:00:43. > :00:49.Welcome to the Daily Politics where MPs, like us, are returning from
:00:49. > :00:53.their Easter break. Much of the week will of course be dominated by
:00:53. > :00:56.the funeral of Baroness Thatcher on Wednesday. Early this morning a
:00:56. > :00:59.rehearsal of the military ceremony took place in central London.
:00:59. > :01:03.Hundreds of members of the armed forces lined the route of the
:01:03. > :01:06.procession, from Westminster to Saint Paul's Cathedral. MPs are
:01:06. > :01:11.this afternoon expected to approve plans cancelling this week's PMQs.
:01:11. > :01:14.Campaigning for next month's local elections is under way. We will be
:01:14. > :01:17.asking can any of the parties change the political weather.
:01:17. > :01:23.A limit on the amount people can claim in benefits comes into force
:01:23. > :01:30.for the first time today. We sent Giles out to test the national mood.
:01:30. > :01:35.They want to go and find the drug users and take their benefits away.
:01:35. > :01:39.And should Ed Miliband be shopping around for advice? Save your money.
:01:39. > :01:44.Plenty of Blairites seem to be dishing it out for free.
:01:44. > :01:46.All that in the next hour. We are joined for the whole of today's
:01:46. > :01:49.programme by the former Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan, the former
:01:49. > :01:55.Culture Ssecretary Tessa Jowell and the former Lib Dem leader Ming
:01:55. > :01:59.Campbell. If you can find three MPs that bring with them more wisdom
:01:59. > :02:07.and experience than this lot, then please give us a call. We will sign
:02:07. > :02:11.them up! You can never over flatter any MP. So I have discovered.
:02:11. > :02:14.Now, politics as normal is on hold this week for the funeral of Lady
:02:14. > :02:17.Thatcher on Wednesday. The government is planning to cancel
:02:17. > :02:21.PMQs, and preparations are well under way for the ceremonial
:02:21. > :02:23.procession from Westminster to St Paul's Cathedral. As the sun was
:02:23. > :02:26.coming up this morning, there was a full-scale military dress rehearsal
:02:26. > :02:29.for the event, with regiments which fought in the Falklands
:02:29. > :02:34.accompanying a coffin draped in the Union flag as it was carried first
:02:34. > :02:37.by gun carriage and then by pall bearers to St Paul's. More than 700
:02:37. > :02:39.members of the armed forces were involved, from all three services,
:02:39. > :02:42.and the procession band played the funeral marches of Chopin,
:02:42. > :02:47.Beethoven and Mendelssohn as it made its way along the deserted
:02:47. > :02:50.streets for the rehearsal. Yesterday, the Bishop of Grantham
:02:50. > :02:54.told the Sunday Politics that spending millions on the event was
:02:54. > :02:59.a mistake. Police preparations are also under way to make sure that
:02:59. > :03:01.activists do not disrupt the funeral. But tribal divisions have
:03:01. > :03:09.been largely set aside and discussions about how to
:03:09. > :03:17.commemorate her life have begun. I should start by asking, are you
:03:17. > :03:24.going to the funeral? Yes. Former leaders and those who work in the
:03:24. > :03:30.House when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister have been invited. I think
:03:30. > :03:36.it will be a remarkable occasion and one which I am very honoured to
:03:36. > :03:41.have been asked to take part in. far as I am aware, I shall be
:03:41. > :03:46.attending. I think it is a special thing, particularly as she was the
:03:46. > :03:53.first woman prime minister. The reason I am an MP at all is because
:03:53. > :04:02.she encouraged me to stand. We will come to the legacy. What about you?
:04:02. > :04:08.No. What about the fact that it is a state funeral in all but name? Is
:04:08. > :04:12.it appropriate to that that level of commemoration is being set for
:04:12. > :04:16.Baroness Thatcher? The last Prime Minister to have the funeral of
:04:16. > :04:20.that time was Winston Churchill. You are right, the difference
:04:20. > :04:27.between a state and ceremonial funeral will only be in the eyes of
:04:27. > :04:30.those who hold themselves out to be experts in these matters. To the
:04:30. > :04:36.average viewer watching, the distinction will make no sense
:04:36. > :04:42.whatsoever. But I am an MP because I was very much opposed to the
:04:42. > :04:48.policies of Margaret Thatcher and did my best to argue against them
:04:48. > :04:53.in my own constituency. I was about to say, whatever you think of her
:04:53. > :04:57.policies, the fact of the matter is it was a remarkable achievement for
:04:57. > :05:02.a woman at her time to become leader of the Conservative Party
:05:02. > :05:08.and to become Prime Minister. In addition to that, the courage which
:05:08. > :05:14.she showed in relation to the Falklands, for example, was quite
:05:14. > :05:18.extraordinary. It really was a gamble. If two more missiles had
:05:18. > :05:23.hit any more British warships, the whole thing might have changed.
:05:23. > :05:27.Although I disagreed with much of what she did, she won three
:05:27. > :05:33.consecutive elections and has left her mark on British politics and
:05:33. > :05:37.one way or another, she is entitled to be remembered. Do you think it
:05:37. > :05:47.is the right way to be remembered? I think she is entitled to be
:05:47. > :05:49.
:05:49. > :05:54.remembered. In what way? I think that what is obvious is that she
:05:54. > :05:59.was heavily involved in planning her own funeral, choosing her music
:05:59. > :06:03.and to she wanted to be there. The question this has thrown up is how
:06:03. > :06:08.we honour a former prime ministers. I think this week is a week of
:06:08. > :06:12.respect to the memory of a woman who was very divisive but by any
:06:12. > :06:16.measure was an extraordinary politician. I think then after that
:06:16. > :06:21.we have got to look at this broader question, so in a way the country
:06:21. > :06:31.is not taken by surprise by the way in which a funeral for a former
:06:31. > :06:35.Prime Minister is organised. The fact is, if you have heads of state
:06:35. > :06:40.or senior politicians from countries around the world, it is
:06:40. > :06:43.going to be expensive, because the security will cost a lot, so I
:06:43. > :06:49.think this is a week for respect. The long-term issue is how to mark
:06:49. > :06:55.this kind of moment but as a young woman, I went on more marches
:06:55. > :06:59.against Mrs Thatcher's policies than I can count, I fought two
:06:59. > :07:04.elections as a Labour candidate as she was about to become Prime
:07:04. > :07:10.Minister. The politics were horrible, raw and divisive, but
:07:10. > :07:14.that does not mean that I don't think, in respect of her family and
:07:14. > :07:18.the people who worked closely with her, that she should not be
:07:18. > :07:24.honoured in this way. So John Prescott is wrong to have
:07:24. > :07:28.questioned the amount of money the taxpayer will pay? �10 million?
