:00:45. > :00:48.Good afternoon folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. It's the day
:00:48. > :00:54.after the morning before as politics starts to return to normal.
:00:54. > :00:58.After the funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Will we ever see an event
:00:58. > :01:02.like yesterday again? Probably not. How will the Thatcher legacy change
:01:02. > :01:06.today's politics, if at all? Ed Miliband says he moved the centre
:01:06. > :01:11.ground of British politics. Fair enough. But what's the Labour
:01:11. > :01:16.leader's direction of travel? And can he do the same?
:01:16. > :01:18.Another Poe ten sthal inheritor of the mantle, Theresa May talks
:01:18. > :01:23.terrorism and Abu Qatada this morning.
:01:23. > :01:32.We'll have the latest. And while all eyes have been on
:01:32. > :01:39.North Korea, is Iran the number one nuclear threat to global security?
:01:39. > :01:48.All that is coming up in the next hour. With us for the duration,
:01:48. > :01:54.publisher, blogger, radio host at LBS, Iain Dale. Congratulations on
:01:54. > :01:58.your drivetime show. Thank you. It's very American. 24 Hours ago
:01:58. > :02:02.the political world, media world, armed forces and much of the
:02:02. > :02:05.British establishment from the Queen down gathered in St Paul's
:02:05. > :02:08.Cathedral for the funeral of Margaret Thatcher. More than 2,000
:02:08. > :02:13.guests from around the world were inside, many thousands more lined
:02:13. > :02:18.the streets to witness her final journey. Our guest Iain Dale was at
:02:19. > :02:25.St Paul's. What due make of it all? It was a funeral unlike any other
:02:25. > :02:28.I've been to before. It was an event rather than a funeral. It was
:02:28. > :02:33.very unemotional. I think the Chancellor might disagree with that.
:02:33. > :02:36.I didn't move to tears. Normally at a funeral I get choked up. Why do
:02:36. > :02:40.you think you felt like that? Because it was so big probably.
:02:40. > :02:44.scale of it and St Paul's too. you didn't have the family filing
:02:44. > :02:49.in after the coffin. That's all a very emotional moment. I mean it
:02:49. > :02:54.was a great service. The bishop of London was absolutely superb. I
:02:54. > :02:59.don't say that about bishops very often. A tough gig, there were so
:02:59. > :03:02.many ways to get that wrong. sounded like a bishop and I think
:03:02. > :03:06.the message he put over was very good. He didn't talk about politics
:03:06. > :03:10.a lot. It was mainly the fact that her personal persona was very
:03:10. > :03:16.different to the image she cultivated publicly. Most who knew
:03:16. > :03:19.her would recognise that. I notice that the most emotional part for
:03:19. > :03:23.many people in the church wasn't about what happened inside the
:03:23. > :03:28.church, but when the coffin was taken out at the end and they could
:03:28. > :03:33.hear the cheers and the applause of the crowd and I think, they found
:03:33. > :03:43.that emotional, I think we can see the coffin now coming out there.
:03:43. > :03:46.There we are. I think the people inside the church, it took them by
:03:46. > :03:52.surprise. It did a bit. A few friends of mine were in the crowd
:03:52. > :03:55.outside. Many people were in tears, grown men in tears. It's not very
:03:55. > :03:58.often you see that public. People always think crying is a sign of
:03:58. > :04:01.weakness. I think it's a sign of strength and nothing to be ashamed
:04:02. > :04:06.about. All of these people having a go at Chancellor for shedding a
:04:06. > :04:13.tear at the funeral. For goodness sake, politicians are human too.
:04:13. > :04:19.Even the Chancellor? Yes.That's a shock. Even journalists too.I know
:04:19. > :04:23.too many for that not to be true. The protesters, I think, many
:04:23. > :04:27.people may have felt they shouldn't done -- have done anything at all.
:04:27. > :04:32.But it is a free country going through the streets of our capital,
:04:32. > :04:35.they behaved in a pretty restrained British way, did they not? There
:04:35. > :04:39.were comparatively few. Most behaved with a reasonable amount of
:04:39. > :04:43.dignity and respect. We do live in a free country. I was worried bit
:04:44. > :04:48.reports that there would be pre- emtive arrests. Like Nazi Germany
:04:48. > :04:51.or Stalin's Russia. Exactly. I think what the protesters didn't
:04:51. > :04:55.understand about Margaret Thatcher is that she would have seen it as a
:04:55. > :04:59.tribute. She wouldn't have cared less. She wouldn't have cared less
:04:59. > :05:03.if Radio 1 had played ding dong the witch is dead. She would think it
:05:03. > :05:07.proved she made a difference. If she hadn't made a difference no-one
:05:07. > :05:11.would care about the legacy. Given, I mean, we have, I have to confess,
:05:11. > :05:18.some viewers will agree, we've come pretty close to being Thatchered
:05:18. > :05:24.out at the moment. We've had a lot. I just wanted to ask you, how has
:05:24. > :05:29.it played for Mr Cameron and today's Conservative Party, has all
:05:29. > :05:33.this Thatcher coverage been overall a plus or a minus? I don't think
:05:33. > :05:38.it's made the slightest difference. What it has done, it may have, some
:05:38. > :05:42.may have thought at least we knew what she believed in. We're not
:05:42. > :05:47.still not 100% what David Cameron believes in. I think for those of
:05:47. > :05:50.us who broadcast four hours a day and have to do phone-ins on the
:05:50. > :05:53.subject, the audiences sometimes get tired of. It you have to think
:05:53. > :06:00.of a new angle for it. I have to say today, there will be no
:06:00. > :06:04.Thatcher on my show. There you go. I say that as a Thatcher devotee.
:06:04. > :06:08.Even I'm relieved. Another reason to listen to Iain Dale! What is
:06:08. > :06:13.Margaret Thatcher's legacy then? Would David Cameron do bet fer he
:06:13. > :06:16.was more like her? Who would win in a fight between her and Winston
:06:16. > :06:19.Churchill. I don't mean a real fight, I mean popularity. I think
:06:19. > :06:23.Winston Churchill would probably come out ahead given the war years.
:06:23. > :06:28.Some of these questions have been asked in the studio. But they come
:06:28. > :06:34.down to one wig word - leadership. Is the big L really as mysterious
:06:34. > :06:39.as it seems? It turns out it isn't, as our Adam has been finding out.
:06:39. > :06:49.Now there was someone who knew about leadership. Winston Churchill,
:06:49. > :06:50.
:06:50. > :06:59.who oversaw the war effort from this bunker under Whitehall. In a
:06:59. > :07:03.recent poll by U gof for the Sun, 24% of people said Churchill was
:07:03. > :07:07.the best Prime Minister, in first place was Margaret Thatcher with 28
:07:07. > :07:10.% of people saying she was the greatest post-war Prime Minister.
