MPs haven't actually voted on anything. Today
:05:49. > :05:53.that changes with the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex
:05:53. > :05:57.Couples) Bill. Jon Pienaar is out on College Green and he can tell us
:05:57. > :06:01.more. This piece of legislation
:06:01. > :06:05.essentially is going to open up the practice of civil registry
:06:05. > :06:10.operations carrying out full- fledged weddings between same-sex
:06:10. > :06:13.couples. They will be recognised and recorded as weddings. That is
:06:13. > :06:18.the largest change that will take place when this piece of
:06:18. > :06:22.legislation becomes law. The most controversial bit as you suggested
:06:23. > :06:28.is where churches get involved. Because of the status of the Church
:06:28. > :06:32.of England, as the established Church, the Church of England,
:06:32. > :06:38.which has stated its opposition, is specifically excluded. The Catholic
:06:38. > :06:44.Church has made its use known. No church will be forced to take part.
:06:44. > :06:47.-- made its opinions known. It is still enormously complicated
:06:47. > :06:52.ethically and particularly so for David Cameron and the Tories.
:06:52. > :06:57.It has caused a lot of political argument.
:06:57. > :07:01.We expect the government to win. David Cameron will have a majority
:07:01. > :07:06.because Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be with him. There
:07:07. > :07:11.will be an enormous split on the Tory side, 120 MPs are clearly
:07:11. > :07:18.against this. They will be outnumbered. David Cameron will get
:07:18. > :07:24.his way. Whether or not this is David Cameron's way of showing how
:07:24. > :07:29.far the Tory party has changed or if he believes it, but others say
:07:29. > :07:33.there could be a price to pay for David Cameron. That is part of a
:07:33. > :07:38.wider debate -- debate. We know three senior Cabinet
:07:38. > :07:44.members, Tories, have made an appeal to their party today in the
:07:44. > :07:47.leading papers. That could make a difference. There
:07:47. > :07:52.are people who do not feel very strongly one way or another who
:07:52. > :07:57.could be influenced and they could be swayed by this intervention by
:07:57. > :08:02.senior ministers. But so many have pretty clear ideas about this. It
:08:02. > :08:06.will not have a massive effect but we know there will be a big, big
:08:07. > :08:12.division on the vote at 7pm this evening. It is a free vote, people
:08:12. > :08:16.are free to vote with their consciences. It could feel to David
:08:16. > :08:23.Cameron as if he has been given a bit of a pasting.
:08:24. > :08:26.Well done despite that background helicopter noise there.
:08:27. > :08:29.And we are joined now by the director of the gay-rights campaign
:08:29. > :08:33.group, Stonewall, Ben Summerskill. And from Catholic Voices, Fiona
:08:33. > :08:39.O'Reilly. The bill gives religious organisations the chance to opt out
:08:39. > :08:42.but they have been the most vocal opponents. Why? While the
:08:42. > :08:46.government is not trying to redefine religious marriage it is
:08:46. > :08:50.looking to change civil marriage and that affects all of us in
:08:50. > :08:54.society. The church is speaking out because they see the grave risks
:08:54. > :08:59.that this brings. They see the risks coming from two different
:08:59. > :09:03.places. They are looking at what happens when we changed a
:09:03. > :09:07.fundamental building block of our society, marriage. If you change
:09:07. > :09:11.the definition of marriage, you effectively removes from law the
:09:11. > :09:15.ability to protect marriage defined in that way. The Church says
:09:15. > :09:20.marriage is good for children and if you take out of law the ability
:09:20. > :09:26.to recognise and protect the fact that it is only between husband and
:09:26. > :09:35.wife that new life can come and be given its best start, you we can
:09:35. > :09:40.society as a whole. -- you then we can society. Stonewall have never
:09:40. > :09:44.regarded ourselves as a gay rights group. The reason I say that is
:09:44. > :09:49.because all we have ever sought is exactly the same rights that
:09:49. > :09:54.everyone else takes for granted from the day they were born. The
:09:54. > :10:00.reality is, they are already tens of thousands of children in this
:10:00. > :10:07.country who are grubbing up with lesbian or gay parents -- there are
:10:07. > :10:11.already. Growing up with lesbian or gay parents. Fiona may not agree
:10:11. > :10:18.with that but that children are entitled to grow up without
:10:18. > :10:25.structure. There is no evidence that children who grow up but two
:10:26. > :10:32.mums and dads N-Dubz any different from any other children to -- end
:10:32. > :10:37.up any different. We do not know what the impact are because this is
:10:37. > :10:41.a recent change, but same-sex couples and those who are adopting
:10:41. > :10:45.children are doing a splendid job in difficult circumstances. However,
:10:45. > :10:50.the Data says that if you want to give a job the best start in life,
:10:50. > :10:54.and this is not to be disrespectful of other arrangements, then you do
:10:54. > :10:59.so by allowing children to be raised by their biological mother
:10:59. > :11:03.and father in a stable and committed relationship. If this
:11:03. > :11:08.legislation was truly looking to make marriage available to same-sex
:11:08. > :11:13.couples on a completely equal basis, then you would have to wonder why
:11:13. > :11:17.same-sex couples do not have to consummate the relationship? Where
:11:17. > :11:23.a dog Tree for same-sex couples will not be grounds for divorce --
:11:23. > :11:26.why adultery of for same-sex couples? I think you have
:11:26. > :11:31.misunderstood the legislation. There is unreasonable behaviour in
:11:31. > :11:34.terms of adultery. There is very little evidence that that has
:11:34. > :11:39.presented any difficulty in the seven years we have had civil
:11:39. > :11:43.partnerships. I do appreciate that some people, particularly in the
:11:43. > :11:49.Roman Catholic Church, do like to get obsessed with the sexual
:11:49. > :11:55.details of consummation but gay people are not quite as obsessed
:11:55. > :11:59.with sex as you might be yourself. Can you respond to the point about
:11:59. > :12:05.to make better parents? You seem to cite evidence that gay couples
:12:05. > :12:10.could not be as effective? There is absolutely clear evidence now, and
:12:10. > :12:14.there used to be a lot of bogus evidence to the contrary, there is
:12:14. > :12:22.clear evidence from places like the University of Cambridge that
:12:22. > :12:26.children do not grow up develop mentally different from others.