:07:28. > :07:33.did not see his piece, apparently he wrote it and the headline was
:07:33. > :07:38.rather out of line was what he actually said. We do not know how
:07:38. > :07:42.much this is going to cost. The Thatcher family are apparently
:07:43. > :07:47.making a contribution. We need more transparency. People have got to
:07:48. > :07:53.know what the plan Tsar. The police have agreed to allow an organised
:07:54. > :07:58.protest. I think that is quite right. One of the things that is
:07:58. > :08:01.for sure about Margaret Thatcher is that she believed in freedom of the
:08:01. > :08:06.individual and the freedoms that we have in this country allow people
:08:06. > :08:11.to protest peacefully and if people are going to mark their opposition
:08:11. > :08:14.to a woman who has now passed on, then I hope they will do so and
:08:14. > :08:20.remember the safety and peace of others who are coming to pay their
:08:20. > :08:26.respects, because she was a game change in politics in this country.
:08:26. > :08:32.She moved people from poverty into home-ownership, into wealth sharing
:08:32. > :08:37.and wealth creation, and I do not want to go into her legacy...
:08:37. > :08:40.will talk about that. I think it is fitting that we should mark the
:08:40. > :08:44.longest serving prime minister for 150 years and the first woman to
:08:44. > :08:50.hold that position. The Conservative MP and friend of
:08:50. > :08:54.Baroness Thatcher Bernard Jenkin is on College Green. What is Margaret
:08:54. > :09:01.Thatcher's legacy for you? Wednesday will be a global event.
:09:01. > :09:04.This is not just for domestic consumption. The reason so many
:09:04. > :09:14.heads of state and ambassadors will be attending his because Margaret
:09:14. > :09:18.Thatcher was a global figure and therefore this non-state
:09:18. > :09:21.occasion...! This is a fitting tribute to what most other
:09:21. > :09:28.countries would recognise as an absolutely normal thing to do for a
:09:28. > :09:35.former prime minister. Apparently there have scrim -- been reports in
:09:35. > :09:39.some of the American press that they have been surprised by some of
:09:39. > :09:46.the vitriol that has been expressed in the UK. But many parts of
:09:46. > :09:50.Britain are still hostile to her legacy. One has the highest respect
:09:50. > :09:55.for people who take a different view but it is a tiny minority who
:09:55. > :10:02.are gloating over her death and indeed that is the kind of real
:10:02. > :10:07.personal unpleasantness that she had to put up with so much of,
:10:07. > :10:10.personalisation of the argument, blaming her. There was a protest in
:10:10. > :10:18.Corby on Friday where apparently all the Labour councillors walked
:10:18. > :10:23.out of a council meeting during a minute's silence, and the Labour
:10:23. > :10:26.Party decided to close the steel mill in Corby, because Margaret
:10:26. > :10:31.Thatcher had attracted the Investment, and by the time she
:10:31. > :10:37.left office, unemployment in Corby was back to the national average!
:10:37. > :10:41.That is the real record, not the distorted record. Do you agree that
:10:41. > :10:44.the protests that have been agreed with the police should go ahead and
:10:44. > :10:49.that there should be a balance for respect for the family and people
:10:49. > :10:54.who want to protest peacefully? hope that protesters will respect
:10:54. > :11:00.that a great majority of the nation do want to honour her memory in
:11:00. > :11:06.this very fitting way. There is a balance to be struck. People
:11:06. > :11:10.complaining about the money, she could have sold her private and
:11:10. > :11:14.personal political papers to an American university and a few years
:11:14. > :11:19.ago when she was offered tens of millions of pounds. She did not do
:11:19. > :11:24.that. She gave them to Churchill College for the nation. That is the
:11:24. > :11:28.kind of selfless person that she was. I think people protesting
:11:28. > :11:32.about this funeral on undermining our country abroad. It will be
:11:32. > :11:36.interesting to see the viewing figures. I suspect the world will
:11:36. > :11:40.be watching this funeral and admiring the country and
:11:40. > :11:47.remembering what an incredible political figure she was. What is
:11:47. > :11:52.your view about a library in her honour? This is news to me. I think
:11:52. > :11:57.it is tremendously good idea. If the money can be raised to set up
:11:57. > :12:03.something like that in Westminster, I am sure it will receive an
:12:03. > :12:08.enormous amount of foreign visitors, just as the Churchill Museum under
:12:08. > :12:13.White will receive an enormous amount of visitors -- quite tall. I
:12:13. > :12:19.think she will be a political figure that fascinates historians
:12:19. > :12:24.both home and abroad for hundreds of years to come. Thank you. You
:12:25. > :12:30.are dying to say something. It is interesting, in a way their
:12:30. > :12:34.response illustrates the fact that she was a divisive figure. It is
:12:34. > :12:39.veering between hagiography and hatred and I think it will take
:12:39. > :12:43.some time before history allows us a proper perspective about the
:12:43. > :12:47.contribution that Margaret Thatcher made. Cheryl Gillan rightly says
:12:47. > :12:52.that she allowed people to buy council houses but at the same time
:12:52. > :12:56.she did not allow money to be spent in replacing them and if you are a
:12:56. > :13:02.constituency MP like me, you have had a parade of people in your
:13:02. > :13:08.surgery who would otherwise be entitled to social housing but
:13:08. > :13:14.because 60% of the council houses in my constituency have been sold,
:13:14. > :13:18.they are denied that opportunity. A good policy, but not always with
:13:18. > :13:22.the necessary mitigation. Are you comfortable with the idea of a
:13:22. > :13:28.library in her honour being in the former Liberal Democrat
:13:28. > :13:32.headquarters? I would certainly enjoy the irony of that. There are
:13:32. > :13:37.a lot of good Liberal Democrat ghosts who would halt the
:13:37. > :13:43.Conservative Party for some time in Downing Street! -- who would haunt.
:13:43. > :13:49.You could argue in large parts of Britain the price of her revolution
:13:49. > :13:52.has made the Conservative branch toxic. One of the benefits of
:13:52. > :13:56.having a library and museum in her name, perhaps we can get some
:13:56. > :14:03.balance into the debate because it is terribly polarised and there is
:14:04. > :14:10.a lot of inaccuracies bringing up from this increased and intensive...
:14:10. > :14:16.But on both sides. I think there will be exaggeration but I do think
:14:16. > :14:20.it is important to remember she was a key figure in ending the Cold War.