:07:10. > :07:15.Sometimes it seems that great leaders are carved out of sterner
:07:15. > :07:22.stuff than the rest of us, but is that really true? Or can leadership
:07:23. > :07:28.be learned? The new leader of the Liberal Democrats. When Ming
:07:28. > :07:33.Campbell led the Lib Dems in 2006 she was schooled to overcome one of
:07:33. > :07:37.his biggest weaknesses. Perhaps he'd like to explain why one in
:07:37. > :07:42.five schools do not have a permanent head teacher. When the
:07:42. > :07:48.Prime Minister entered... PMQ's.I just knew it was going to be one of
:07:48. > :07:51.those days. We examined the problem of me looking at my notes and
:07:51. > :07:55.wearing spectacles and how we could deal with that. I mustn't always be
:07:55. > :08:00.looking down and not up. We decided I had to learn the questions. So I
:08:00. > :08:04.had to learn more than one question in case the leader of the
:08:04. > :08:08.Opposition took all the possible questions on the subject. I learned
:08:08. > :08:14.to take my spectacles off to use them to reinforce the point I was
:08:14. > :08:18.trying to make. Back in Churchill's bunker it's less presentation and
:08:18. > :08:22.more plotting a strategy with leadership guru Zoe Gruhne of the
:08:22. > :08:24.institute for Government, who coaches Cabinet ministers on their
:08:24. > :08:29.management style. It's almost holding up a mirror actually and
:08:29. > :08:34.saying to them, you know, what are the positive and negative
:08:34. > :08:38.experiences you've had when you've been led and getting them to think
:08:38. > :08:42.about those qualities. Who do they see as great leaders and why? So
:08:42. > :08:45.you start to understand what it is that motivates them. And the more
:08:45. > :08:49.they become aware of that, the more you help them to understand that
:08:49. > :08:53.other people can be motivated by different kinds of leaders. Begin
:08:53. > :08:58.to unpick what are the different qualities of a leader. Sadly she
:08:58. > :09:01.won't say who round this table has been to see her, because it's all
:09:01. > :09:06.strictly confident shl. She reckons even a Prime Minister can be caught
:09:06. > :09:11.how to govern. They have a Cabinet to run. They need to think about
:09:11. > :09:15.how they manage that Cabinet. If there is discord what do I do about
:09:15. > :09:19.that, how can I manage in terms of my own leadership style and the
:09:19. > :09:23.impact I have on others. Yes, leadership coaching is excellent
:09:23. > :09:27.and I'd be delighted to talk to the Prime Minister about it. David
:09:27. > :09:33.Cameron, she'll see you now. Before you say, isn't this all a
:09:33. > :09:36.bit too personality focused? A bit subChurchill, remember this at the
:09:36. > :09:40.2010 general election, for the first time ever, people said the
:09:40. > :09:46.party leaders were as important as the party's policies when they were
:09:46. > :09:53.deciding who to vote for. That was adds am. We're joined by
:09:53. > :09:58.the former Labour Deputy Leader and former Foreign Secretary, Margaret
:09:58. > :10:03.Beckett. Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Is there something in the
:10:03. > :10:09.fact that, let's take, put atly to one side on this, but take Mr
:10:09. > :10:13.Churchill, Mrs Thatcher, Mr Blair, not one of these three came from
:10:13. > :10:22.the mainstream of their party. They were semi-detached from their
:10:22. > :10:28.parties. That's a good point, yes. I'm not sure that you have to be.
:10:28. > :10:32.Atley Clearly wasn't. No. But they were slightly big than their
:10:32. > :10:34.parties. In the end, yes. I don't think you could say that as
:10:34. > :10:38.Margaret Thatcher as leader of the Opposition. Once she was Prime
:10:38. > :10:42.Minister it was a different ball game. But I suppose it may be, I
:10:42. > :10:45.think there's a quality leaders have to have of being able and
:10:45. > :10:50.prepared to take the judgment that they feel they have to take and
:10:50. > :10:55.live with the consequences whatever they are. And maybe if you're a bit
:10:55. > :11:00.of an outsider that gives you, you know, that means you either can do
:11:00. > :11:05.that or you give in. The constant complaint of Mrs Thatcher, every
:11:05. > :11:10.time since she died, every time in broadcasting someone would say
:11:10. > :11:15.something good about her, we've cut to someone else who said she was a
:11:15. > :11:20.devicive character. I think that's a fair complaint. Buff it's
:11:20. > :11:25.possible that almost Great Leader is in their own way a divisive
:11:25. > :11:28.character pl. Blair certainly was. A million people marched on the
:11:28. > :11:31.streets against one of the things he wanted to do. Before the Second
:11:31. > :11:36.World War, which was a unique circumstance, Winston Churchill was
:11:36. > :11:41.certainly a very divisive figure. Yes, but I think if you set aside
:11:41. > :11:45.Iraq, which I know is not an easy thing to do, you're looking at his
:11:45. > :11:50.leadership as a whole, I don't think he was seen as divisive up
:11:50. > :11:53.until that point. The thing that I think was different about Margaret
:11:53. > :11:58.Thatcher, Matthew Parris said in a conversation we had on radio Derby
:11:58. > :12:03.the other day that not only was she seen as divisive by other people
:12:03. > :12:09.but that she herself divided people in her own mind into those who were
:12:10. > :12:13.on her side and everybody else. mean unlike the Blairites? Well...
:12:13. > :12:16.Any politician who has any conviction at all is going to be
:12:16. > :12:20.divisive. You're either going to love them or you're going to hate
:12:20. > :12:25.them. I think that's a strength in a politician. I think actually Ed
:12:25. > :12:28.Miliband has got it in him to be a conviction politician. At this
:12:28. > :12:32.stage in hills leadership he's far ahead of where Margaret Thatcher
:12:32. > :12:36.was in her leadership as leader of the Opposition. That's absolutely
:12:36. > :12:39.right. I mean, I'm afraid, I know it's perhaps people might think
:12:39. > :12:46.it's not the right time to say it, Margaret Thatcher was a terrible
:12:46. > :12:50.leader of the Opposition. She never laid a glove on Jim Callaghan.
:12:50. > :12:54.had bad PMQ's. Dreadful. And speeches especially before they did
:12:54. > :12:58.her voice. The thing I used to say to people in her party, who were
:12:58. > :13:02.saying oh, it will be all right because the wise heads around her
:13:02. > :13:06.will steer her, they were note supportive. They undermined, they
:13:06. > :13:10.sneered at her. I used to say to them, she won't owe you a thing.