:12:26. > :12:31.There are 3 million children in this country growing up in single-
:12:31. > :12:35.parent households. If they really cared about two-parent families,
:12:35. > :12:39.they would be addressing those long before they turned their attention
:12:39. > :12:44.time and time and time again to a tiny number of lesbian and gay
:12:44. > :12:48.families. We are not talking about the individual experiences of
:12:48. > :12:53.couples, we are talking about how an institution is defined in law
:12:53. > :12:57.and what we can provide for, and what we are saying is that it is
:12:57. > :13:03.important that in law we are able to recognise a unit, a husband and
:13:03. > :13:09.wife, and be able to provide for that and for other relationships.
:13:09. > :13:14.For centuries, marriage has quite properly been redefined as people's
:13:14. > :13:18.understanding of the changes. Only 20 years ago, rape in marriage was
:13:18. > :13:24.made an awful. It is only 15 years ago that people could start getting
:13:24. > :13:30.married in stately homes and amusement parks. Can I go to the
:13:30. > :13:34.issue of the redefinition of marriage. I think most outsiders
:13:35. > :13:40.are a bit puzzled by this because it is just a word. The legal status
:13:40. > :13:44.of being a civil partner, nothing changes about that. They have all
:13:44. > :13:47.the same legal rights, tax rights inheritance rights, so the argument
:13:47. > :13:52.is literally about whether one group of people should be allowed
:13:52. > :13:58.to use the word marriage. It has no other legal meaning. Most people
:13:58. > :14:05.are saying, the stable door has long shut. The course has gone. We
:14:05. > :14:10.have gay rights. -- do horse. We have many gay couples with children.
:14:10. > :14:14.All you are left with is the empty word. You can fight over that but I
:14:14. > :14:18.think by now the rest of society has moved on and are a bit
:14:18. > :14:24.perplexed by it. What about religious organisations? The
:14:24. > :14:29.provisions that will protect the Church of England for example. Do
:14:29. > :14:32.you think they should be protected. It seems to be idiotic and sad that
:14:32. > :14:36.we have a new Archbishop of Canterbury who could be starting
:14:36. > :14:41.again, saying, this is distracting people from what we are really
:14:41. > :14:47.about, and it pushes the church back to talking about nothing but
:14:47. > :14:52.sex. Michael goes's own department has said, safeguards are not worth
:14:52. > :14:57.the paper they are we to none -- Michael Gove. Basically because
:14:57. > :15:01.what they do is they say the government will take no action
:15:01. > :15:06.unless there is discrimination, and discrimination is a highly
:15:06. > :15:09.contested topic, and the European Court of Human Rights would be the
:15:09. > :15:14.Court of Appeal for anything that happens in this country, and last
:15:14. > :15:18.year they said if a government introduces same-sex legislation,
:15:18. > :15:22.they would have to make marriage available to everybody on exactly
:15:22. > :15:32.the same basis once that is in place and that would also affect
:15:32. > :15:39.
:15:39. > :15:45.The European Court has made it quite clear that family matters are
:15:45. > :15:50.delegated to individual states. Most hopefully, Fiona's
:15:50. > :15:55.organisation produced a briefing last year which said precisely that.
:15:55. > :16:01.And that briefing was before a particular case, which proved that
:16:01. > :16:05.actually, the courts have moved on. We have to take regard of
:16:05. > :16:11.legislation. The other thing people have to look at is, what has
:16:11. > :16:19.happened in Canada, Spain and other countries. And what you see is, you
:16:19. > :16:26.see divorce rates rising, and... This is a nonsense. The Government
:16:26. > :16:31.has offered this quadruple lock... It has offered it to denominations
:16:31. > :16:35.such as the Roman Catholics, who do not want to engage in same-sex
:16:35. > :16:40.marriage. But there is also the really important issue of religious
:16:40. > :16:45.freedom. There are denominations success the quitters, who have
:16:45. > :16:50.prayed, who have consulted a decided that they want to host
:16:50. > :16:54.same-sex marriages. It is not for a denominations such as your own to
:16:54. > :16:58.come and trample over the religious freedom of other denominations.
:16:58. > :17:01.This is not about the Catholic Church imposing its own
:17:01. > :17:07.understanding of religious marriage. The Government is changing the
:17:07. > :17:12.definition of civil marriage, which affects all of us. Two Conservative
:17:12. > :17:19.MPs whose views are not married on this issue are in the central lobby.
:17:19. > :17:21.Welcome to the programme, Peter Bone and Nick Herbert. This letter,
:17:21. > :17:25.signed by George Osborne and Theresa May, saying that a
:17:25. > :17:30.substantial majority of the public now favour allowing same-sex
:17:30. > :17:34.couples to marry, this is the right thing to do at the right time - do
:17:34. > :17:39.you agree with it? It is a very interesting argument. What it says
:17:39. > :17:42.is that people think this is a good measure. I do not think that my
:17:42. > :17:47.view or anybody else's you really matters, it is what the people
:17:47. > :17:52.think. This is not in anybody's manifesto. Nobody has put this
:17:52. > :17:59.forward as a policy. Let the people decide. It will unite the
:17:59. > :18:03.Conservative Party overnight, like the European referendum dead. --
:18:03. > :18:07.did. What I am concerned about is the people on the other side of the
:18:07. > :18:11.argument, who do not want that referendum, which I think is anti-
:18:11. > :18:16.democratic. This kind of issue is usually decided with legislation. I
:18:16. > :18:22.do not object to the principles of a referendum, but since all of the
:18:22. > :18:30.a pendant -- independent opinion polls are suggesting that a
:18:30. > :18:37.majority of the public is in favour of this, then... You have no need
:18:37. > :18:42.to worry about a referendum, then. We cannot sort every issue out with
:18:42. > :18:47.a referendum. Normally, Parliament takes a view on these issues.
:18:47. > :18:52.Normally it is a manifesto issue. David Cameron has always made his
:18:52. > :18:56.position clear on this - in his first speech as party leader at the
:18:56. > :19:00.party conference, he spoke about this and won applause, which
:19:00. > :19:07.reflects the fact that attitudes are changing in the Conservative
:19:07. > :19:12.Party as elsewhere. This is very important - three days before the
:19:12. > :19:16.general election, on Sky Television, the Prime Minister to be said he
:19:16. > :19:20.had no plans to bring in gay marriage. That's what he said,
:19:20. > :19:24.that's how people voted, and that is why what Nick Herbert has said
:19:25. > :19:28.it is not correct. It was not in the party manifesto at the general
:19:28. > :19:32.election, and the Prime Minister to be said he would not be introducing
:19:32. > :19:37.gay marriage. The change has happened after the election, which
:19:37. > :19:44.is undemocratic. But you're getting a free vote, which is quite often...