:14:20. > :14:26.Burn it is right in saying there are many people abroad that
:14:26. > :14:34.actually think that she was an incredible leader for her time --
:14:34. > :14:38.Bernard. There is no consensus on this. She certainly played a part
:14:38. > :14:42.in the ending of the Cold War but to suggest it was of such pre-
:14:42. > :14:47.eminence, as many people have recently, ignores the fact that the
:14:47. > :14:51.Soviet system was bust and was failing and because it was failing
:14:51. > :14:58.it had to consider alternatives, Gorbachev in particular. We have
:14:58. > :15:03.not got that much longer. Let's talk about winning -- women. There
:15:03. > :15:08.has been a lot of debate about what she did to further the cause of
:15:08. > :15:15.women. She did break the ultimate glass ceiling. Beyond that, do you
:15:15. > :15:19.feel she did much to further the cause of women? No. Her own
:15:19. > :15:24.personal achievement was remarkable but she did not look at the House
:15:24. > :15:31.of Commons and say, this place is unrepresentative of the country,
:15:31. > :15:35.and take steps to introduce positive action as we did in the
:15:35. > :15:40.run-up to 1997, and we saw a transformation in the number of
:15:40. > :15:50.women MPs. No, she was not a feminist. She thought she had to be
:15:50. > :15:52.
:15:52. > :15:58.a better man in a man's and what. - - in a man's world for. I think she
:15:58. > :16:04.saw herself as the best person to do the job. When she was the leader
:16:04. > :16:09.of our party, which was unusual, there were only 4% of MPs of any
:16:09. > :16:16.party that will women and even with the positive discrimination, we are
:16:16. > :16:26.only up to 22%. We have not made that much difference! Labour has.
:16:26. > :16:33.
:16:33. > :16:38.I can only speak personally. She encouraged me personally, at that
:16:38. > :16:43.dinner. Just briefly, before we move on - her legacy, and the
:16:43. > :16:47.amount of time we spend talking about it, it is a difficult legacy
:16:47. > :16:51.for David Cameron, is it not? very difficult for any Prime
:16:51. > :16:58.Minister, following Margaret Thatcher, because she was such an
:16:59. > :17:06.enormous, huge...! We are joined now from College green by George
:17:06. > :17:11.Galloway, the Respect MP, who does not support the funeral
:17:11. > :17:14.arrangements for Wednesday - why not? You have managed to gather
:17:14. > :17:18.together the only three people in the country who think it is all
:17:18. > :17:23.right that we are spending �10 million on the canonisation of this
:17:23. > :17:26.wicked woman, a woman who laid waste to industrial Britain of the
:17:27. > :17:33.North, Scotland and South Wales. have already had the recall of
:17:33. > :17:37.Parliament last week, with MPs being paid up to �3,700 to fly back
:17:37. > :17:43.from their Caribbean holiday, and then fly back to start their
:17:43. > :17:47.holiday again, Jennie totally unnecessary fawning over this woman.
:17:47. > :17:51.And now, they want to cancel Prime Minister's Questions. It is absurd.
:17:51. > :17:54.She was Prime Minister for more than 11 years, she won three
:17:54. > :18:00.general elections, surely she is a big enough political figure,
:18:00. > :18:04.whether you like her or not, to merit such a ceremony? Mr Wilson
:18:04. > :18:07.high of Ristic four general elections, Mr Atlee totally
:18:07. > :18:13.transformed the country in the wake of the Second world War. Neither of
:18:13. > :18:23.those had anything remotely like this, this tidal wave of guff which
:18:23. > :18:24.
:18:24. > :18:28.the country is being forced to listen to, particularly on the BBC.
:18:28. > :18:33.And when we had Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead, you censored it, it was
:18:33. > :18:36.the only way of them expressing how they felt. It is utterly absurd. We
:18:36. > :18:40.would be conducting this conversation in German if it was
:18:40. > :18:44.not for Mr Churchill. He saved the very existence of this country.
:18:44. > :18:48.Well, Mrs Thatcher did her best to destroy what was good about this
:18:48. > :18:53.country, and did destroy more than a third of our manufacturing
:18:53. > :18:57.capacity, reducing us to the state we are in now. People are very
:18:57. > :19:01.angry in Britain, and it is not reflected in your studio, and it is
:19:01. > :19:06.not reflected on the BBC. You want to reflecting it very clearly and
:19:06. > :19:10.loudly... She died one week ago, hundreds of thousands of people
:19:10. > :19:15.have been following me on social media, but I never got one
:19:15. > :19:18.invitation to speak on the BBC. think you will find this is the
:19:18. > :19:23.first programme back after the Easter break, and you are on it,
:19:23. > :19:27.George Galloway. Those sentiments that you have expressed, is there a
:19:27. > :19:33.different time to express those? This is the week that her funeral
:19:33. > :19:38.is taking place, so is this not a time to rise above that? That is
:19:38. > :19:43.what people said last Monday. Now, it is this Monday. How long have we
:19:44. > :19:50.got to observe this fate silence on the record of a woman who caused
:19:50. > :19:55.such destruction in this country? The the Tories were reduced to zero
:19:55. > :20:01.MPs in Scotland. They are branded utterly poisonous in large parts of
:20:01. > :20:06.the North. They lost her deposit against me in the by-election just
:20:06. > :20:09.a few weeks ago. Is there a difference, George Galloway,
:20:09. > :20:14.because Tessa Jowell and Menzies Campbell have stated very clearly
:20:14. > :20:18.that they disagree with her policies, and Tessa Jowell went on
:20:18. > :20:22.marches against a policies - is this a difference between the way
:20:22. > :20:26.you express your outrage and disgust, whether it is done in a
:20:26. > :20:32.more polite way just for this week, I am just asking, or whether you do
:20:32. > :20:35.it in the way that you have expressed it? Was Mrs Thatcher
:20:35. > :20:41.polite about the miners when she destroyed their communities,
:20:41. > :20:45.leaving them in social slag heaps of vice and idleness? Was she
:20:45. > :20:50.polite to the pit workers when she destroyed them? She laid waste to
:20:50. > :20:56.this country. Spare me the centre many about politeness. There are
:20:56. > :21:00.millions of people in this country who hate the very word Thatcher,
:21:00. > :21:04.and Thatcherism continues until this very day. George Galloway, I
:21:04. > :21:09.think we did try to get hold of you earlier for a programme, but thank
:21:09. > :21:13.you for appearing today. Your response to that, Cheryl Gillan?
:21:13. > :21:20.would take him more seriously if he appeared in Yes. More often. I
:21:20. > :21:30.think he has voted in 13% of our divisions, so he does not use the
:21:30. > :21:42.
:21:42. > :21:48.arena for which he was elected. seems to me, where George Galloway
:21:48. > :21:52.has made an interesting point, but which may be challenged, is, why
:21:52. > :21:56.was there not this amazing outburst when Mrs Thatcher stepped down?