:13:10. > :13:14.When she becomes Prime Minister, if she becomes Prime Minister, she
:13:14. > :13:19.won't owe you anything. Well you're right. If you think that, you don't
:13:19. > :13:24.understand women and why should she listen to you. But tough, I mean,
:13:24. > :13:28.the normal form of leadership -- leadership is to try and be seen to
:13:28. > :13:34.be on the centre ground, usually as defined by the middle distance
:13:34. > :13:38.between the two parties. And as defined bit mainstream media as
:13:38. > :13:42.well. Indeed.And to be seen the cuddly person, the consensus
:13:42. > :13:46.politician. People like Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair and Winston
:13:46. > :13:50.Churchill too in the time of war, they didn't look for them. They
:13:50. > :13:57.said this is where I stand, either join me or we'll have a fight about
:13:57. > :13:59.it. But I'm not looking to be all things to all men. This is where I
:13:59. > :14:03.think, I was interested that you drew the comparison with Ed
:14:03. > :14:06.Miliband, because so do I. If you notice what he said in his speech
:14:06. > :14:10.about Margaret Thatcher, he drew out the fact this she was a
:14:10. > :14:15.politician of conviction. I think he like her wants to shape where
:14:15. > :14:18.the centre ground is. That's a tough one because no-one, I mean in
:14:18. > :14:21.her years in Opposition, no-one thought she would be able to do
:14:21. > :14:25.that. I don't think even she thought she could do that. No, I
:14:25. > :14:29.think that's probably true. always don't know if you can do it
:14:29. > :14:34.until you get into power. Knowing whether you can and knowing that
:14:34. > :14:37.you want to, those are two different things. What went through
:14:37. > :14:41.your mind for the period when you were leader of the Labour Party?
:14:41. > :14:45.don't think I will ever live through a more difficult personal
:14:45. > :14:50.period in politics. If you think about it, we were on the brink of
:14:50. > :14:54.the European elections, which we had planned, I was campaign
:14:54. > :14:57.coordinator, we had planned to use it as a dry run for the following
:14:57. > :15:03.general election. There I was a leader without a deputy, without a
:15:03. > :15:07.campaign coordinator on the brink of a nationwide election, and I say
:15:07. > :15:11.this with all, because I completely understand why it was the case, but
:15:11. > :15:16.without necessarily the enthusiasm among my colleagues that one might
:15:16. > :15:20.have hoped for. That's very polite. She's saving it for the memoirs.
:15:20. > :15:25.don't plan to write any. I know you've told me that before. That's
:15:25. > :15:30.a pity. That's what I told her. Maybe. What would you regard, let's
:15:30. > :15:40.stick on the Labour Party side on your own party side, what acts of
:15:40. > :15:46.
:15:46. > :15:49.leadership in recent years, past Neil Kinnock understood that the
:15:49. > :15:58.Labour Party had to change dramatically. And he set about
:15:58. > :16:03.making sure that it happened. Tony Blair built on where male paved the
:16:03. > :16:05.way. Neal transformed the Labour Party, because I think, for the
:16:05. > :16:10.first time in British political history, he made us the party that
:16:10. > :16:15.was looking into years into the future and working back instead of
:16:16. > :16:21.reacting to this week's events and preparing the manifesto for the
:16:21. > :16:29.local elections. He provided a lot of leadership. Think of the Derek
:16:29. > :16:33.Hatton's speech. We all remember that conference. The problem for Ed
:16:33. > :16:38.Miliband is that the Tories will depict him as a meal Kinnock. Can
:16:38. > :16:42.you imagine this man standing on the steps of Downing Street? That is
:16:42. > :16:48.there election strategy. It could work, but I think too many Tories
:16:48. > :16:52.underestimate Ed Miliband. I am sure you are right. And what's more, they
:16:53. > :16:57.themselves are torn, because on the one hand, they say, isn't this a
:16:57. > :17:02.terrible man? Look, fratricide, he took on his own brother. For me, one
:17:02. > :17:07.of the things a leader has to have is a core of steel. I thought Ed
:17:07. > :17:11.should run for the leadership. I had no idea if he would. And when he
:17:12. > :17:18.did, for me, that was the moment. Yes, he has that steel core, because
:17:18. > :17:25.it was a hard thing to do. Would you agree that in this country, we have
:17:25. > :17:31.now come to regard leadership is synonymous with youth? Every new
:17:31. > :17:34.leader we choose tends to be younger than the leader stepping down. It
:17:34. > :17:39.contrasts with the United States, where the Republicans ran with
:17:39. > :17:45.Senator McCain, and he did pretty well. He was only a few percentage
:17:45. > :17:51.points behind Mr Obama. And Hillary Clinton could well be the next
:17:51. > :17:56.Democratic nominee. We don't seem to do that in this country. But it
:17:56. > :18:00.might be an accident, rather than a culture change. I take your point,
:18:00. > :18:04.at if you think about it, in the normal course of events, when we
:18:04. > :18:10.lost in 2010, some of the people who had been around the Cabinet table
:18:10. > :18:15.for a while probably would have been in the frame. But as it happened, we
:18:15. > :18:21.were also people who had been in opposition for many years and
:18:21. > :18:27.thought, been there, done that. And knowing just how hard work it is
:18:27. > :18:31.being in opposition, we said, let's leave it to the next person. It is
:18:31. > :18:34.completely chants. One of my criticisms of Margaret Thatcher's
:18:34. > :18:38.leadership, especially compared to Neil Kinnock's, is that one of the
:18:38. > :18:43.jobs of the leader is to prepare the ground for a potential successor,
:18:43. > :18:49.because there will be one one day. My feeling about her was that every
:18:49. > :18:55.time a successor pumped their head up, she disposed of them. If she had
:18:55. > :19:02.stayed in power six months longer, she would have had John Major out.
:19:02. > :19:05.Look what happened to Cecil Parkinson. Thank you for joining us.
:19:05. > :19:09.Tessa Jowell was on the Daily Politics earlier this week, and she
:19:09. > :19:13.revealed that a meeting had been arranged between Tony Blair and Ed
:19:13. > :19:19.Miliband. Nothing unusual about that, you might say, former Labour
:19:19. > :19:23.leader, current Labour leader. Relations between Mr Blair and Mr
:19:23. > :19:27.Miliband, given the timescale for him to win an election, looked
:19:27. > :19:32.pretty strained recently. Last week, Tony Blair used an article in the
:19:32. > :19:36.New Statesman to reveal that Labour risk falling into a comfort zone of
:19:36. > :19:42.opposing government cuts, simply becoming the repository for people's
:19:42. > :19:46.anger. A string of other Blairites including John Reid, who was on our
:19:46. > :19:50.own Sunday Politics, and David Blunkett, then spoke out to agree
:19:50. > :19:54.that Labour had to stick to the centre ground. Ed listened politely
:19:54. > :19:58.as a well brought up young chap. He had a meeting with his MPs earlier
:19:58. > :20:03.this week and responded to their advice. He said, we have to
:20:03. > :20:09.recognise that the next election has to be a change election. That means
:20:10. > :20:18.change from the past. He also told his party, we are like a football
:20:18. > :20:22.team that is winning at half-time. Is Labour winning and Ed Miliband?
:20:22. > :20:26.The party is ahead of the Tories in the opinion polls, as you would
:20:26. > :20:32.expect at this time in the electoral cycle, but not by a huge amount.
:20:32. > :20:35.Labour frets about how robust that lead is. Critics of Mr Miliband have
:20:35. > :20:42.pointed to a survey suggesting that this could be in spite of rather
:20:42. > :20:49.than because of his leadership. This gives him a net approval rating of
:20:49. > :20:53.-23, even worse than Mr Cameron's less than stellar -11. So, is there
:20:53. > :21:00.a serious question over whether Mr Miliband can win in 2015, or is this
:21:00. > :21:10.all just the storm in a Blairite teacup? We are joined now by Labour
:21:10. > :21:10.