:19:44. > :19:47.It is not. You know very well that on this motion, the most important
:19:47. > :19:52.section of what we are going to vote on today, there is a heavy
:19:52. > :19:58.three-line whip, and any minister who votes against it will be thrown
:19:58. > :20:03.out of the government. It is not a free vote. Well, it is certainly a
:20:03. > :20:08.free vote on the key issue, the issue of principle - do you support
:20:08. > :20:12.it or not? We know that some ministers will not support it, so I
:20:12. > :20:15.think that indicates that it is a free vote. That having been
:20:15. > :20:20.established, and I think the majority of the House of Commons
:20:20. > :20:25.will support it, the Government is perfectly entitled to say, we need
:20:25. > :20:29.sufficient time to debate it. It will have two days of consideration
:20:29. > :20:35.of the floor of the House of Commons, which is additional to
:20:35. > :20:39.what had been expected. We have heard an awful lot of use being
:20:40. > :20:44.presented on this issue - do you dismissed the view which has been
:20:44. > :20:51.expressed by some in your party that it could actually damage the
:20:51. > :20:55.Conservative Party electorally? do not dismiss any views. Firstly,
:20:55. > :21:02.we have got the political issues, and I disagree that it will be
:21:02. > :21:07.damaging to the Conservative Party. I don't think there is any evidence
:21:07. > :21:11.to suggest that. Any party has to Mount a broad appeal to society.
:21:11. > :21:15.The most important issue is actually the issue of principle,
:21:15. > :21:18.and I respect the fact that some people in conscience disagree. We
:21:18. > :21:23.must make sure that religious freedom is guaranteed in the
:21:23. > :21:27.legislation. I believe it has been. I would not support the bill
:21:27. > :21:31.otherwise. But let's remember, if you do not want to enter a same-sex
:21:31. > :21:40.marriage, you do not have to. If your church does not want to
:21:40. > :21:46.conduct it, it does not have to. So, why is this proposal harmful? Why
:21:46. > :21:51.is it harmful to the institution of marriage? I would say, far from it.
:21:51. > :21:55.Peter Bone, that's the view which was expressed by David Cameron -
:21:55. > :22:00.you are a conservative, let everyone be able to opt into the
:22:00. > :22:04.institution of marriage, in which you believe... I personally believe
:22:04. > :22:09.that marriage is only between a man and woman. That is not to say that
:22:09. > :22:17.my view or David Cameron's view is right. That is why I say that it
:22:17. > :22:22.should be put to the British people. The programme motion is not a free
:22:22. > :22:25.vote, and that is really the problem. Today will be -- we will
:22:25. > :22:29.be allowed a maximum of four minutes to discuss this. There has
:22:29. > :22:34.not been enough time. The Government is trying to get this
:22:34. > :22:38.through, this huge constitutional change, without proper scrutiny. It
:22:38. > :22:42.is really, really wrong. It is a simple answer - let the British
:22:42. > :22:50.people decide. Why not have it on the same day as the in-out
:22:50. > :22:54.referendum on Europe? Briefly, Polly Toynbee, listening to this,
:22:54. > :22:59.out in the country, there could be a feeling that the Tory party is to
:22:59. > :23:04.some extent tearing itself apart over this, but once it is done and
:23:04. > :23:08.it is over, and if it does go through, will it not be forgotten
:23:08. > :23:13.about? I think the issue itself will be forgotten by tomorrow
:23:13. > :23:17.morning. I think it is so irrelevant. People are absolutely
:23:17. > :23:21.puzzled - how is it that a party in power, in the worst depression of
:23:22. > :23:26.our lifetime, is wasting time on something most of the voters...
:23:26. > :23:34.What about fox-hunting? That was not in the middle of the worst of
:23:34. > :23:37.the Depression. I think what we'll -- what we will be left with is a
:23:37. > :23:42.sense of quite how disunited the Tories are. Europe is still
:23:42. > :23:46.bubbling away. There are all sorts of issues tearing them apart.
:23:46. > :23:51.That's to say nothing of these curious groups plotting against a
:23:51. > :23:54.leader who was really rather successful, outscoring the
:23:54. > :23:59.opposition by quite some way. Why on earth are they are plotting
:23:59. > :24:04.against him? These kinds of things are very toxic for voters. They do
:24:04. > :24:11.not like splits within parties. Unity is very important. Let's see
:24:11. > :24:16.what happens later on this evening. 7913 miles is quite a long way to
:24:16. > :24:20.go for a meeting, especially when the meeting gets cancelled. Two
:24:20. > :24:23.Falkland Island politicians were invited to London by William Hague
:24:23. > :24:27.to take part in discussions with him and Argentina's Foreign
:24:27. > :24:31.Minister. Their presence was not welcomed by the Argentinian
:24:32. > :24:39.politician, who pulled out. Undaunted, they have come anyway,
:24:39. > :24:43.and they are on College green. any way you slice it, 8,000 miles
:24:43. > :24:48.is a helluva long way to come for a meeting. Perhaps what it shows you
:24:48. > :24:51.is just what a sensitive issue this is for Argentina, and how difficult
:24:51. > :24:58.it will be to find a resolution for this dispute which keeps everybody
:24:58. > :25:02.happy. I am joined now by Dick Sawle and Jan Cheek from the
:25:03. > :25:07.Falklands Legislative Assembly. Has this not been a wasted journey?
:25:07. > :25:11.at all. We will be meeting with the Foreign Secretary, and with some
:25:11. > :25:15.MPs from Parliament. And hopefully, we will be able to speak to Senor
:25:15. > :25:19.Timerman himself. If we do not talk up, the problem will just get
:25:19. > :25:24.larger. Do you think he will come and see you somewhere at the
:25:24. > :25:30.airport perhaps, Jan Cheek? It is rather unlikely, but we thought we
:25:30. > :25:35.should take this opportunity to come across and make sure that the
:25:35. > :25:39.island's view was represented, and that any miss intervention --
:25:39. > :25:43.misinformation which might be put out could be corrected promptly.
:25:43. > :25:46.you not feel a bit used by the Foreign Office, in some respects?
