:00:44. > :00:47.Daily Politics. The prime minister gives the order for a draft bill
:00:47. > :00:51.enabling an in-out referendum on Europe, but it has almost no chance
:00:51. > :00:55.of becoming law, so will it be enough to say to the appetite of the
:00:55. > :00:58.Tory backbenches? They are not happy about the
:00:58. > :01:03.prospect of this either. What trouble will the gay marriage bill
:01:03. > :01:06.run into when it returns to the Commons next week?
:01:06. > :01:10.Strivers and shirkers dash as the political rhetoric hots up, what
:01:10. > :01:15.does Britain really think about welfare benefits?
:01:15. > :01:19.And we will ask why politicians put themselves through this. Over the
:01:19. > :01:29.last few months, I have spent a long time trying to work hard on the
:01:29. > :01:30.
:01:30. > :01:34.National Health Service. All that in the next 60 minutes. And
:01:34. > :01:41.cheers, not jeers, please, because joining me for the whole programme
:01:41. > :01:44.today is former Conservative MP and Times commentator Matthew Parris.
:01:44. > :01:48.When is a draft Bill ordered by the prime minister not a government
:01:48. > :01:52.Bill? When it is a bill enabling and in-out referendum on Europe in the
:01:52. > :01:55.teeth of opposition from your coalition partners. The Conservative
:01:55. > :02:00.leadership expects the bill to be picked by one of their backbench
:02:00. > :02:04.MPs. There should be plenty of willing volunteers. And introduced
:02:04. > :02:08.as a private members bill. Let's get more from our political
:02:08. > :02:12.correspondent. Take us through the process of what is being proposed
:02:12. > :02:17.here by the leadership? Just because the prime minister is the prime
:02:17. > :02:21.minister, it does not mean he can get his way on stuff. So when he
:02:21. > :02:23.gave his big speech about Europe in January, he was not able to say we
:02:23. > :02:28.would renegotiate and have a referendum before the election
:02:28. > :02:32.because those pesky Lib Dems would not let him. He could not promise a
:02:32. > :02:34.bill in government time to guarantee a referendum after an election, even
:02:34. > :02:38.if you take the principle that a bill could guarantee that something
:02:38. > :02:43.happened after an election, because again, the Lib Dems would not allow
:02:43. > :02:46.the government time for it. But when the draft bill that he mentioned in
:02:46. > :02:51.his speech did not turn up in the Queen's Speech, some of his
:02:51. > :02:55.backbenchers were not happy, put down this amendment, and started the
:02:55. > :03:00.process we have seen which began with number ten saying how relaxed
:03:00. > :03:04.they were and appears to have ended with them proposing printing a draft
:03:04. > :03:09.bill this afternoon which they will then have to find a willing
:03:09. > :03:13.backbencher who does well in the ballot to introduce into Parliament,
:03:13. > :03:20.which even then is highly unlikely to become law, because it is very
:03:20. > :03:25.easy to stop. So will it satisfy the back who are going to vote in favour
:03:25. > :03:29.of this amendment, regretting the absence of some sort of European
:03:29. > :03:34.legislation in the Queen's Speech? Depends which backbencher you speak
:03:34. > :03:38.to. Douglas Carswell, a prominent Euro-sceptic, has addressed this
:03:38. > :03:45.issue that people say about the Euro-sceptics, that they are never
:03:45. > :03:47.satisfied. He says he is happy. There is peace between the prime
:03:47. > :03:53.minister and Douglas Carswell. But John Barron, who is behind this
:03:53. > :03:58.amendment, is not. He has urged the prime minister to have the courage
:03:58. > :04:02.to back this amendment. He wants the prime minister to have the courage
:04:02. > :04:04.to back an amendment in effect rubbishing the prime minister's
:04:04. > :04:10.programme for government. It is unlikely that he will do that, not
:04:10. > :04:14.least because he will not be the country. The prime minister is in
:04:14. > :04:19.America at the moment. He has been in the Oval Office with the leader
:04:19. > :04:25.of the free world, to use a disputed term. And what are we doing? Banging
:04:25. > :04:28.on about Europe. He wanted to stop that sort of thing. He did indeed.