:21:10. > :21:14.commentator Dan Hodges and from the Fabian Society, Andrew Howell. Dan
:21:14. > :21:19.Hodges, when a lot of Labour people have sympathy for the Labour MP who
:21:19. > :21:23.said, I am not sure how much Tony Blair knows about what the British
:21:23. > :21:32.public feels these days. From the first-class lounge at terminal five,
:21:32. > :21:35.this Labour MP clearly does not know - I spend a lot of time in the first
:21:35. > :21:40.class lounge at terminal five, but he must be in the private jet
:21:40. > :21:46.lounge. You have your finger on the pulse of the budget people! You
:21:46. > :21:48.could look at it in two ways. You could say Tony Blair won three
:21:48. > :21:55.elections and has been the most successful Labour leader in
:21:55. > :22:01.political history. He knows what he's talking about. You could say,
:22:01. > :22:05.let's listen to the guy. What is interesting about Tony Blair's
:22:05. > :22:09.intervention is not that he is a back-seat driver making a grab for
:22:09. > :22:13.the steering wheel will stop he was actually tapping Ed Miliband on the
:22:13. > :22:18.shoulder and saying, I will get out and walk from here. What does that
:22:18. > :22:25.mean? Blair is a bit of a bellwether for Ed Miliband's political
:22:25. > :22:31.fortunes. When he has been on the up, we have had these briefings from
:22:31. > :22:33.totally behind-the-scenes. This was going the other way. This was Tony
:22:33. > :22:40.Blair selling shares in Ed Miliband's leadership. That is an
:22:40. > :22:48.indication of how Tony Blair thinks Labour's political fortunes are
:22:48. > :22:54.going, rightly or wrongly. So Tony Blair, John Reid, Tessa Jowell, they
:22:54. > :22:58.are all wrong? They are wrong. It is nearly 20 years since the 1997
:22:58. > :23:02.election, and a lot of people are trying to just fight the last war
:23:02. > :23:06.again. Things have changed massively since the New Labour period. Things
:23:06. > :23:10.have changed in terms of the economy, but also how politics is
:23:10. > :23:14.working. Labour is riding high in the polls, and that is not because
:23:14. > :23:21.it has attracted many conservative voters who voted for Mr Cameron in
:23:21. > :23:30.2010, it is rather despite of not having won many over. They have got
:23:30. > :23:34.together with the Liberal Democrats and got many voters who did not vote
:23:34. > :23:37.at all. Young voters are probably the most unreliable cohort in any
:23:37. > :23:41.election, because they tend not to turn out. That is why the next
:23:41. > :23:44.election will be all about organisation. We love to talk about
:23:45. > :23:47.Westminster, but Labour will win next time because they will have a
:23:47. > :23:53.much better organised and pain. It is doing a huge amount
:23:53. > :24:00.behind-the-scenes to get ready for that. But it is also important that
:24:01. > :24:05.we don't assume that that polling lead will collapse. It will be more
:24:05. > :24:08.robust than we expect precisely because Ed Miliband has not won over
:24:08. > :24:13.a large number of Conservative voters. He has got a few, which
:24:13. > :24:18.means there are more people ready to go back at the first sign of
:24:18. > :24:21.trouble. You think Ed Miliband has embarked on May 30 5% strategy, that
:24:21. > :24:28.because of the vagaries of our system, he can win an overall
:24:28. > :24:33.majority with only 35% of the vote? He has stumbled on the 35% strategy.
:24:33. > :24:38.Are you sure he has got one? That is the question. The starting point for
:24:38. > :24:43.Ed Miliband's strategy is that for political reasons, he cannot afford
:24:43. > :24:49.to shift the Labour Party for the left or make a grab for the block of
:24:49. > :24:54.Tory support. So he is left with the 29% he got last time and the Lib Dem
:24:54. > :25:00.refugees. And there was this ludicrous strategy of trying to
:25:00. > :25:05.build a winning election campaign on first-time voters. A great American
:25:05. > :25:11.political strategist said, show me a campaign based on first-time voters,
:25:11. > :25:16.and I will show you a losing campaign. But Labour can't appeal to
:25:16. > :25:23.Tory voters, so they somehow want to get another strategy. Mr Miliband's
:25:23. > :25:27.people deny that there is a 35% strategy. Dan is misunderstanding.
:25:27. > :25:37.The number 35% has come along because that is the worst case that
:25:37. > :25:38.
:25:38. > :25:41.the Labour Party might face. In 2005, 30 5% in the polls lead to a
:25:41. > :25:49.government. But that is if everything goes wrong. All the
:25:49. > :25:53.support that Labour currently has would have to melt away. Ed is
:25:53. > :25:56.aiming for 40% or more in the polls, and he can do that by bringing
:25:56. > :25:59.together a coalition which should include some former Conservatives,
:25:59. > :26:08.but it does not need to be nearly as many as people like Dan seem to
:26:08. > :26:18.think. But do you think UKIP will get 14 or 15%. Even if UKIP
:26:18. > :26:24.collapses and the Lib Dems collapse, they could improve. The Lib Dems
:26:24. > :26:30.will get less. UKIP will get more. Rather than arguing about
:26:30. > :26:35.percentages, what is the evidence that the centre, at the moment, is
:26:35. > :26:40.moving left? The centre has moved left in terms of public opinion when
:26:40. > :26:45.it comes to economic elites and how we think about the top of society.
:26:45. > :26:48.There has not necessarily been a wave about a Gallic territory and is
:26:48. > :26:57.-- it Gallic Arianism, but people are angry about the way the economy
:26:57. > :26:59.is run. He said the one thing the coalition have going for themselves
:26:59. > :27:08.at the moment is that despite the failure of their economic strategy,
:27:08. > :27:11.they think they can do better than Mr Balls and Mr Miliband. Where Dan
:27:11. > :27:21.and I would agree is that any Labour opposition has to demonstrate its
:27:21. > :27:26.
:27:26. > :27:30.economic credibility, and that is not about left or right. The reality
:27:30. > :27:37.is, the political centre on welfare has moved right. The political
:27:37. > :27:42.centre on Europe and immigration has moved right. On the economy, it has
:27:42. > :27:46.also moved right. The Labour Party can say it hasn't, but it has. When
:27:46. > :27:54.will the Labour Party face up to this? Now, or the day after the next
:27:54. > :28:01.general election? The centre ground has moved left on some issues like
:28:01. > :28:07.how we run the economy. Then why are the Tories still ahead on economic
:28:07. > :28:10.issues? For Labour to win a majority, you need a group of people
:28:10. > :28:15.who are more left-leaning than they were because of the collapse of
:28:16. > :28:20.other left forces. You will not get a majority simply by banker bashing
:28:20. > :28:24.and promoting the politics of envy. That is a danger for Labour. The
:28:24. > :28:28.elephant in the room here is Ed Balls. He is actually a talented
:28:29. > :28:34.politician, but it was a mistake for Ed Miliband to make him Shadow
:28:34. > :28:38.Chancellor. You saw in the new statesman that it is thought that Ed
:28:38. > :28:42.Balls will be moved before the next election. To restore economic
:28:42. > :28:46.credibility, you either get a policy that people can accept, or you
:28:46. > :28:48.change the personalities. I think there is an increasing likelihood
:28:48. > :28:54.that Alistair Darling will be brought back. Ed Balls clearly would
:28:54. > :28:59.not like that. At Ed Balls clearly has not go down well with a lot of
:28:59. > :29:02.the electorate. I like him, he is a great politician, but does he
:29:02. > :29:12.resonate with Essex man almost a woman? I don't know.