:25:46. > :25:51.It was fairly unlikely that the Argentinians would sit down with
:25:51. > :25:57.you guys. Have you been used in some way to head up a meeting which
:25:57. > :26:00.was never going to happen? I don't think so. It was very clear that if
:26:00. > :26:04.Argentina wanted to have a bilateral conversation with Great
:26:04. > :26:07.Britain, they would be quite free to do that, on any issue, apart
:26:07. > :26:10.from the Falkland Islands. They have made it clear that they do not
:26:10. > :26:15.wish to have any conversations about the Falkland Islands over the
:26:15. > :26:19.top of our heads. It is fundamental, we have the right of self-
:26:19. > :26:22.determination. The British Government respect that. I am
:26:22. > :26:27.sensing from what you say that you have got the referendum coming up
:26:27. > :26:30.next month, and the chances of you voting to go with Argentina are
:26:30. > :26:36.pretty unlikely. Just to play devil's advocate, what would be so
:26:36. > :26:41.wrong with that, planners are Reyes is closer than London? I don't
:26:41. > :26:46.think geographical Brum meet City - - geographical proximity is the
:26:47. > :26:50.issue. It is about the Falkland Islanders and what they want.
:26:51. > :26:55.you were sitting down with Hector Timerman, what would you be saying
:26:55. > :26:59.to him? I would be saying, let's talk. We have some issues we would
:26:59. > :27:03.like to talk about, areas where be can co-operate to mutual benefit.
:27:03. > :27:07.We have the oil industry, opportunities for South America, we
:27:07. > :27:12.have problems with fish stocks, which we used to talk to them about.
:27:12. > :27:18.We used to have regular dialogue with them and regular research.
:27:18. > :27:22.there any way of resolving this to everyone's satisfaction? I think it
:27:22. > :27:28.will be difficult with the current stance of the Argentine government,
:27:28. > :27:33.but we are always open to talk about regional interests. I would
:27:33. > :27:36.agree with that. Also, one has to bear in mind that governments to
:27:36. > :27:46.change. We might have a government in Argentina some time soon which
:27:46. > :27:46.
:27:46. > :27:52.we can talk to. I think the Chancellor -- the chances of the
:27:52. > :27:56.Chancellor giving these two a lift back to South America are slim.
:27:56. > :27:59.Last week we heard the Electoral Commission's verdict on the
:27:59. > :28:03.proposed Scottish referendum question. This week, preparations
:28:03. > :28:06.north of the border are gathering pace, with the Scottish Government
:28:06. > :28:11.publishing plans for a transition to an independent Scotland. The
:28:11. > :28:15.referendum has been scheduled for autumn 2014. Under the plans, if
:28:15. > :28:20.the Scottish people vote yes, Independence Day would be set for
:28:20. > :28:23.March 2016. Elections to a new independent Scottish Parliament
:28:23. > :28:27.would take place in May of that year. Before these elections could
:28:27. > :28:31.be held, a written constitution would have to be drawn up. The
:28:31. > :28:35.Westminster government would have to legislate to end the Treaty of
:28:35. > :28:38.Union. The Scottish Government is asking the Westminster Government
:28:38. > :28:48.to end to intro preparatory discussions about this. But David
:28:48. > :28:51.Cameron is resisting. -- to enter into... One might suggest you're
:28:51. > :29:00.jumping the gun a bit with this document. The referendum campaign
:29:00. > :29:04.has only just started... Not at all. The last time on -- the last time I
:29:04. > :29:06.was on a Daily Politics, you were asking if we would act on the
:29:06. > :29:10.recommendations of the Electoral Commission, and that is exactly
:29:10. > :29:17.what we are doing. It is now for the UK Government to respond and
:29:17. > :29:20.tell us how they would sit down and discuss matters of process. We are
:29:20. > :29:24.asking for an exchange of information. We are not asking for
:29:24. > :29:31.the UK Government to campaign for a yes vote, that might be too or
:29:31. > :29:35.ambitious. It is certainly a comprehensive document, given we
:29:35. > :29:38.have not even got a precise date for the referendum itself yet. You
:29:38. > :29:41.say you want to follow the advice of the Electoral Commission, but
:29:41. > :29:45.they have said that the voters will want to know about the process
:29:45. > :29:48.following the referendum, but they do not need to know the exact terms
:29:48. > :29:53.of independence, neither do they have to be agreed before the vote,
:29:53. > :29:57.so why are you rushing? We are not rushing, we are taking our time.
:29:57. > :30:01.Not so long ago, we were told we were being too slow. I think we
:30:01. > :30:04.have got the balance right. We will publish information on what
:30:04. > :30:08.independence would mean, the benefits of independence, and those
:30:08. > :30:13.will be published over the course of the campaign. In the democratic
:30:13. > :30:20.vote, the people of Scotland will have their say in the autumn of
:30:20. > :30:24.2014. You could argue that you are becoming a bit obsessed with
:30:24. > :30:27.process. The Scottish Secretary has said, the Scottish Government
:30:27. > :30:34.should be concentrating on substantive issues in this debate,
:30:34. > :30:37.rather than endless distractions over process. They say, once again,
:30:37. > :30:47.they are devoting their energy to the picture frame, without having a
:30:47. > :30:53.
:30:54. > :30:59.You have still got to resolve the issue of financial assets and
:30:59. > :31:05.liabilities, military bases, overseas assets. Are they not the
:31:05. > :31:09.things people want to hear about in Scotland? People want a certainty
:31:09. > :31:14.around continuity. We are more than happy to talk about the substantive
:31:14. > :31:20.issues on Scottish independence, while Scotland would be a wealthier,
:31:20. > :31:24.healthier, fairer and green men nation? People have to know that
:31:24. > :31:27.the process will be fair and positive and the challenge I put
:31:27. > :31:33.back to the UK government is they can solve this in one day if they
:31:33. > :31:38.agree a joint station with us -- joint statement with us on matters
:31:38. > :31:44.of process? Well would you expect David Cameron and the government in
:31:44. > :31:48.Westminster have to agree to details of a constitution now when
:31:48. > :31:53.they are opposed to the idea of independence? We are not asking
:31:53. > :31:57.them to agree to the details of the written constitution. We are asking
:31:57. > :32:04.them to exchange Thatcher will information to show what options
:32:04. > :32:10.are available to Scotland -- exchange factor will informations.