:04:28. > :04:32.With us now Chris Heaton-Harris, one of a group of Conservative MPs
:04:32. > :04:36.involved in discussions with other European countries about reforming
:04:36. > :04:40.the EU, and Labour MP Keith Vaz, who wants his party to back a
:04:40. > :04:46.referendum. We also hoped to be joined by a Liberal Democrat, but
:04:46. > :04:52.none of their 57 MPs was available. Matthew Parris, how does this make
:04:52. > :04:57.the Tory party look 's dreadful. thought your correspondent's
:04:57. > :05:03.analysis was flawless, but it will all be completely lost on most
:05:03. > :05:06.voters. And some of us. The voters just see the Tories Rowling about
:05:06. > :05:13.Europe again. I cannot understand why elements within the Conservative
:05:13. > :05:17.Party want to drag it into what can only be damaging to the party's
:05:17. > :05:20.electoral chances. You don't need a political commentator here today,
:05:20. > :05:26.you need a psychiatrist to talk about what is happening to parts of
:05:26. > :05:33.the Conservative Party. That is not exactly a vote of confidence, is it?
:05:33. > :05:38.I obviously disagree. The Parliamentary party is remarkably
:05:38. > :05:42.united over where we have come from and where we are now, with the prime
:05:42. > :05:49.minister's speech at Bloomberg and now a draft Bill. If you can get
:05:49. > :05:52.people across the Conservative Party to agree, the prime minister is a
:05:52. > :05:57.good uniting factor. People will remember that the Conservative Party
:05:57. > :06:02.will give the British people a referendum. And Keith Vaz, it is on
:06:02. > :06:07.that important point where Labour falls down, because Chris is right
:06:07. > :06:12.dash whatever else it does, it does underline a commitment to an in-out
:06:12. > :06:16.referendum, albeit in 2017, which neither Labour nor the Liberal
:06:16. > :06:20.Democrats are promising. I can only speak for myself, not the leader of
:06:20. > :06:24.the Labour Party, although Ed Miliband has made it clear that it
:06:24. > :06:29.is a question of timing. He has not ruled it out forever. I believe we
:06:29. > :06:33.should have a referendum now. I don't think we need to wait. I think
:06:33. > :06:39.the case has been made on one side or the other. The British people
:06:39. > :06:44.need to have a choice, and we need to land this boil. So you are closer
:06:44. > :06:48.to David Cameron than anyone in the Labour leadership? For the reasons
:06:48. > :06:52.that Matthew has outlined, this could drag on for four years. I have
:06:52. > :06:55.been at these summits as Minister for Europe. I know how difficult it
:06:55. > :07:00.is for the prime minister and Minister is to have discussions with
:07:00. > :07:05.continental colleagues. This has been an MEP, he knows how slowly
:07:05. > :07:08.Europe works. It is important to land the boil. We should have this
:07:08. > :07:13.referendum before or at the next general election, and just get on
:07:13. > :07:17.with it. I don't think four years of negotiations will make any
:07:17. > :07:22.difference. The quicker we do it, the better. My job as a humble
:07:22. > :07:27.backbencher is to try and gently persuade Ed Miliband. Have you got
:07:27. > :07:32.any chance of persuading him? have not rung me yet. But I hope
:07:32. > :07:38.that over the next few months, we will have a gentle debate about
:07:38. > :07:40.this. But you are closer to Chris Heaton-Harris and David Cameron on
:07:40. > :07:44.this issue than you are too Ed Miliband. I have always been closer
:07:44. > :07:49.to Chris on this issue. We both believe it is important that the
:07:49. > :07:54.choice should be given to the British people. Let them decide.
:07:54. > :07:59.Whatever the result, if it is a yes, we stay in. If it is a no, we come
:07:59. > :08:02.out. Will you vote for the amendment? I will not vote for the
:08:02. > :08:08.amendment, because it says we should have legislation for a referendum in
:08:08. > :08:13.the future. But that is closer than Ed Miliband. I will not be voting
:08:13. > :08:19.against the amendment, because we should have a discussion about this.