:29:12. > :29:13.
:29:13. > :29:17.We need to move on. Otherwise, you will be arguing all the way to 2015.
:29:17. > :29:20.Another conservative woman was dominating the political press.
:29:20. > :29:22.Theresa May gave a speech which many thought was a sign that she was on
:29:22. > :29:25.leadership manoeuvres. This morning, she was in front of the
:29:25. > :29:32.home affairs select committee, answering questions about Abu Qatada
:29:32. > :29:40.again. And also are medications of the Boston macaques and security for
:29:40. > :29:43.this Sunday's London Marathon. fair to say that nobody has yet been
:29:43. > :29:47.identified as being responsible for the incidents that took place in
:29:47. > :29:52.Boston. There has been press reporting about the investigation
:29:52. > :29:58.that has been taking place by the Americans to identify the
:29:59. > :30:08.perpetrators. We have looked at the plans for the London Marathon in the
:30:08. > :30:12.light of that, and they have made appropriate arrangements. A year ago
:30:12. > :30:16.yesterday exactly, you told the house, I believe that assurances and
:30:16. > :30:20.the information we have gathered will mean that we can soon put Abu
:30:20. > :30:28.Qatada on a plane and get him out of the country for good. Why is he
:30:28. > :30:35.still here? Frustratingly, we thought we had the assurances we
:30:35. > :30:44.needed from the Jordanian authorities. Those assurances were
:30:44. > :30:46.accepted when the case went back. And it was made clear that the
:30:46. > :30:56.Jordanian authorities would bend over backwards to make sure there
:30:56. > :31:20.
:31:21. > :31:25.We are responding to that specific issue as I say. What is most
:31:25. > :31:32.frustrating of course, is that the majority of assurances that we
:31:32. > :31:36.obtained from the Jordanian Government were accepted by SIAC.
:31:36. > :31:39.What has this cost the taxpayer? don't have a figure for you as to
:31:39. > :31:42.what the current cost is. What was the last time, you must have asked
:31:42. > :31:49.this question, the last time you had your officials roupbldz the
:31:49. > :31:54.table and you said "How much has it all costs?" Is it now in millions?
:31:54. > :32:01.My faem SIS, chairman, whenever I have anybody round the table, is
:32:01. > :32:07.how can we ensure we can deport this individual. That was the Home
:32:07. > :32:10.Secretary this morning before the Select Committee. We're joined Iain
:32:10. > :32:15.Dale has been with us since the start of the programme. When you
:32:15. > :32:19.look at this now, you see how just as Labour Home Secretaries before
:32:19. > :32:23.her, they have no power to get rid of this man, do they?. No, the Home
:32:23. > :32:29.Office is a bed of nails for anybody. Most people think treelza
:32:29. > :32:35.May has been quite a success in this job. She is going to be
:32:35. > :32:39.defined in part as to whether she gets rid of this man. If she does,
:32:39. > :32:45.she will have made a reputation on the benches and will be considered
:32:45. > :32:49.a leadership candidate. At the moment there are no Mayites in the
:32:49. > :32:53.party. There aren't backbenchers promoting her cause. If he pulls
:32:53. > :32:58.this off, I don't see how she can, but if shi does, her reputation
:32:58. > :33:03.will go into the stratosphere. It's a tough mountain to climb. She
:33:03. > :33:11.can't give any time table. At some stage somebody is going to say it's
:33:11. > :33:15.costing us more to get rid of him than to keep imhad. She's made a
:33:15. > :33:18.gamble. She's staking her entire political future on this case. A
:33:18. > :33:24.lot of Tories want somebody to emerge to fight Boris Johnson.
:33:24. > :33:30.There isn't a huge amount of leadership chatter, but what there
:33:30. > :33:32.is is all around Boris Johnson. She's often mentioned as a
:33:32. > :33:35.potential leader of the Conservative Party, a female leader,
:33:35. > :33:41.but that, I would suggest is because she is the best known of
:33:41. > :33:46.all Conservatives at the moment. Are there other female
:33:47. > :33:51.Conservatives who could be up for the job? Not now. I think...I'm
:33:52. > :33:55.thinking after 2015. Four, five years' time, I have a few that the
:33:55. > :33:58.next leader of the Conservative Party is probably not even in the
:33:58. > :34:02.Cabinet yet. I don't mean Boris Johnson, maybe somebody who isn't
:34:02. > :34:08.even a minister yet. Somebody in the 2010 intake who will make their
:34:08. > :34:18.reputation in the next two, three years. Names?A lot of people talk
:34:18. > :34:19.
:34:19. > :34:24.about Andrea Ledson. Or Jesy Norman. Pr eti pattel? Maybe, possibly.
:34:24. > :34:29.There are a lot of names out there, but none that have put their heads
:34:29. > :34:34.above the parapet. What do you think the row laigsship is like
:34:34. > :34:40.between Mr Cameron -- what the relationship is like between Mr
:34:40. > :34:44.Cram Ron and Mrs May. I'm told it's quite frosty at the moment. Earlier
:34:44. > :34:50.this month, once again talks between Iran and six world powers
:34:50. > :34:53.collapsed without agreement on Iran's nuclear future. The Iranian
:34:53. > :34:57.President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in the day's after the talks,
:34:57. > :35:02.western nations have tried their jut most to prevent Iran from going
:35:02. > :35:06.nuclear. But Iran has gone nuclear. That was the President. The
:35:06. > :35:12.negotiations between Iran and the six powers, the UK, the Usmani,
:35:12. > :35:17.France, Germany, Russia and -- the USA, France, Germany, Russia and
:35:17. > :35:21.China, have been going on for a decade. There are sanctions,
:35:21. > :35:26.including curbs on financial transactions from crude oil exports,
:35:26. > :35:30.which are its main source of overseas revenue. The Iranians say
:35:30. > :35:35.their nuclear programme is purely peaceful energy and Medsical
:35:35. > :35:45.purposes and that it has a right to process uranium for reactor fuel
:35:45. > :35:45.
:35:46. > :35:49.under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the head of Iran's
:35:49. > :35:54.Atomic Energy Organisation said this week that Iran may, in the
:35:54. > :35:58.future, need highly enriched uranium to power submarines, which
:35:58. > :36:04.would then be a relatively small technical step to weapons grade
:36:04. > :36:11.uranium. I'm joined by two guests who have published books on Iranian
:36:11. > :36:15.- Iran's ambitions Peter Oborne and it's your view that Iran is not
:36:15. > :36:20.heading or trying to build a nuclear deterrent is that right?