:32:10. > :32:14.We should exchange that information so that there is be clear process
:32:14. > :32:19.on how opposed a referendum negotiations will be conducted. One
:32:19. > :32:24.of our challenges was that the process would be too quick. Since
:32:24. > :32:29.1945, of the 30 nations that have become independent and recognised
:32:29. > :32:33.by the UN, on average the timescale was 15 months, which just goes to
:32:33. > :32:39.show that the position of Scottish government had taken was in keeping
:32:39. > :32:44.with the experience of other normal and independent nations. One of the
:32:44. > :32:50.substantive issues in Scotland's status in terms of membership of
:32:50. > :32:53.the European Union. How are those discussions covering with the EU?
:32:53. > :32:57.The Deputy First Minister has written to the nations of the
:32:58. > :33:03.European Union. A new response? I am not sure what correspondence
:33:03. > :33:09.has been received. I think you would know. The Deputy First
:33:09. > :33:16.Minister has written to the nations within the European Union. Our
:33:16. > :33:20.position is that Scotland will stay in the EU on the vote in 2014 and
:33:20. > :33:25.will have that period to discuss with the European Union our
:33:25. > :33:30.position. It is curious that in the debate in the UK context, the
:33:30. > :33:34.question of whether Scotland will be in Europe is coloured by the
:33:34. > :33:41.position of the UK government, which the Tories are certainly
:33:41. > :33:45.proposing a referendum to take the UK out of Europe. Scotland would
:33:45. > :33:49.only have a say it will have been the powers of an independent nation.
:33:49. > :33:54.What do you make of the ideal setting out the terms of the
:33:54. > :33:59.transition explicitly at this stage? It is sensible. They want to
:33:59. > :34:03.make it seem practical and likely. The more they can discuss it in
:34:03. > :34:08.detail, the more realistic it seems. And that is why the government is
:34:08. > :34:12.worried and will not engage. Indeed and I understand. They do not want
:34:12. > :34:19.to talk about what will happen to pensions, defence, difficult
:34:19. > :34:25.subjects, but the SNP will have their answers to that. Will they
:34:25. > :34:28.bite the referendum date? They will have good enough answers. But
:34:29. > :34:34.others will say they are not good enough answers and the voters will
:34:34. > :34:37.decide. I think the big decisive issue will be, who looks as if they
:34:38. > :34:43.will win the Westminster election? If it looks as if the Conservatives
:34:43. > :34:47.might win again, I think Scotland might go off. If it looks as though
:34:47. > :34:52.the Conservatives are going to use, which it does at the moment, I
:34:52. > :34:56.think it will swing. Scotland is not a Conservative country. Being
:34:56. > :35:03.governed by Conservatives, it is an abrasive time to be having that
:35:03. > :35:06.referendum. Or write. -- a right. Tony thinks it is about time Ed
:35:06. > :35:10.announced a few ideas. But should they be New Labour, Old Labour,
:35:10. > :35:14.Blue Labour, purple? Or even just Ed's Labour? The Daily Politics has
:35:14. > :35:17.been given a rare interview with one figure in the party who is
:35:17. > :35:22.likely to have a big influence on their future direction of travel.
:35:22. > :35:27.But who is he? I will let David Thompson explain.
:35:27. > :35:32.Meet one of the most powerful men in British politics. He keeps a low
:35:32. > :35:36.profile but he might be setting the course of our next government. Ed
:35:36. > :35:40.Miliband certainly hopes so. He is the ideas man for the Labour Party.
:35:40. > :35:46.His job is to come up with the policies that will convince you to
:35:46. > :35:50.vote for Ed Miliband in the next election. But to his seat? He is a
:35:50. > :35:54.sailor's son who went to a comprehensive in Portsmouth, then
:35:54. > :35:58.academia before working for the Labour Party. He became the link
:35:58. > :36:02.between Number Ten and the unions in the first Tony Blair government.
:36:03. > :36:07.He ran unsuccessfully for deputy leadership in 2007. There are
:36:07. > :36:13.interesting, but where does Jon Cruddas begin with the day-job?
:36:13. > :36:18.Getting people to vote Labour again? Has Labour regain the trust
:36:18. > :36:22.of the voters? Not completely. We did not do enough on housing and we
:36:22. > :36:27.acknowledge that. There is a massive crisis in terms of social
:36:27. > :36:31.housing. We did not do enough on immigration. Ed Miliband is
:36:31. > :36:37.beginning to acknowledge that in terms of some of the recent
:36:37. > :36:42.speeches. We have got a lot to do. There were some negative things but
:36:42. > :36:46.our record was extraordinarily strong for 13 years. We have to
:36:46. > :36:50.acknowledge some of the problems but at the same time, owner our
:36:50. > :36:57.record and develop a policy agenda that goes along with people's
:36:57. > :37:02.concerns today. Labour might be ahead in the polls but their
:37:02. > :37:07.leader's personal ratings usually lag behind David Cameron's. You six
:37:08. > :37:13.that over time. I did not know Ed Miliband until I took the job --
:37:13. > :37:16.you fix that. I like what I see and the more I see of him, the more
:37:16. > :37:22.impressed I am. He is tough and resilient. He knows when he wants
:37:22. > :37:27.to take the party. It is not fully done in terms of projecting Ed
:37:27. > :37:31.Miliband but over time, I am very confident we will achieve this.
:37:32. > :37:38.editor where they have not seen eye to eye is on Europe. Jon Cruddas
:37:38. > :37:43.was in favour of a referendum. What does he think now? Until I formally
:37:43. > :37:49.took this job my position was fairly clear. Look, the party
:37:49. > :37:54.political position is that we do not see any need for it imminently.
:37:54. > :38:00.Because of the nature of the crisis in the eurozone. To spite holding
:38:00. > :38:04.the reins, Jon Cruddas's -- despite holding the reins, Jon Cruddas
:38:04. > :38:10.insists the policies will not be a shopping list of Labour ideas.
:38:10. > :38:14.the party put forward an agenda I would want, it would not win. That
:38:14. > :38:20.is not the exercise! The task is to build a process. Use the policy
:38:20. > :38:23.review to tell the story about where we want to take the country.
:38:23. > :38:28.Reform the party. Demonstrate it is across the concerns of the British
:38:28. > :38:32.people, and sell that at the time of the general election.
:38:32. > :38:37.Labour's battle plan may not bear too many of the fingerprints of its
:38:37. > :38:43.co-ordinator, which is exactly how Jon Cruddas likes it.
:38:43. > :38:48.We are joined now from the pollsters IPSOS MORI by Ben Page.