:21:56. > :22:00.That was the time when it was proper to have reflect on the
:22:00. > :22:04.political consequences of her prime ministership. I have already said
:22:04. > :22:08.that I think history will give us a much better impression of the
:22:08. > :22:12.success or failure of her policies. But for the moment, in this
:22:12. > :22:15.particular week, I think it is legitimate to expect that there
:22:15. > :22:20.should be a degree of respect provided to someone who was,
:22:20. > :22:24.whatever you think of her policies, a dominant political figure. I take
:22:24. > :22:31.issue with some notion that she ended the Cold War, and everything
:22:31. > :22:34.that happened after and during her time, but the fact of the matter is
:22:34. > :22:42.that like it or lump it, she was a dominant figure for a long time in
:22:42. > :22:49.British politics. Done well do you understand the anger expressed by
:22:49. > :22:53.George Galloway...? Of course I do, but I think Mrs Thatcher did divide
:22:53. > :22:57.the country. She governed for the south, she did not govern for the
:22:57. > :23:01.north. In that respect, the communities that were laid waste,
:23:01. > :23:05.and some of which have never recovered, are shown in the faces
:23:05. > :23:10.of those older people, who have come down to London to take part in
:23:10. > :23:15.demonstrations over the weekend. But the fact is, you do not have to
:23:15. > :23:21.pretend that you agreed with her, or you do not have to pretend that
:23:21. > :23:28.there is still anger about what she did, to say that this is a week in
:23:28. > :23:34.which you honour and pay respect to a leader of our country who has
:23:34. > :23:37.died. I think that is absolutely right. There is so much I disagree
:23:37. > :23:40.with with Tony Blair and about the policies of the last Labour
:23:40. > :23:44.government, but I have respect that the man was our last prime
:23:44. > :23:50.ministers, and that Labour were in power for that time. I just think
:23:50. > :23:54.that she has been wilfully misinterpreted in many areas. She
:23:54. > :23:57.said that we have to look at jobs for the future, which I think is
:23:57. > :24:03.genuinely what she was trying to do. As we have been hearing, MPs are
:24:03. > :24:07.back for their -- from their Easter break. They are gearing up for a
:24:07. > :24:11.big event next month, the local elections, on the 2nd May. So, what
:24:11. > :24:15.is happening? There will be elections for 27 county councils,
:24:15. > :24:19.elections for 27 county councils, seven unitary authorities, and two
:24:19. > :24:24.mayoral elections. Altogether, almost 2,500 seats are being
:24:24. > :24:27.contested. It is one of the last major tests of the political
:24:27. > :24:31.weather ahead of the general election in 2015. The last time
:24:31. > :24:36.these seats were up for grabs was in 2009, when Gordon Brown was
:24:36. > :24:43.Prime Minister. Then, the estimated national equivalent share of the
:24:43. > :24:51.vote had the Conservatives on 35%... Four years on, and a change of
:24:51. > :25:01.government later, how will each of the party's Fair? And what of UKIP?
:25:01. > :25:02.
:25:02. > :25:06.They come second at the Eastleigh by-election. -- parties fare? We
:25:06. > :25:10.can now speak to Professor John Curtis, who knows everything there
:25:10. > :25:13.is to know about local elections. - is to know about local elections. -
:25:13. > :25:20.- Professor John Curtice. The warning about losing 500 seats, is
:25:20. > :25:25.that a realistic estimate? I think that is probably a realistic
:25:25. > :25:34.estimate, although possibly a bit on the high side. One thing to bear
:25:34. > :25:40.in mind is that these seats, before 2009, they were fought on general
:25:40. > :25:45.election day in 2005, which gives us a clear baseline. In 2009, the
:25:45. > :25:50.Tories won around 350 more seats than they did in 2005. And of
:25:50. > :25:54.course, in 2005, they lost the general election. So, losses on
:25:54. > :25:57.that scale are not to be unexpected. But bear in mind that for the most
:25:57. > :26:00.part, the Conservatives will be facing primarily the Liberal
:26:00. > :26:04.Democrats as their opponents, not Labour. Given that the Liberal
:26:04. > :26:07.Democrats are doing relatively badly in the polls as well, the
:26:07. > :26:11.scale of the Conservative losses probably should not be as high as
:26:11. > :26:15.500. But certainly losses around the 350 mark would not be
:26:15. > :26:19.unexpected. That does not mean to say that the Conservatives are
:26:19. > :26:22.doing well if they lose 350 seats, it will simply confirm the message
:26:22. > :26:28.of the opinion polls that they are not terribly popular Ronnie Moore.
:26:28. > :26:30.You have mentioned that they will be a pop -- up against the Liberal
:26:30. > :26:34.Democrats in the county council elections, but will a certain
:26:34. > :26:38.number of votes go to UKIP? We will be looking at how far the
:26:38. > :26:45.Conservatives are losing to UKIP, as you say. There has already been
:26:45. > :26:48.a substantial UKIP intervention in local elections recently. This is
:26:48. > :26:52.the first time where UKIP will be fighting effectively on a
:26:52. > :26:57.nationwide scale. We have been seeing surprising support for UKIP,
:26:57. > :26:59.going above 10% in the opinion polls, and it seems to becoming
:26:59. > :27:04.disproportionately from the Conservatives. That said, UKIP have
:27:04. > :27:08.a bit of a problem, which is, because the last elections were in
:27:08. > :27:12.2009, it was on the same day as the European elections, when UKIP did
:27:12. > :27:17.extraordinarily well. And they did rather well in the 2009 local
:27:17. > :27:21.elections as well. So, where UKIP stood last time, the extent of the
:27:21. > :27:29.progress they make this time might not be as great as you might
:27:29. > :27:34.anticipate from the opinion polls. But the Conservatives will
:27:34. > :27:37.certainly have reason for concern. One thing we may well not get from
:27:37. > :27:43.the headline results on the night is the degree to which UKIP
:27:43. > :27:47.actually manage to make an advance. Their problem is that there vote is
:27:47. > :27:54.so geographically unevenly spread, that they struggle to turn thugs
:27:54. > :28:01.into seats. Even in 2009, they were getting 15% of the vote on average,
:28:01. > :28:08.but they only won 15 seats. -- evenly spread. Just briefly on
:28:08. > :28:13.Labour, a disaster has been forecast for them... Yes, given
:28:13. > :28:16.that they won 350 more seats in 2005 than they did in 2009, and
:28:16. > :28:21.given that the Liberal Democrats are now in trouble as well as the
:28:21. > :28:26.Conservatives, frankly, it is the Labour Party whose advance should
:28:26. > :28:30.be towards the 500 mark, even if the Conservative losses are not on
:28:30. > :28:37.that scale. I think Labour have been vastly underselling what they
:28:37. > :28:40.might manage to achieve. UKIP's Councillor Diane James, who came
:28:40. > :28:46.second in the Eastleigh by-election, joins us now. First of all, coming
:28:46. > :28:53.to you, Cheryl Gillan, any loss of 500 seats would be dreadful, would
:28:53. > :28:56.it not? It is worth remembering that we were at 42% in the polls
:28:56. > :29:01.last time, defending virtually every single council which is
:29:01. > :29:06.coming up. I think Labour is defending one. So we would expect
:29:06. > :29:09.Labour to do well. I think midterm, with the kind of press and issues
:29:09. > :29:14.that have been surrounding the Government and the coalition
:29:14. > :29:17.government, we are not expecting to do brilliantly. When you say the
:29:18. > :29:22.press, you mean the message is not getting through, people are not
:29:22. > :29:25.convinced by the economic policies? Yes, I think there is a great deal
:29:25. > :29:32.of frustration with the fact that the economy has not been recovering
:29:32. > :29:35.as fast as we expected.. And people have been blaming you... I think
:29:35. > :29:39.people will speak in the ballot box. But don't forget, you are moving
:29:39. > :29:47.from being at the height of your popularity, at the top of your tree,
:29:47. > :29:51.and Labour has only got 255 seats to defend. On the Liberal Democrats,
:29:52. > :29:59.we know what the polls have been saying for the last year or so, but
:29:59. > :30:06.of course, Eastleigh... You took the words out of your mouth -- out
:30:06. > :30:10.of my mouth. What is going to be a good result for you? I am not going
:30:10. > :30:16.to hazard a guess about that. People oversell losses and
:30:16. > :30:23.undersell the gains, it is part of the tradition. So, are you going to
:30:23. > :30:27.oversell the gains for us?! We have to do a bit of analysis regarding
:30:27. > :30:34.Eastleigh. It was won by a local candidate, with a very strong
:30:34. > :30:41.record as a local councillor, and why, because he got things done.