:36:20. > :36:27.It's not just my view, it's the view of US intelligence, probably
:36:27. > :36:36.the view of Israeli intelligence. It's the view of the IAEA, they all
:36:36. > :36:42.say, serm American intelligence that Iran $not have an active --
:36:42. > :36:47.Iranians do not an -- have an active nuclear programme. This was
:36:47. > :36:52.said in the national intelligence estimate report is clear about it.
:36:52. > :36:56.You believe that Iran's nuclear programme is purely for peaceful
:36:56. > :37:02.purposes? I cannot say to you, and nobody can say that it is purely
:37:02. > :37:07.for peaceful purposes. Nobody can say they are not actually, nobody
:37:07. > :37:11.can prove it, I cannot be clear. But the intelligence people seem to
:37:11. > :37:16.be saying that there is no active nuclear weapons programme and that
:37:16. > :37:20.we would know if there was one. Aren't these the same intelligence
:37:20. > :37:25.people that told us Saddam had lots of weapons of mass destruction?
:37:25. > :37:29.Indeed. Intelligence can get things wrong. But I think it is worthy of
:37:29. > :37:33.note that US intelligence does not believe at present that there is an
:37:33. > :37:39.active programme. What's your view on this? There is no doubt at all,
:37:39. > :37:48.and I speak as someone who was a judge, that they were up to a
:37:48. > :37:53.nuclear weapons programme until 2003. They had... I can accept that.
:37:53. > :37:58.They had... The father of the Pakistani bomb. Yes. The Sunni
:37:58. > :38:03.Islam bomb. He was brought in and paid millions to develop a nuclear
:38:03. > :38:08.weapons programme. They stopped their nuclear weapons programme in
:38:08. > :38:15.2003, after they had been outed, after the lies that they had told
:38:15. > :38:20.were exposed. Have they start today again? They had an Aladdin's cave.
:38:20. > :38:25.You both agree up to 2003. wouldn't put it nearly as strongly.
:38:25. > :38:29.You can't be as difintive as Geoffrey is now. I think they were
:38:29. > :38:33.going for gold in the nuclear stakes. That's an opinion. I think
:38:33. > :38:43.if you were prosecuting barrister, you're the best QC in Britain, you
:38:43. > :38:47.would destroy what you've just said in court. I think 2003 to 2005 they
:38:47. > :38:53.were terrified that America was going to invade and George Bush
:38:53. > :39:02.virtually was, it came very close. Then in 2006, we got the lies again.
:39:02. > :39:06.We got the facility they didn't disclose. In recent years the IAEA
:39:06. > :39:15.has not said that they're not developing, it said there is
:39:15. > :39:23.evidence that they are going for weaponisation at -- and do they
:39:23. > :39:28.allow the IAEA to investigate? No. Why wouldn't you let them? Not you
:39:28. > :39:34.personally, the Iranians? report would be destroyed in court
:39:34. > :39:39.totally. The word alleged appears 27 or 28 times. You'd be perfectly
:39:39. > :39:44.at home on that. You would destroy it. What I, can I just go back a
:39:44. > :39:48.little bit. Let me go into the background of this. The fundamental
:39:48. > :39:54.purpose of the book I published today, actually It's quite a small
:39:54. > :40:00.book. It's not as big as mine! My book is bigger than yours. His book
:40:00. > :40:04.is extraordinary. Size is not everything. Indeed. I published
:40:04. > :40:12.that one, not that one. You better be quiet. Carry on. I think that
:40:12. > :40:17.there is a demonisation ofive Republican going on. I think -- of
:40:17. > :40:20.Iran going on. I think it's portrayed as an aggressive country
:40:20. > :40:24.which refuses to cooperate with the rest of the world. If you look at
:40:24. > :40:30.the record, we show in our little book that there was a very
:40:30. > :40:35.comprehensive deal offered by Iran in 2005, offering the West or
:40:35. > :40:39.however you want to use that term, pretty well full access to
:40:39. > :40:44.everything they're doing, oversight of it. They would co-ownership on
:40:44. > :40:48.one occasion and that was reputiated. It was repudiated by
:40:48. > :40:52.Britain and the United States, I guess, on the grounds that they
:40:52. > :40:57.couldn't have one centrifuge running. What do you say to that?
:40:57. > :41:00.think this book is, it's arguments against some of the Bush regime
:41:01. > :41:06.policies are terrific, but there are only two lines, two lines about
:41:06. > :41:10.Iran's human rights record. This is a criminal regime. It killed 7,000
:41:10. > :41:15.prisoners. This particular regime, this particular President, who is
:41:15. > :41:20.now the Supreme Leader, it ran an international assassination
:41:20. > :41:25.campaign in which this Supreme Leader authorised 168 killings,
:41:25. > :41:28.assassinations. Of course, the 2009, they pretended that Ahmadinejad had
:41:29. > :41:31.won the election. They killed hundreds of demonstrators, tortured
:41:32. > :41:36.many more. Virtually every human rights lawyer in Iran is now
:41:36. > :41:40.serving eight years in prison. So you cannot ignore the fact...
:41:40. > :41:44.What's the response to that. That the regime who says it doesn't want
:41:44. > :41:50.nuclear weapons, lied about the elections, lied about being no
:41:50. > :41:55.torture. Firstly, we are changing the -- subject to human rights.
:41:55. > :41:59.It's part of it. It's incredibly important subject. What's your
:41:59. > :42:03.response that? I guess he's saying this a country that can behave like
:42:03. > :42:06.that why wouldn't it want nuclear weapons? I would be careful talking
:42:06. > :42:11.in the strong terms in which Geoffrey Robertson is doing. If you
:42:11. > :42:20.read and I do think we should all read. There's a wonderful book
:42:20. > :42:24.Going to Tehran by two former CIA officials, who dealt in this area.
:42:24. > :42:30.It answers, if you read chapter six of that book and still go on saying
:42:30. > :42:33.those 2009 elections were fixed, I think you're, you will not be
:42:33. > :42:39.convinced. What about hanging homosexuals? I don't know about
:42:39. > :42:45.that. They do, do they not? I've spent six months interviewing
:42:45. > :42:51.victims and witnesses to the 1988 prison, thousands of people killed.
:42:51. > :42:56.I have no doubt at all that this is an internationally criminally
:42:56. > :43:05.regime. If it gives itself impunity for killing thousands of prisoners,
:43:05. > :43:13.well... Don't they want President Sadat to hold onto power in --
:43:13. > :43:18.Assad to hold onto power? I'm sure they're aligned with him. We've
:43:18. > :43:23.broadened it here. What we're talking about with Iran, Syria and
:43:23. > :43:27.so forth, is this interesting and important conflict which dominates
:43:27. > :43:32.the modern world between Saadi and the Gulf States and Shia, Iran. It
:43:32. > :43:36.needs to be understood better than it is. Why are we on the side of
:43:36. > :43:41.Saudi, which is ghast live on human rights, where women can't drive a
:43:42. > :43:46.car. Lots of women drive cars in Iran. 63%, when last looked of
:43:46. > :43:52.university students in Tehran are women. It's a much, much more
:43:52. > :43:58.liberal society. Liberal?I know that - There are a number of women
:43:58. > :44:02.in prison for ten years for human rights lawyers. If we compare Iran
:44:02. > :44:07.to the record of Saudi Arabia, our great ally... That's a kind of ugly
:44:07. > :44:17.baby contest, isn't it? I am worried. Big up the human rights of
:44:17. > :44:19.