:38:48. > :38:52.Polly Toynbee, quite a candid admission from Jon Cruddas, looking
:38:52. > :38:58.after the policy review, that if he put forward his favoured agenda,
:38:58. > :39:04.the voters would never go for it. Is he the right man for the job?
:39:04. > :39:08.Absolutely. He is a great thinker. Not a nuts-and-bolts man. But of
:39:08. > :39:13.course he is right, Labour's dilemma, from the beginning when it
:39:13. > :39:18.was founded, is how far would it go? We would like to be more social
:39:18. > :39:21.democratic but we have to be careful to what extent. Spending of
:39:22. > :39:27.course is spending -- restricted and to what extent do we have to be
:39:27. > :39:31.careful about public opinion? To what extent should Ed Miliband be a
:39:31. > :39:36.strong leader? To what extent should you follow what his focus
:39:36. > :39:41.groups are telling him? He did not support Ed Miliband from the office.
:39:41. > :39:47.He was a David Miliband supporter. Can we be confident he really
:39:47. > :39:52.believes in Ed Miliband? I think he does. Jon Cruddas is alone us. He
:39:52. > :39:58.has been on his own. He has not been at the heart of things. People
:39:58. > :40:04.have tried to get him to run for leadership and things... He did not
:40:04. > :40:08.become deputy leader. The he is an academic and a thinker. He is a
:40:08. > :40:12.kind of Oliver Letwin figure of Labour. Do you want to hear the
:40:12. > :40:17.policy ideas now? Looking at the economy, which we know is the issue
:40:17. > :40:22.that concerns everyone, do we need to hear a strong narrative on the
:40:22. > :40:28.economy from Labour now? necessarily to be honest. I still
:40:28. > :40:32.think it is true that government tends to lose elections. People
:40:32. > :40:36.cast their votes on three things. Their views of the party, their
:40:36. > :40:42.views of the policies and their views of the leader. The policies
:40:42. > :40:47.are only one part of it. Their gut feeling about the state of the
:40:47. > :40:51.party also matters and increasingly, with leadership debates, the leader
:40:51. > :40:55.themselves matter. At the last general election, people were
:40:56. > :41:00.voting on the character of their leader just as much as the policies.
:41:00. > :41:04.As we get me with a time, the clamour in Westminster for policies
:41:04. > :41:08.and red meat of course will rise but at the moment, I would observe
:41:08. > :41:14.that Labour seem to be doing well by watching the Conservatives fall
:41:14. > :41:18.over their shoelaces. In terms of polling, if you think about the
:41:18. > :41:24.economy, no growth, rising inflation, squeezed living
:41:24. > :41:30.standards, and they are 10, at best 15 points ahead. You could argue
:41:30. > :41:33.they are not capitalising on it enough. Yes. It is true that before
:41:33. > :41:39.the 2010 election, there were points that the Conservatives, who
:41:39. > :41:43.did not win, were 22 points ahead on the same measure, so Labour are
:41:43. > :41:50.not in some place where it is cut and dried. But it is certainly
:41:50. > :41:54.better than it has been for them. In a way, Ed Miliband's ratings, he
:41:54. > :42:00.does less well against his party then David Cameron does against his,
:42:00. > :42:05.but he has recovered from a very low point at the end of 2011. He
:42:05. > :42:09.has regained his stature. Any talk of leadership challenges have
:42:09. > :42:15.evaporated. He has a bit more time. I would probably say he has another
:42:15. > :42:21.year, in my judgment personally. You have written recently that
:42:21. > :42:25.Labour should be more daring to seize ground from the Tories.
:42:25. > :42:30.look at the economy particularly, because that is what really matters.
:42:30. > :42:35.If they could produce a good growth and jobs policy. My guess is they
:42:35. > :42:40.will come up with something quite eye-catching like, we will build a
:42:40. > :42:43.million houses over one parliament. Still less than Howard Macmillan.
:42:43. > :42:47.We will have apprenticeships for the young, get the construction
:42:47. > :42:53.industry back again. That can be done and is perfectly reasonable
:42:53. > :42:57.within the fiscal envelope they will have. Investment and growth is
:42:57. > :43:02.what they will really go for. There will be lots of other policies.
:43:02. > :43:06.They will want to move around the spending within the same envelope.
:43:06. > :43:11.Alan Johnson said this this week, will Labour feel obliged to say we
:43:11. > :43:15.will freeze the total size of spending? Particularly as the
:43:15. > :43:19.Conservatives will have announced the spending for 2015. Do you
:43:19. > :43:23.accept that Labour has a problem with combating the central message
:43:23. > :43:28.of the coalition, which is, Labour spent too much and we are paying
:43:28. > :43:32.the price? Lot of people write in and say, we have had enough of
:43:32. > :43:35.blaming Labour. But there is an acceptance in the public that cuts
:43:35. > :43:40.have got to be made and Labour would not be prepared to do their
:43:40. > :43:45.dirty work. That is still a problem. The gap has narrowed a great deal
:43:45. > :43:50.on who is most competent but that is still a problem.
:43:50. > :43:53.Conservatives retain the lead on the economy. Labour is still more
:43:53. > :44:00.likely to be blamed in the coalition government for the cuts,
:44:00. > :44:05.although that is diminishing. But they have to acknowledge that there
:44:05. > :44:09.are challenges. It is a difficult place for them but it is slowly
:44:09. > :44:15.shifting. Whether it will shift enough... It still could be like
:44:15. > :44:21.1992. At the last minute, do you trust that Ed Balls character?
:44:21. > :44:24.is one of the issues. Very briefly. Is the message from Labour on
:44:24. > :44:30.welfare too vague for the public? We broadly support the idea of a
:44:30. > :44:35.benefits cap but not the one put forward by the coalition? Is it is
:44:35. > :44:40.a bit too vague. The cuts to welfare so far, and there are lots
:44:40. > :44:46.going through the mill at the moment in terms of reforms and
:44:46. > :44:50.Universal Credit and the NHS, it is only when voters see the impact on
:44:50. > :44:57.the ground they will determine it, but people assume that Labour are
:44:57. > :44:59.not quite as keen on cuts as the true Rees. -- the Tories.
:44:59. > :45:03.Now the resignation of Chris Huhne yesterday over driving related
:45:03. > :45:06.offences means the people of Eastleigh need to find a new MP.