:30:41. > :30:44.The point is that where the Liberal Democrats are not closing libraries,
:30:44. > :30:49.for example, they are representing local people in a way which local
:30:49. > :30:53.people find attractive, and doing their best to maintain services, to
:30:53. > :30:57.maintain the environment, things have that kind, and these are local
:30:57. > :31:04.elections, and people tend to vote for local issues. Sir, you are
:31:04. > :31:11.quite optimistic. It is always qualified optimism, because
:31:11. > :31:14.otherwise people think you're being complacent. I am not. But if our
:31:14. > :31:19.councillors get out and knock on the doors as is necessary, then I
:31:19. > :31:22.expect them to do well. That could be worrying for you, because UKIP
:31:22. > :31:25.are hoping to capitalise on these local elections, and you need to do
:31:25. > :31:28.so, to make some kind of breakthrough in terms of the
:31:29. > :31:34.numbers of council seats that you have, but if the Liberal Democrats
:31:34. > :31:44.are feeling a bit gung-ho about their prospects, then it could be
:31:44. > :31:52.
:31:52. > :31:59.The Liberal Democrats brought in people from all across the country
:31:59. > :32:03.for that by-elections. We were understanding that 1,000 Liberal-
:32:03. > :32:10.Democrats were there on the doorstep. That is fine. If you look
:32:10. > :32:14.at the fact that only the postal vote won the Liberal Democrats...
:32:14. > :32:19.The point is the Lib Dems do not have that level of resources to
:32:20. > :32:24.deploy right across the country. When it comes down to it, UKIP has
:32:24. > :32:28.shown a 40% increase in membership, we have tripled the number of
:32:28. > :32:35.candidates we are fielding and we have had a series of consecutive
:32:35. > :32:41.very good results in by-elections. But there is a difference in
:32:41. > :32:46.translating that into actual seats, actual winning. OK, but still the
:32:46. > :32:52.voters were saying, they've voted for instance the Liberal Democrats
:32:52. > :32:58.in the general election, they got a Conservative-Liberal Democrat
:32:58. > :33:03.coalition, and they do not like its. For them, the one party that has
:33:03. > :33:08.been clear and consistent with its messages, listening to people, it
:33:08. > :33:15.is UKIP. How worried are you about UKIP? I have always said you need
:33:15. > :33:20.to take them seriously. When they have 16% of the vote, any party
:33:20. > :33:25.with that percentage you need to take seriously. But if we take
:33:25. > :33:29.their local campaign in Amersham, they are saying to everybody they
:33:29. > :33:35.can stop the high-speed railway that is about to drive through my
:33:35. > :33:42.constituency, which is actually quite wrong. They do not stand a
:33:42. > :33:48.hope of stopping it. They will win some votes because of that, I am
:33:48. > :33:57.sure, because people will be taken in by that message. I think that is
:33:57. > :34:02.the opportunity -- opportunism that UKIP are grabbing on to. UKIP is
:34:02. > :34:07.trying to capitalise on something locally but quite dishonestly in my
:34:07. > :34:14.view for the simple reason that in their own manifesto they were
:34:14. > :34:21.backing high-speed rail two years ago. We have said a number of times
:34:21. > :34:26.we are against high-speed rail... Hold on, please. I had been asked a
:34:26. > :34:31.question. We want to see the economics. None of that is there.
:34:31. > :34:37.We have an MP that on one hand said she was going to vote against
:34:37. > :34:42.something and we then resigned as an MP, did not do that, is taken...