:08:19. > :08:23.At the moment, my position is that we should abstain. Chris
:08:23. > :08:28.Heaton-Harris, if there were a referendum tomorrow, which way would
:08:28. > :08:32.you vote? There will not be one tomorrow, but if there were, I would
:08:32. > :08:36.be campaigning to come out. But I believe we need to have a
:08:36. > :08:42.renegotiation. There are lots of good reasons why we have a Eurozone
:08:42. > :08:46.that is coming together in political union, 17 countries which will be
:08:46. > :08:51.able to outvote the UK at the end of this year. That could have massive
:08:51. > :08:54.implications for our access to the single market. We need legal
:08:54. > :09:01.safeguards to stop that. You don't think the electorate trust David
:09:01. > :09:04.Cameron's word? I do think they will trust him, and even more now with
:09:04. > :09:10.this bill. Because they did not trust him enough beforehand. That is
:09:10. > :09:13.why it is necessary to have this draft will? The county council
:09:13. > :09:20.elections showed that enough people were happy with the prime
:09:20. > :09:24.minister's view on this. And many of them were happy with what UKIP were
:09:24. > :09:31.saying. That is why there are these shenanigans over Europe, because of
:09:31. > :09:36.fear of UKIP. That is not true. The prime minister did not mention the
:09:36. > :09:42.fact that there would be a bill in his speech earlier in the year.
:09:42. > :09:46.did not come out yesterday. I believe this was prepared some time
:09:46. > :09:48.ago, and it was ready to be published. They decided not to have
:09:48. > :09:52.negotiations with the Liberal Democrats, even though it was
:09:52. > :09:56.Liberal Democrat policy just a few years ago to have an in-out
:09:56. > :10:01.referendum. I am thinking of the ordinary voter listening to this
:10:02. > :10:10.conversation. What is a paving bill? Referendum in four years? All the
:10:10. > :10:14.electorate here is blah blah blah, Tories Rowling. -- Rowling. If Keith
:10:14. > :10:18.Vaz's suggest were to be taken up and we had a snap referendum now on
:10:18. > :10:23.in or out, do you think the Tory Euro-sceptics would be satisfied?
:10:23. > :10:27.They would immediately say no, they are trying to bounce us into a
:10:27. > :10:32.referendum. People need to put this to the electorate. It does not need
:10:32. > :10:36.to be a snap referendum and you do not need a long campaign. Michael
:10:36. > :10:40.Gove has already said he would vote no. I would vote yes, because I
:10:40. > :10:45.believe the best way to reform is from within the European Union.
:10:45. > :10:50.would vote to stay with the status quo? Because the best way to reform
:10:50. > :10:55.is from within. How do you think the electorate would vote? I think they
:10:55. > :10:59.would vote yes, because the three party leaders would all be on the
:10:59. > :11:03.same platform. It would be catastrophic if Britain came out of
:11:03. > :11:08.the European Union in a referendum at this moment. Do you agree that it
:11:08. > :11:15.would be catastrophic? If we were to leave the EU? Not at all, otherwise
:11:15. > :11:17.I would not think it would be a good idea. You want renegotiation, so you
:11:17. > :11:24.believe that staying within a reformed EU is a good idea.