:45:06. > :45:09.The last time they went to the polls in 2010, the Liberal
:45:09. > :45:12.Democrats pipped the Tories to the post with a majority of just under
:45:12. > :45:15.4,000. This morning the big political guns have come out
:45:15. > :45:18.blazing ahead of the by-election. Lembit Opik announced that if the
:45:18. > :45:22.party lost the seat, then Nick Clegg should consider his position.
:45:22. > :45:32.So could it be a coalition blood- bath? We are joined now by John
:45:32. > :45:35.
:45:35. > :45:41.Curtice, professor of politics at Almost undoubtedly, it is going to
:45:41. > :45:45.be tight. Given the record in by- elections, if the result were to
:45:45. > :45:54.follow current opinion polls, then the Conservatives would narrowly
:45:54. > :45:58.squeaked in. If, on the other hand, it goes the way of recent
:45:58. > :46:08.parliamentary by-elections, at the back end of last year, the Lib Dems
:46:08. > :46:10.
:46:10. > :46:14.would still sneak in. So, in truth, it is too close to call. The most
:46:15. > :46:21.remarkable thing about this by- election, yes, the two coalition
:46:21. > :46:26.partners will be fighting it, but in truth, it is an unpopularity
:46:26. > :46:30.contest, it is whichever of the two parties can lose the least votes.
:46:30. > :46:39.Whichever one can minimise deaden losses to Labour will come out on
:46:39. > :46:43.top. The Tories, of course, are going to have to try to minimise
:46:43. > :46:49.their losses to UKIP as well. Both parties know that it is a difficult
:46:49. > :46:53.task. In recent weeks we have seen David Cameron making a major speech
:46:53. > :46:57.to try to minimise the threat of UKIP, which has not had a great
:46:57. > :47:01.impact. Equally we had Nick Clegg last year making his famous YouTube
:47:02. > :47:07.hit, apologising for those tuition fees fiasco, and that did not do
:47:07. > :47:14.much good, either. You did that very well, without drawing breath,
:47:14. > :47:20.answering all of my questions! Thank you very much. Joining us now,
:47:20. > :47:25.Paul Goodman, from Conservative Home - will Eastleigh have a big
:47:25. > :47:29.effect on David Cameron's leadership? It is a burden on all
:47:29. > :47:33.four parties contesting it. If David Cameron cannot win in
:47:33. > :47:37.Eastleigh, in Hampshire, then the question will be asked, how can he
:47:37. > :47:42.win anywhere? But on the other hand, if the Liberal Democrats cannot win
:47:42. > :47:52.a seat in an area where they are the overwhelming force on the local
:47:52. > :47:52.
:47:52. > :47:59.council, then where will they win? John seem to imply that everybody
:47:59. > :48:05.will lose, but somebody is bound to win. If we look at 1992, the last
:48:05. > :48:08.time the Conservatives had a majority nationally, they had an
:48:08. > :48:15.18,000 Conservative majority in Eastleigh. They have not been able
:48:15. > :48:22.to win the seat since then. In 1997, in the general election, when Chris
:48:22. > :48:25.Huhne became MP, the Lib Dem majority was just 600-700. So it is
:48:25. > :48:29.generally a Lib Dem-Conservative marginal seat. The only thing which
:48:29. > :48:38.is clear is that Labour are well out of it, as confirmed by the
:48:38. > :48:46.bookmakers yesterday. Will it be a verdict on Nick Clegg? Salmon so.
:48:46. > :48:50.By-elections move on very quickly. -- I don't think so. You say that,
:48:50. > :48:54.but one suspects that this by- election will be conducted in the
:48:54. > :49:00.glare of tribal conflict. Both sets of backbenchers want to get at each
:49:00. > :49:04.other. Coalitions are more common in other European countries, where
:49:04. > :49:08.they are more used to the idea that people will agree on some things,
:49:08. > :49:12.disagree and others, and stand against each other in by-elections.
:49:12. > :49:21.People understand that. But if you read the papers, that is not the
:49:21. > :49:24.way it is being characterised. think the backbenchers and some of
:49:24. > :49:29.the front benchers in both of the main parties will be keen to get
:49:29. > :49:32.stuck in. I doubt if David Cameron and Nick Clegg will be so keen, for
:49:32. > :49:36.reasons which have just been put forward. But at the end of the day,
:49:37. > :49:41.I come back to the point that by- elections are nearly always a
:49:41. > :49:45.protest against the government. But the problem here is that there are
:49:45. > :49:49.two parties in government, and the third party in this seat, Labour,
:49:49. > :49:54.are very weak. What about the feeling that Chris Huhne has let
:49:54. > :49:59.people down there, is this something which will help the
:49:59. > :50:03.Conservatives? I come back to the big Lib Dems strength on the local
:50:03. > :50:08.council. One idea going around about the general election is that
:50:09. > :50:12.the Lib Dems will do badly where they have not got an incumbent MP
:50:12. > :50:15.who works very hard, but that they will do better in seats where they
:50:15. > :50:19.have got a strong presence. And they have a big presence in
:50:20. > :50:25.Eastleigh. So, it is a test for them, as well as for David Cameron.
:50:25. > :50:28.Where would you put your money? think it is too close to call. It
:50:28. > :50:32.is a personal situation about what they think about Chris Huhne. On
:50:32. > :50:36.the other hand, the Lib Dems are very good at holding on to seats
:50:36. > :50:43.which they have had for some time. Labour is in the comfortable
:50:43. > :50:47.position of sitting back. Of course, you have said, Labour voters will
:50:47. > :50:51.know that they have not got a chance, and so Lib Dems will be
:50:51. > :50:56.bidding to get the tactical vote from Labour. Will Labour voters in
:50:56. > :51:02.these kind of seats still give their vote to the Lib Dems? It is a
:51:02. > :51:05.tricky one. In seats like this, at the general election, Labour will
:51:05. > :51:15.not want the Conservatives to be picking up all of the seats lost by
:51:15. > :51:17.