:34:42. > :34:48.You need to check your facts. are the MP for an airy yet got a
:34:48. > :34:57.book I have consistently stood Against this, as have every single
:34:57. > :35:02.one of our candidates. -- You are the MP for this area. It is
:35:02. > :35:06.dishonest for UKIP. To try to come and give false messages in my area
:35:06. > :35:09.is quite wrong. It is more disappointing that the
:35:09. > :35:16.Conservatives say one thing and you have a group within your own party
:35:16. > :35:22.that will not support it. Tony Blair has told the party it needs
:35:22. > :35:28.to get out of its comfort zone. Is that helpful just before local
:35:28. > :35:33.elections? It is what Labour is doing. Why did Tony Blair need to
:35:33. > :35:38.say it then? We will come on to that. He is making a contribution
:35:38. > :35:43.to the debate. Maybe the manner was not ideal but there was a real
:35:43. > :35:47.substance in what he had to say and I hope people will take that
:35:47. > :35:54.seriously in a constructive spirit in which it is meant. Labour is not
:35:54. > :35:58.in a comfort zone. We are not a party of protest. We have a
:35:58. > :36:02.vigorous campaign in these local elections. UKIP is capturing the
:36:02. > :36:06.anti-politics mood of the moment, which is why Labour MPs are going
:36:06. > :36:11.around the country and listening to what people have to say and
:36:12. > :36:14.ensuring that our election campaign for the County Council elections
:36:14. > :36:20.response to the bread-and-butter issues that people are concerned
:36:20. > :36:24.about. Thank you. It is the start of another political term. Let's
:36:24. > :36:27.have a look at the week ahead in Westminster. A new cap on benefit
:36:27. > :36:30.payments begins today, initially in four London boroughs and then
:36:30. > :36:36.across Britain over the summer. The government hopes it will save �110
:36:36. > :36:38.million a year. Also today, we are expecting the writ to be moved for
:36:38. > :36:43.the South Shields by-election, which is now likely to take place
:36:43. > :36:45.on May 2nd. It was triggered by the departure of former Labour Foreign
:36:45. > :36:49.Secretary, David Miliband. On Tuesday, the coalition faces a
:36:49. > :36:52.revolt by MPs from both halves as they vote on the relaxation of
:36:52. > :36:59.planning rules in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. If passed, it
:36:59. > :37:02.would make it easier to build conservatories and extensions. On
:37:02. > :37:06.Wednesday, the funeral of Lady Thatcher takes place at St Paul's
:37:06. > :37:09.Cathedral. It is expected that PMQs will be cancelled. And on Friday,
:37:09. > :37:12.the Conservative Party's local election campaign begins. Joining
:37:12. > :37:18.me to discuss the week ahead are Pippa Crerar from the London
:37:18. > :37:26.Evening Standard and the Mirror's James Lyons. A different week, a
:37:26. > :37:32.different feel. They retrieved. Westminster seems to be very sombre
:37:32. > :37:36.-- that is very true. Lots of people in the country do not seem
:37:36. > :37:40.happy with the fact that �10 million will be spent on Lady
:37:40. > :37:48.Thatcher's funeral. I was in Glasgow at the weekend, and
:37:48. > :37:53.although the streets were not packed with anti-Thatcher protests,
:37:53. > :37:57.the overwhelming majority of people felt this was not the best way to
:37:57. > :38:02.commemorate her. David Cameron would do well to recognise that. He
:38:02. > :38:12.seems to be suggesting that everyone lit in her shadow, for and
:38:12. > :38:13.
:38:13. > :38:20.against. He should be aware of how toxic her memory is in large parts
:38:20. > :38:24.of the UK. She was extremely divisive but where I would part
:38:24. > :38:29.company is the idea that the Prime Minister is being measured in his
:38:29. > :38:34.remarks. We have seen him claiming that she rescued Britain. A lot of
:38:34. > :38:39.people would disagree with that. It is understandable there will be
:38:39. > :38:45.protests when the funeral is put on. In terms of welfare, that will
:38:45. > :38:49.obviously be one of the hallmarks of this government. We have this
:38:49. > :38:55.pilots -- pilot scheme that is starting. The government argues it
:38:55. > :39:02.is on the right side of the argument of the public. Certainly
:39:02. > :39:07.talking about this, the Conservatives recognise this is a
:39:07. > :39:12.divisive issue in the public and there does seem to be a lot of
:39:12. > :39:17.public support for the welfare cap in particular. It has only just
:39:17. > :39:23.come in today. Four London boroughs, so time will tell what impact it
:39:23. > :39:28.has on the ground. 4,000 households in London will be tested as it were
:39:28. > :39:32.so we will be watching very closely to see its families with children
:39:32. > :39:38.are particularly targeted and whether you end up having families
:39:38. > :39:42.having to move out. For many Conservatives, this is a touchstone
:39:42. > :39:47.issue and one where they can stand out from Labour, who have not
:39:47. > :39:55.really taken the same view. They are obviously opposing the welfare
:39:55. > :40:00.changes. That could be very difficult, James, For Ed Miliband.
:40:00. > :40:04.George Osborne seems -- sees welfare as a trap to put Ed
:40:04. > :40:10.Miliband into, rather than something that affects millions of
:40:10. > :40:15.ordinary people. He claims that welfare only goes to the shirkers,
:40:15. > :40:19.and this claim has fallen apart already. Most of the pain of these
:40:19. > :40:27.benefit cuts will be falling on working people. We have a real
:40:27. > :40:31.problem in this country. The government says it wants to make
:40:31. > :40:36.work pay but today it put the minimum wage up by 12p which is a
:40:36. > :40:41.real terms cut. I would like to see them do something where they
:40:41. > :40:47.actually do make work pay without inflicting pain on working for
:40:47. > :40:52.families. But Labour also is upset about the amount spent on welfare.
:40:53. > :40:57.They agree it is not working. have to be careful at taking the
:40:57. > :41:01.government at face value. We have seen over the weekend that Iain
:41:01. > :41:09.Duncan-Smith has been claiming that the benefits cap is already working.
:41:09. > :41:13.In fact, the government's own analysis shows no such thing and he
:41:13. > :41:18.has been reported to the statistics watchdog today. We have to be
:41:19. > :41:22.careful about falling for these ploys put out by the government.
:41:22. > :41:27.There will be stories a great injustice once the pilot is under
:41:27. > :41:34.way and once it is rolled out. There will be people who were
:41:34. > :41:38.genuinely fine things difficult. course. -- find things difficult.
:41:38. > :41:43.The vast majority will impact on people in work and even those who
:41:43. > :41:48.are not to be this safety net and if it is not there, there will be
:41:48. > :41:53.people slipping through. We saw extreme examples of welfare abuse
:41:53. > :41:57.in the run-up to this, at which are not widespread at all, but now we
:41:57. > :42:01.will also see extreme examples of where poverty has been inflicted on
:42:01. > :42:05.people. The reality for most is probably somewhere in the middle
:42:05. > :42:09.but we cannot ignore the fact there will be thousands and thousands of
:42:09. > :42:13.people who want to work or who are in work who will find it very hard
:42:13. > :42:15.from now on. So, as we have been hearing, the
:42:16. > :42:18.government's cap on benefits starts in four London boroughs today
:42:18. > :42:22.before being rolled out across England, Wales and Scotland over
:42:22. > :42:29.the summer. 40,000 households will see their benefits cut as part of
:42:29. > :42:33.the drive to reduce public spending. The debate about benefits dominated
:42:33. > :42:35.much of the Easter recess. So we decided to send Giles out with some
:42:35. > :42:40.multi-coloured balls to test the mood of the nation.
:42:40. > :42:45.Politicians seem keen for us to have this welfare debate, so why
:42:45. > :42:55.not have it now, in Gravesend. Is the benefits system OK or a soft
:42:55. > :42:55.
:42:55. > :43:00.It seems to be that everybody is getting benefits apart from me!
:43:00. > :43:06.They want to get out of the office, find the drugs and the drug users
:43:06. > :43:12.and take away their benefits. you think a lot of scrunching?