:11:24. > :11:28.Absolutely, but as it stands now, we have all sorts of issues on access
:11:28. > :11:32.to the single market and working practices may you could list a whole
:11:32. > :11:35.gambit of things that need to be changed. But David Cameron promised
:11:35. > :11:38.a referendum. Don't you see the damage that you and some of your
:11:38. > :11:42.colleagues are now doing to any impression of unity that the party
:11:42. > :11:46.needs to take into the next election? I see a bunch of pundits
:11:46. > :11:51.talking about something that is not there. There is a whole group of
:11:51. > :11:55.Conservative MPs from left to right that I united. You have an amendment
:11:55. > :12:01.to the Queen's Speech regretting the absence of any legislation. You have
:12:01. > :12:06.calls for a man the tree -- mandatory referendum now, and you
:12:06. > :12:10.have the Tory leadership publishing a draft bill for paving legislation,
:12:10. > :12:14.which many people are not sure what that means. And you have others
:12:14. > :12:18.calling for Britain to leave the EU now because renegotiation is
:12:18. > :12:21.pointless. That is a united party? They are all the nuances of the same
:12:21. > :12:26.thing, which is that we need a better relationship now, or we might
:12:26. > :12:31.have to leave in the future. Is it politically the right place for Ed
:12:31. > :12:41.Miliband to be in, to almost be ruling out a referendum? He said not
:12:41. > :12:42.
:12:42. > :12:48.now. Not in 2017. So in effect, no referendum. Politically, is that
:12:48. > :12:51.wrong? At the end of the day, all the political parties will have to
:12:51. > :12:57.sign up to offering the British electorate a referendum. This issue
:12:57. > :13:01.cannot go on dominating our politics year after year. We have a
:13:01. > :13:06.Conservative government now. This is not the biggest issue in the world,
:13:06. > :13:10.but it is taking up time. The best way to deal with it is to have a
:13:10. > :13:15.referendum. All three major political parties will have to sign
:13:15. > :13:18.up to one, I think. Ed Miliband does not want a referendum on the
:13:19. > :13:21.European Union, but he may be forced to agree to one unless the
:13:21. > :13:25.Conservative Party manages to pull itself to pieces between now and the
:13:25. > :13:35.next general election. Some of you, Douglas, are doing your best to do
:13:35. > :13:38.
:13:38. > :13:43.that. Not Douglas! Let's go to the issue of terror in the party apart.
:13:43. > :13:46.We saw it before over Maastricht. You could argue about the nuances of
:13:46. > :13:51.where everyone is standing, but there is still a risk that the
:13:51. > :13:57.perception in the voting public is, what is going on? We don't
:13:57. > :14:03.understand. It is clearer when we listen to UKIP. It is clear that the
:14:03. > :14:07.only party with chants of delivering a referendum to the UK on their
:14:07. > :14:11.relationship with Europe is the Conservative Party. That is a good
:14:11. > :14:17.message for Conservative MPs to get behind. The fact that we now have a
:14:17. > :14:23.paving Bill adds an extra level of proof, if it were needed, that we
:14:23. > :14:33.can head in this direction. How did you think the media would talk this
:14:33. > :14:33.
:14:33. > :14:36.up? But Matthew, why are we not being allowed to discuss this issue
:14:36. > :14:39.and put it to the British public? I can't understand your objection to a
:14:39. > :14:47.referendum that would allow the issue to be settled one way or the
:14:47. > :14:51.other. The Labour Party offered a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
:14:51. > :14:54.That offer did not have to be brought to fruition because of what
:14:54. > :14:59.happened in France. There is legislation which says we have to
:14:59. > :15:03.have a referendum if there is major treaty change. I have no objection
:15:03. > :15:07.to a referendum now, except that the let's stay in vote would win it and
:15:07. > :15:11.I would not have been a proper discussion beforehand. I have no
:15:11. > :15:15.objection to David Cameron's proposals for a referendum. I am
:15:15. > :15:17.speaking as a Conservative, thinking it is important that the
:15:17. > :15:27.Conservative Party wins direct election, and Chris, what you are
:15:27. > :15:33.doing is not helping. I disagree. The minister has spelt out in his
:15:33. > :15:40.speech his policies. How much of an impact has UKIP had on what is going
:15:40. > :15:45.on now? It has had a huge impact on the more nervous Conservative MPs. I
:15:45. > :15:50.think they will take the wrong lesson from it. They will think that
:15:50. > :15:53.if they get closer to UKIP, people will like them or, instead of
:15:53. > :16:03.thinking UKIP is winning the argument. UKIP is important, but we
:16:03. > :16:07.