:44:19. > :44:27.Saudi Arabia and Iran. It will... The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
:44:27. > :44:31.will develop a bomb. They help to bank roll the pack -- Pakistan bomb
:44:31. > :44:37.in the first place. Give us your view on this interesting argument.
:44:37. > :44:42.Peter has written brilliantly about being Zimbabwe, made documentaries
:44:42. > :44:46.about Mugabe and exposed their human rights records. The
:44:46. > :44:51.impression you've given is that you're giving Iran a free pass on
:44:51. > :44:55.these human rights issues. A final word. I've accepted there are many
:44:55. > :45:00.questions that need to be asked about Iran, but what I have tried
:45:00. > :45:03.to do is say, if you look back ten years and the certainty about WMD
:45:03. > :45:08.and now we have the similar rhetoric and certainties about what
:45:08. > :45:14.Iran is up to, I'd say, all I'm trying to do really is say let's
:45:14. > :45:19.examine the evidence. All I said is as night follows day, if Iran has a
:45:19. > :45:23.nuclear bomb, if that becomes established the Saudis will buy.
:45:23. > :45:28.I'm all favour of examining the evidence, but the evidence is that
:45:28. > :45:33.Iran is positioning itself to move to a nuclear weapon within a few
:45:33. > :45:37.months, but it doesn't have one yet. The problem how we stop it. I will
:45:37. > :45:42.challenge that as well. The battle of the books. We'll leave it to you.
:45:42. > :45:45.Gentlemen, thank you. I forgot, we were doing the Theresa may to
:45:45. > :45:48.welcome Scottish viewers who finished first ministers questions.
:45:48. > :45:52.Hello, nice to see you. Now from one perennial international
:45:52. > :45:56.disagreement to another, the EU budget. There's a row brewing in
:45:56. > :45:59.Brussels. You'll find that hard to believe I know. It is a certainty.
:45:59. > :46:04.Even Peter Oborne might have to agree with. It it's about the
:46:04. > :46:07.budget. MEPs have warned that Governments including the UK might
:46:07. > :46:11.need to stump up billions more to keep the budget on track. There's
:46:11. > :46:16.always at times like this I like to send my best people to Europe to
:46:16. > :46:26.find out more, no expenses spared trip, which is why Jo Co joins us
:46:26. > :46:28.
:46:28. > :46:33.Here, the demand from the European commission for an extra 1.2 billion
:46:33. > :46:37.euros to fill a shortfall in funding this year has been met with a
:46:37. > :46:41.certain amount of this made by member states. It was a proposal
:46:41. > :46:50.that was discussed by MEPs here in Strasberg earlier this week. Two of
:46:50. > :46:54.them join me now, the Dutch Liberal MEP and a British Tory MEP. 11.2
:46:54. > :47:01.billion euros sounds a lot of money, but there are reports that it could
:47:01. > :47:09.be higher. What have you heard? can only take care of what is
:47:09. > :47:15.officially announced. In October, there was talk of an extra 16
:47:15. > :47:23.billion. But at the moment, the commission thinks that 11.2 billion
:47:23. > :47:28.is sufficient. Why should member states stump up 11.2 or even 16
:47:28. > :47:35.billion euros? Because they have authorised certain expenditure for
:47:35. > :47:39.themselves in the first place. They have authorised themselves to do it.
:47:39. > :47:48.The bills came in too late. They should have arrived earlier. Because
:47:48. > :47:53.they came too late, we sent back to the member states 13 billion euros.
:47:53. > :47:58.So the 11.2 is still something that has to be paid. So bills have to be
:47:59. > :48:07.paid. Projects have to be signed off, there was no alternative but to
:48:07. > :48:11.cough up the money? I don't think this is true in reality. Do you not
:48:11. > :48:16.believe the commission? Well, I don't, because the figures the
:48:16. > :48:22.commission gives are totally unreliable. Last year, in October,
:48:22. > :48:28.first they said they needed 6 billion, than 9 billion. Suddenly, a
:48:28. > :48:32.16 billion amount has come up. But actually, they should have a record
:48:32. > :48:35.in their account of what has been committed legally and what they need
:48:35. > :48:43.to pay according to those commitments. Haven't they got
:48:43. > :48:46.invoices? They are not shown to MEPs at all. I doubt they are shown to
:48:46. > :48:52.the member states. But you could easily go to the member states and
:48:52. > :48:57.say, please raise a demand for such an amount. The issue here is that
:48:57. > :49:05.there was a budget agreed for 2013, and you cannot come three months
:49:05. > :49:11.later and say, we want 8% more of what you gave us at the beginning of
:49:11. > :49:15.the year. It is ridiculous. They should be able to determine the
:49:15. > :49:18.needs when there is negotiation. Isn't that a fair point? How can
:49:18. > :49:23.there be such a massive miscalculation? Why don't they know
:49:23. > :49:27.what they need at the beginning of every year? In the first place, we
:49:27. > :49:34.always have to verify what the commission is presenting us. So you
:49:34. > :49:39.would want to see the invoices, to? Not every invoice, but we have to
:49:39. > :49:49.justify it. But when we accepted last December the budget for 2013,
:49:49. > :49:54.
:49:54. > :50:02.we knew it was not enough. But not to the level of 11 billion. We knew
:50:02. > :50:06.it was not enough, but we wanted to give the member states time to make
:50:06. > :50:12.up their mind. But we expect from the commission early in the next
:50:12. > :50:18.year a new budget to account for the shortfall. And the president of the
:50:18. > :50:22.Parliament asked the president of the Council, do you agree? And the
:50:22. > :50:26.president of the Council, on behalf of the member states, said yes.