:43:12. > :43:21.few. But the few makes it worse for the ones who really need it.
:43:21. > :43:27.think we just saw one of the few, don't you? Yes! This country should
:43:27. > :43:33.come first. Put their own before others. People get offered too much
:43:33. > :43:37.too early. They don't have to work for it. It is clear in Gravesend
:43:37. > :43:42.which way the wind is blowing but what is interesting is the reason
:43:42. > :43:46.why. It is going to the wrong people but not me or it is given to
:43:46. > :43:56.others, and by that I mean foreigners, that is definitely
:43:56. > :43:56.
:43:56. > :44:01.coming through. They are targeting us. It is like one naughty child in
:44:01. > :44:07.their class and everybody gets punished. It is too easy for people
:44:07. > :44:12.to get benefits but we have to pay for it all. To say that somebody
:44:12. > :44:18.does not want to work is too simple. Do you feel better that your
:44:18. > :44:24.husband goes to work? Yes, he provides us with an lot. I would
:44:24. > :44:31.rather that than going out on benefits. Now to Chatham. Different
:44:31. > :44:37.town, same question. Different answers? People that are built and
:44:37. > :44:44.stuff, it is fine as it is. -- people that are built. We do not
:44:44. > :44:53.normally do this! My son is an unemployed graduate. I have another
:44:53. > :45:00.unemployed graduate child. Why is it a soft touch? I genuinely have
:45:00. > :45:04.no idea. You just voted without knowing what it was about? Yeah!
:45:04. > :45:11.is a soft touch because my heart and money is going to people who
:45:11. > :45:15.just sit at home. -- hard-earned money. A some people have to take
:45:15. > :45:20.responsibility. The majority of people on benefits do use it
:45:20. > :45:26.properly and they do get a sit in the end. It is a negative
:45:26. > :45:31.stereotype at the moment. People just assume it as being correct.
:45:31. > :45:35.have been asking people and the verdict is clear. Most people in
:45:35. > :45:40.Gravesend and Chatham think that the benefits system is as soft
:45:40. > :45:50.touch. Clearly, too many people think that too many benefit
:45:50. > :46:04.
:46:04. > :46:09.With us now is the Labour MP Simon The people in Rochdale are quite
:46:09. > :46:13.clear that the trust in the welfare system has broken down. They see
:46:13. > :46:18.people on a daily basis who are perceived to be swinging the lead,
:46:18. > :46:22.which is probably true. There are people on benefits who should be in
:46:22. > :46:27.employment, and we need to talk more about the world of work, and
:46:27. > :46:32.less about the issue of simply making cuts to benefits. So, his Ed
:46:32. > :46:37.Miliband out of touch? No, I think he is doing an excellent job, as is
:46:37. > :46:41.Liam Byrne. We are two years away from a general election, and what
:46:41. > :46:44.Labour needs to do is to talk more about the world of work, to talk
:46:44. > :46:50.more about the aspirations of people in terms of work, and talk
:46:50. > :46:53.more about getting people into work. I have seen the lives of people
:46:53. > :46:57.getting transformed through the world of walk. I have never seen
:46:57. > :47:01.people's lives transformed through the welfare state. That's why we
:47:01. > :47:05.need to talk more about the benefits of working. But the Labour
:47:05. > :47:11.Party is struggling to decide its stance on the benefits system.
:47:12. > :47:16.but they have disagreed with the level of the cap, they have not
:47:16. > :47:20.supported the Government in its policies on welfare, so, I ask you
:47:20. > :47:25.again, has Ed Miliband got it wrong? There is no doubt, there is
:47:25. > :47:28.a distinction between what the current government is doing and
:47:28. > :47:33.where Labour stand on this. The Tories are very keen to push people
:47:33. > :47:38.into poverty, and cut benefits. They are not talking about getting
:47:38. > :47:42.people into work, their work programme is failing. I think it is
:47:42. > :47:47.getting about 3.6% of people into employment. It is clearly not
:47:47. > :47:52.working. What we need to do as a party is to devise policies, and we
:47:52. > :48:02.have got two years to do this, which talk about why work is
:48:02. > :48:02.
:48:02. > :48:06.important to people dot dot dot -- important to people... Do you think
:48:06. > :48:11.so far, the Labour Party has been talking about grievances too much,
:48:11. > :48:15.without coming up with positive solutions? Some time ago, Ed
:48:15. > :48:19.Miliband said we needed to have an adult conversation about it. What
:48:19. > :48:23.is going on in the Labour Party is that adult conversation. People are
:48:23. > :48:27.making it quite clear how they want a policy to go in the Labour Party,
:48:28. > :48:32.with regard to benefits. I am saying that we need to talk more
:48:32. > :48:39.about aspirations, more about getting people into employment. The
:48:39. > :48:44.Government has clearly failed to create the jobs that people need.
:48:44. > :48:48.Thank you very much, Simon Danczuk. Tessa Jowell, as Simon Danczuk says,
:48:48. > :48:52.Labour has not been focusing enough on getting people back into work,
:48:52. > :48:57.they have just been focusing on grievances, what do you say to
:48:57. > :49:01.that? I think we have focused a lock on work as the best route out
:49:01. > :49:11.of poverty, the best route out of welfare, and also as the driver for
:49:11. > :49:15.economic growth. Let me ask Cheryl Gillan a question - the �100 job
:49:15. > :49:21.grant, for somebody leaving benefits and moving into work, has
:49:21. > :49:26.been discontinued. Also, the �250 deposit on child care, to enable
:49:27. > :49:31.people to pay for child care when they first start work, and thirdly,
:49:31. > :49:36.the howling -- the housing benefit rollover, to cover the transition
:49:36. > :49:41.from benefit to work. This is where this kind of policy is tested
:49:41. > :49:45.against the rhetoric. We know that getting people into work is the way
:49:45. > :49:49.to reduce the welfare bill and the way in which we can get the economy
:49:49. > :49:53.growing. But what the Government is doing is to rely on heavy rhetoric,
:49:53. > :49:57.without looking at the impact on individual cases, and without
:49:57. > :50:04.putting in place the detailed mechanisms to actually enable
:50:04. > :50:11.people in the JobCentre to make that transition. Is �26,000 a year
:50:11. > :50:16.enough for a family to live on? broader problem is that 49% of the
:50:16. > :50:21.families affected by the benefit cap our family is in London, where,
:50:21. > :50:28.as everybody knows, housing is other costs, like travel, are
:50:28. > :50:31.higher. Would you back that cap? Yes, we would, but we argued
:50:31. > :50:37.strongly for a differential level to reflect the additional cost of
:50:37. > :50:42.living in London. What do you say to that? First of all, Tessa Jowell,
:50:42. > :50:47.like me, agrees that the best way off benefits, for people to get
:50:47. > :50:51.self-respect, is to get them into work. To be fair, business and
:50:51. > :51:00.industry in this country since we have come in has created more than
:51:00. > :51:03.1.2 5 million jobs on top of what we inherited. Largely part-time.