:51:17. > :51:24.the Lib Dems. What I said was, it is a question of whether they will
:51:24. > :51:28.or not, we do not know. There is an issue for Ed Miliband. What Polly
:51:28. > :51:35.Toynbee said was right. In these kind of seats, Labour will want to
:51:35. > :51:39.see the voters going for the Lib Dems. However, another argument is
:51:39. > :51:46.that if Miliband cannot get Lib Dem voters to vote Labour, what chance
:51:46. > :51:50.has he got of doing that at the general election? Is this not going
:51:50. > :51:55.to be about the disagreement between the two parties come into
:51:55. > :51:58.the Four? It will be very difficult for Nick Clegg and David Cameron to
:51:58. > :52:01.control it. They will both have to fight hard on the ground to try to
:52:01. > :52:09.win the seat, but neither of them want to see the coalition come
:52:09. > :52:14.apart. How are Nick Clegg going to control his activists and
:52:14. > :52:17.backbenchers? There will be a genuine battle between the Lib Dems
:52:17. > :52:21.and Conservatives, claiming credit for some of the tax changes. The
:52:22. > :52:27.Lib Dems will point out that in Eastleigh, lower-paid people will
:52:27. > :52:37.be paying no tax whatsoever, income tax, compared to before, something
:52:37. > :52:38.
:52:38. > :52:43.like 4,000 people. That sounds good, but actually, the low paid will
:52:43. > :52:51.just be stopping paying a tiny bit of tax. Most of the money went to
:52:51. > :52:57.the top third, according to the IFS. But I think the issue of �600, it
:52:57. > :53:00.is quite a substantial tax cut for people on lower and middle incomes.
:53:00. > :53:10.You are fighting a by-election mostly against the Conservatives
:53:10. > :53:15.here. Thank you both very much. Who would have thought a bag of Bones
:53:15. > :53:19.would have caused such a fuss? The body of Richard III is a
:53:19. > :53:24.historian's dream, but that does not mean politicians cannot get in
:53:24. > :53:31.on the act. Was he a goodie or baddy? Adam reports. Our Richard
:53:31. > :53:37.was a bit of an enigma, a villain to many, hero to some. He ruled
:53:37. > :53:41.between 1483 and 1485, during the decade-long too known as the War Of
:53:41. > :53:44.the Roses. He has been credited with some liberal reforms,
:53:44. > :53:48.including the right to bail and the lifting of restrictions on printing
:53:48. > :53:53.presses. William Shakespeare portrayed him as a jealous
:53:53. > :53:57.Hunchback murderer, who offered his kingdom for a horse. But many
:53:57. > :54:02.historians say that was all just propaganda. His rule was challenged,
:54:02. > :54:07.and he was defeated and killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field, by
:54:07. > :54:11.the army of Henry Tudor, who went on to become King Henry VII. We now
:54:11. > :54:15.know that he has been lying dead under a car park in Leicester. Now,
:54:15. > :54:25.the debate is over whether Richard should have a state funeral, and
:54:25. > :54:29.
:54:29. > :54:37.where he should be buried. We are joined now by three parliamentary
:54:37. > :54:42.villains. John Mann, how and where should he be buried? With dignity,
:54:42. > :54:47.and in the family plot, which was built for Richard I, at the great
:54:47. > :54:55.Prior in Worksop, which was the centre of the Plantagenet Kingdom.
:54:55. > :55:00.Was it? Well, Fotheringhay was where he was born, so I would say
:55:00. > :55:04.that was probably the centre of the Plantagenet Kingdom. I think John
:55:04. > :55:09.has come up with an ingenious solution here. Personally, I would
:55:09. > :55:13.say Leicester is the best place for him to be buried. Absolutely right.
:55:13. > :55:17.Bravo to John for trying this on, but quite frankly, it is ludicrous.
:55:17. > :55:21.He has been in Leicester for 500 years. He was actually buried by
:55:22. > :55:29.the Grey Friars in Leicester. He should be reinterred at the
:55:29. > :55:33.cathedral. Yes, but he was Richard of York. Why not in York? Firstly,
:55:33. > :55:37.there is the procedural issue. After the skeleton was found, the
:55:37. > :55:45.certificate had to be signed, and it had to be stated where the body
:55:45. > :55:51.was found. I have just written a book about Bosworth, and I will
:55:51. > :55:57.have to we write it now. At the Battle of Bosworth, 400 men were
:55:57. > :56:03.requested, and they did not turn up for the battle. So, have they
:56:03. > :56:09.forfeited their right? Yes, I think Richard would not be too pleased to
:56:09. > :56:14.be buried in York. So far, York is winning. I can tell you, Worksop
:56:14. > :56:22.has a big fat zero. That's because the battle of Worksop has not been
:56:22. > :56:27.properly researched. Tell us about it. The last great battle where the
:56:27. > :56:32.Yorkists Fort, the bodies lay there. Not only was Richard I in this
:56:33. > :56:38.great place, but there is a practical reason - a state funeral,
:56:38. > :56:43.we have the spot in the gate house where people can file past, as they
:56:43. > :56:49.did in the time of Richard III, the resting place at the Great priory,
:56:49. > :56:54.in order to see the remains before the burial. Jon Ashworth, does he
:56:54. > :56:58.deserve a state funeral? I have suggested it in the past, although
:56:58. > :57:02.some people have criticised it. In fact he has already had a burial,
:57:02. > :57:06.so there is an argument that it is not necessarily appropriate for a
:57:06. > :57:09.second funeral. It just needs a service of remembrance, which is
:57:09. > :57:12.what Leicester cathedral have been talking about, which seems
:57:12. > :57:17.dignified and suitable. It seems that everybody is fighting over
:57:17. > :57:22.this because Richard III was painted as a monster, one of
:57:22. > :57:29.Shakespeare's favourite villains. The original has been trying to get
:57:29. > :57:34.his reputation changed. Has he been unfairly portrayed? It is a classic
:57:34. > :57:38.case of history being written by the winners. When you go back to
:57:38. > :57:42.the contemporary evidence, before Shakespeare, it was more complex.
:57:42. > :57:47.Obviously, the Prince's disappear in the tower under his watch, we
:57:47. > :57:51.cannot exonerate him over that. But he was a generous king. He looked
:57:51. > :57:57.after the poor, he created the Court of requests, he was quite an
:57:57. > :58:04.unusual king. Where would you have him buried? I am no monarchist, I
:58:04. > :58:10.would put him back in the car park. So you would still have him in
:58:10. > :58:13.Leicester? But should not all kings be buried in Westminster Abbey?
:58:13. > :58:23.personally think that there would have to be a vote in Parliament if
:58:23. > :58:23.
:58:23. > :58:26.it was a state funeral. This is madness! I would like to see the
:58:26. > :58:34.opportunity for the public to pay their last respects, for the coffin
:58:34. > :58:38.to lie in state. Is it really him? I think so, the evidence is all
:58:38. > :58:44.there, the arrow in the back and everything.. We have run out of
:58:44. > :58:49.time, but that will be something for you to debate. That's all for