:50:26. > :50:33.it comes to a vote in the European Parliament, will you support member
:50:33. > :50:39.states paying up 11.2 billion euros? Yes, if the justification is
:50:39. > :50:44.enough. We have to verify the figures of the commission, but I
:50:44. > :50:48.think that if you sign a contract, you have to pay for it. You
:50:48. > :50:51.obviously have obligations to pay up. You knew there would be a
:50:51. > :50:58.shortfall. How much would Britain have to pay to contribute to the
:50:58. > :51:03.shortfall? Around 2 billion euros more. Why so much? There are 27
:51:04. > :51:09.member states. Because of the percentage they have to pay. The UK
:51:09. > :51:14.is a net contributor, and many of the other countries which will
:51:14. > :51:19.receive this 11th billion are net recipients. 2 billion euros from
:51:19. > :51:24.Britain? What do you think David Cameron should do? He should refuse
:51:24. > :51:32.to pay these invoices. He agreed on a certain amount of cash that he was
:51:32. > :51:36.going to put in. The commission should not allow projects to be
:51:36. > :51:40.started if they exceed the amount of cash that the member states agreed
:51:41. > :51:45.in December. But the budget committee chairman has warned that
:51:45. > :51:53.the commission could become insolvent unless the full amount is
:51:53. > :51:59.met by member states. This is not true. The commission should stop
:51:59. > :52:03.projects that they don't have money to pay for. What the commission has
:52:03. > :52:08.done is continue to put through commitments, legal obligations for
:52:08. > :52:12.projects that exceed the amount of money they were going to get from
:52:12. > :52:18.the member states. Isn't it worrying that actually, this is a political
:52:18. > :52:21.issue? The British Liberal Democrat MEP has said it is a political
:52:21. > :52:27.statement on an estimate of what is needed in budgetary terms. Is that
:52:27. > :52:30.fair? We have to verify if that is true. But if you look at the amount
:52:30. > :52:37.of commitments that have been approved by member states and by the
:52:37. > :52:45.Parliament, it is much more than we are asking now because we have a
:52:45. > :52:48.backlog in commitments of something like 230 billion that has been
:52:48. > :52:52.approved by member states to be incremented. The only solution is
:52:52. > :52:59.that you commit less money, that you do not commit money if you are not
:53:00. > :53:06.sure you campaign for it. That is what I am saying. That is what the
:53:06. > :53:11.liberal group has done for the last two years. And we were the only
:53:11. > :53:14.group that supported it. Well, good for the Liberals. Let me finish it
:53:14. > :53:18.there. As always with these budgetary disagreements, they will
:53:19. > :53:26.continue, Andrew. At least it keeps us in a job.
:53:26. > :53:29.Now, the charity behind a network of food banks says it has fed more than
:53:29. > :53:32.290,000 people in the last financial year. The Department for
:53:33. > :53:37.environment, food and rural affairs has commissioned research into the
:53:37. > :53:41.reasons why people end up needing food aid. It has become a subject
:53:41. > :53:45.that is raised regularly at Prime Minister's Questions by Labour
:53:45. > :53:55.backbenchers anxious to embarrass the prime minister. So what is
:53:55. > :53:55.
:53:55. > :54:00.behind this growing trend? I have been struggling a bit financially.
:54:00. > :54:04.This is this woman's first time at a food bank. She has four children and
:54:04. > :54:10.is on income support. The money I get, I can't provide for the house
:54:10. > :54:13.fold. Here in south London, there is a food bank twice a week. People:
:54:13. > :54:17.Only pick up food if they have qualified for a voucher. Lorraine
:54:17. > :54:23.has to choose between paying for food or electricity, and tells me
:54:23. > :54:30.this was her last resort. I knew about the food banks, but I was kind
:54:30. > :54:37.of embarrassed, and I wanted to see if I could survive without it. Then
:54:37. > :54:41.a friend of mine told me about it, so I thought, no, I am not going to
:54:41. > :54:44.go without. We need this for the family. This food bank is one of
:54:44. > :54:52.more than 300 around the country set up by the trust or trust. It says
:54:52. > :54:56.the number of people it is feeding has risen from 40,000 in 2009-10 to
:54:56. > :55:03.290,000 in 2012-13. But is that down to increased need or better access
:55:03. > :55:07.to food banks? We are worked hard to roll them out. So one and so is our
:55:07. > :55:11.effort. The other issue is straightforward. We are in a deep
:55:11. > :55:16.recession. We have not seen anything like this in this country for
:55:16. > :55:21.perhaps 100 years. As a consequence, lots more people are in
:55:21. > :55:24.deep need. The government has been doing research into who is accessing
:55:24. > :55:30.food aid and why. David Cameron has claimed that the coalition has done
:55:30. > :55:34.more than labour to help people get access to food banks. One thing
:55:34. > :55:38.Labour refuse to do which we have done is actually to allow job
:55:38. > :55:41.centres to point people towards food banks if they need them. But the
:55:41. > :55:44.trust or trust says that close to 45% of the people who come to food
:55:44. > :55:50.banks have been referred here because of delays or changes to
:55:50. > :55:57.their benefits. We are already beginning to see the people who have
:55:57. > :56:03.got changes due to the bedroom tax who already know that they will be
:56:03. > :56:07.affected and are trying to work out how to pay that extra. The Labour MP
:56:07. > :56:12.here in Norwood says the coalition is to blame. It is the actions of
:56:12. > :56:17.this government that have increased the demand by families in poverty on
:56:17. > :56:20.food banks. And it will get worse with changes to the social fund.
:56:20. > :56:25.this Conservative MP tells me benefit changes are not the reason
:56:25. > :56:30.that people are turning to food banks. The main thing is that the
:56:30. > :56:34.cost of living has really hit people. The benefit system has
:56:34. > :56:39.continued to function. Benefits have been paid and we do everything we
:56:39. > :56:42.can to minimise delays. The purpose of bringing in universal credit is
:56:42. > :56:47.to simplify the benefit system and make it clear to people that they
:56:47. > :56:54.are better off in work. The cost of living was Lorraine's reason for
:56:54. > :57:00.coming here. These bags of food will ease things for her family for now.
:57:00. > :57:05.You do a phone in show. Does this come up? It does. A few months ago,
:57:05. > :57:09.I did an hour on this, wondering if anyone would phone in, but we have a
:57:09. > :57:13.full switchboard almost immediately from people who had used food banks
:57:13. > :57:17.and people who had never heard of them. It is a comparatively recent
:57:18. > :57:21.phenomenon. They did not exist about eight or nine years ago. And the
:57:21. > :57:27.more you have, they almost create a demand. People who don't know that
:57:27. > :57:31.they exist will not use them. But they are now mentioned a lot in the
:57:31. > :57:35.press. Fundamentally, I suppose everybody wishes there was no need
:57:35. > :57:38.for them, but well done to the trusts or trust for providing them.
:57:38. > :57:43.Given that there is clearly a need for them, it is embarrassing for the
:57:43. > :57:47.government. I guess it is an embarrassment for society as a
:57:47. > :57:51.whole. It is a failure of the benefit system to cope with people
:57:51. > :57:56.who have the need. They are actually quite rigorous about who they give
:57:56. > :58:00.food to. Quite a lot of people go a long, asking for food, and they get
:58:00. > :58:05.refused because they are not entitled to it. That is tough. I am
:58:05. > :58:10.told there was a bit of fraud that goes on, which is sad as well.
:58:10. > :58:14.sense there will be more of them before we see the demise of them.
:58:14. > :58:18.Absolutely. They are only in certain parts of the country at the moment,
:58:18. > :58:23.and I suspect we will see a proliferation of them over the next
:58:23. > :58:29.few years. Thank you for being with us. That is it for today. The one
:58:29. > :58:35.o'clock News is starting an BBC One. I will be back on BBC One with
:58:35. > :58:39.Michael Portillo, Jacqui Smith and Andrew Walmsley at 11.35 after
:58:39. > :58:45.Question Time tonight. Then I will be back here again, there was no