:51:03. > :51:11.they are not largely part-time. Labour said they agreed with the
:51:11. > :51:15.cap. And I agree entirely that if you are going to be earning the
:51:15. > :51:21.equivalent of �35,000 before tax, I do not know how many staff you have
:51:22. > :51:26.got on your Parliamentary Staff under 25,000 -- under �35,000, but
:51:26. > :51:30.that �26,000 cap on benefit would be reasonable. Labour have also
:51:30. > :51:38.said that they believe in a regional cap. This means that
:51:38. > :51:42.people in Rochdale, under Labour policies, would have even less.
:51:42. > :51:47.Apart from the principle that the values of welfare are universal
:51:47. > :51:56.across the country. But are they enough for a family in London to
:51:56. > :51:59.live on? You have got to look at it as being equivalent to �35,000. A
:51:59. > :52:04.lot of people in my constituency would be delighted to believe that
:52:04. > :52:10.they could take home �25,000, because at the moment, they do not.
:52:11. > :52:15.Unfortunately, like everybody else, they have to take alterations, cuts,
:52:15. > :52:25.even, in their standard of living. Tessa Jowell's position, that of
:52:25. > :52:29.
:52:29. > :52:34.the Labour Party, would be rather better if they had not voted
:52:34. > :52:37.against every proposal. Name one that they have voted in favour of.
:52:37. > :52:40.8 comes back to the initial question, that Labour is just
:52:40. > :52:47.voting against everything which is proposed, and is not coming up with
:52:47. > :52:54.its own proposals. For instance, why did we vote against the one%
:52:54. > :53:00.increase in benefit payments? -- the 1% increase. If you are a young
:53:00. > :53:06.person aged between 18 and 24, and your benefit is going to go up from
:53:06. > :53:14.�54 to �55, at the same time that you are reducing the top rate of
:53:14. > :53:17.tax for millionaires, it is just not fair. You have got to make
:53:17. > :53:23.these reform as practicable and workable. But you want the welfare
:53:23. > :53:27.bill to come down. Of course. One way to do that is to increase the
:53:27. > :53:33.number of people in work, and the other way is to increased towards
:53:33. > :53:38.an amount, a living wage, which people can have coming in. Do you
:53:38. > :53:45.agree there are people on benefits who could be working? I'm sure
:53:45. > :53:50.there are, but I believe they are a minority. What I think has happened
:53:50. > :53:55.is that there has been an extremely successful campaign of denigration
:53:55. > :54:04.of people who have relied for a period of time on benefits, but
:54:04. > :54:14.really want to get into work. Health, education and defence total
:54:14. > :54:17.
:54:17. > :54:21.less than the total welfare bill. The welfare bill... We have done
:54:21. > :54:25.very well by pensioners, because they are perceived, with
:54:25. > :54:29.justification, as among the most vulnerable. I wish we could go on
:54:29. > :54:35.paying as much as we do at the moment, but the factor of the
:54:35. > :54:38.matter is that there has to be a reduction in the welfare bill. If
:54:38. > :54:46.Labour was as enthusiastic about bringing it down as it appears to
:54:46. > :54:51.be, then it would be coming forward with positive solutions. Now, spare
:54:51. > :54:55.a thought for poor Ed Miliband. He was probably hoping for a quiet
:54:55. > :54:58.Easter holiday, but he broke his wrist, and he is probably suffering
:54:58. > :55:02.from earache, because it seems everybody has been offering him
:55:02. > :55:06.advice about how to govern the Labour Party. First, Tony Blair
:55:06. > :55:16.popped up, in the New Statesman, to say that the guiding principle
:55:16. > :55:19.
:55:19. > :55:24.should be... Then, former Home Secretary John Reid chimed in...
:55:24. > :55:34.Meanwhile, another former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, also
:55:34. > :55:36.
:55:36. > :55:43.waded in... Alan Milburn, Peter Mandelson, and even our guest Tessa
:55:43. > :55:53.Jowell have jumped on the bandwagon. Is this advice right? Back-kick
:55:53. > :55:53.
:55:53. > :55:57.this is the march of the old lags. Tony Blair won three elections, and
:55:57. > :56:05.he published what I think lots of people think was a very good
:56:05. > :56:11.analysis of the way forward for Labour. But if you're a former
:56:12. > :56:15.Prime Minister, you cannot blind side. And if you are a former Prime
:56:15. > :56:20.Minister who packs the punch that he does, then, the important thing
:56:20. > :56:26.is to be part of the solution, never to become part of the problem.
:56:26. > :56:30.I think he would accept that. It is also wrong to suggest that we are
:56:30. > :56:36.simply a party of protest. In a sense, we have to engage with the
:56:37. > :56:41.anger that people feel, as we knock on doors day-in, day-out. Solutions
:56:41. > :56:45.are being put forward. I have offered you some this morning. And
:56:45. > :56:50.there are many more in the locker. Did he need the advice? Ed Miliband
:56:50. > :56:56.is a very open-minded person, the talks to Tony Blair, and values
:56:56. > :57:06.what he has to say. But ultimately, Ed Miliband is now the leader of
:57:06. > :57:10.
:57:10. > :57:17.the Labour Party, and he will take his own council. -- counsel. Ed
:57:17. > :57:20.Miliband is actually the product of the unions. You cannot say that!
:57:20. > :57:30.think he will always be slightly unpopular with the rest of his own
:57:30. > :57:40.
:57:40. > :57:46.party. I knew he was going to talk to me privately. Former leaders and
:57:46. > :57:50.former prime ministers, former ministers, they have got a duty to
:57:50. > :57:54.the party, which allows them to occupy these positions. One way in
:57:54. > :58:02.which they can do that is by offering advice in private, and
:58:02. > :58:06.every now and again, you can have a chat with your former leader. But I
:58:06. > :58:10.would certainly not be writing an article which, by implication,
:58:10. > :58:15.perhaps not explicit, but by implication, attacked the direction
:58:15. > :58:19.in which he is leading his party. He has got a point, was it right
:58:19. > :58:22.for Tony Blair, and the others, to be tears of -- to be so public?
:58:22. > :58:32.think Tony himself would expect that it could have been handled
:58:32. > :58:39.better. But that does not mean that we should back away from the
:58:39. > :58:45.wrote, the questions that he asked, to which there are answers. It is
:58:45. > :58:50.not true that there are not answers. They will meet and talk this week.