:16:07. > :16:12.have to answer their arguments, not move closer. There was a huge spike
:16:12. > :16:17.in UKIP support, you do, you tackle UKIP by having the conversation on
:16:17. > :16:21.tissues that count, which is immigration, which could easily be
:16:21. > :16:26.in my case windfarms and Europe as well. Europe is a by product of
:16:26. > :16:33.this. I agree with Chris and Matthew. A bit of consensus at the
:16:33. > :16:36.end? In the East Midlands they said kill Roy sill ing was going to
:16:36. > :16:40.change the course of British politics and it didn't happen.
:16:40. > :16:45.you for joining u we will talk end Leslie about Europe for the next few
:16:45. > :16:52.days. So, the coalition whips have had their work cut out to keep their
:16:52. > :16:57.troops in line, but just how rebellious are the MPs? Phil Cowley
:16:57. > :17:02.has been tallying the transgressions for his new book. The last session
:17:02. > :17:07.of Parliament saw rebellions in 61 Parliamentary votes. That is a
:17:07. > :17:11.rebellion in more nan quarter of all the votes taken. But it is not the
:17:11. > :17:16.most rebellious on record. That prize goes to yes, Mr Cameron's
:17:16. > :17:20.first session as Prime Minister, when there was a rebellion in 44% of
:17:20. > :17:25.votes. The high levels for any post-war Prime Minister.
:17:25. > :17:29.So far, 185 of the Government's MPs have rebelled since the general
:17:29. > :17:32.election, and Professor coulis is here in the studio. Welcome to the
:17:32. > :17:36.programme. You could say things are looking up for David Cameron this
:17:36. > :17:40.year? They are looking up, if you just take the numbers, and I would
:17:40. > :17:44.never advice anyone just to take the number, one of the reasons there has
:17:44. > :17:48.been a drop from the last session there was a huge House of Lords
:17:48. > :17:51.shaped hole in the legislative programme. Had the Government
:17:51. > :17:57.managed to get that bill programmed and take it through, there would
:17:57. > :18:00.have been dozens more and we would be talking about the same level of
:18:00. > :18:04.rebellion; even the drop you have seen is to a level that is still
:18:05. > :18:09.high for a post-war Government. comparing it to previous
:18:09. > :18:13.administration, how rebellious are the Government's MPs? One of the
:18:13. > :18:18.most rebellious sessions in the pre-war era, for example, I can find
:18:18. > :18:22.only one Conservative session which is Edward Heath's session, which saw
:18:22. > :18:26.a higher level of rebellion. You are talking one of the most rebellious
:18:26. > :18:29.session, that is true if you split it down into Conservatives and
:18:29. > :18:33.Liberal Democrats. One would automatically assume it is because
:18:33. > :18:36.they are in a coalition? Normally one of the deals with coalition
:18:36. > :18:39.Government is if we do a deal to govern together, we have to deliver
:18:39. > :18:43.MPs to support the programme, because otherwise there is no point
:18:43. > :18:47.in being in the coalition. So one of the norms of coalition Government is
:18:47. > :18:50.that where you have coalitions you normally have low levels of dissent,
:18:50. > :18:56.we seem to be doing things differently. It has bucked the
:18:56. > :19:01.trend. Are you surprised? I wonder whether this spike if it is a spike,
:19:01. > :19:05.in rebellions, is part of a long-term trend since the Second
:19:05. > :19:09.World War or just a feature of the Government? This is a trend that has
:19:09. > :19:13.begun for the last 20 or 30 year, MPs are much more independent
:19:13. > :19:18.minded, the period where they were really plieant to whips is the
:19:18. > :19:23.immediate post-war period. The '40s and 50, you begin in the late 60s
:19:23. > :19:27.and 70s to see MPs becoming more rebellious. The 2001 Parliament is
:19:27. > :19:33.the record breaking and this is on course, despite the drop to be the
:19:33. > :19:39.most rebellious in the post-war era, it is a long-term trend. The whips
:19:39. > :19:42.need another war in other words! 1997, presumably, I mean you would
:19:42. > :19:46.assume where there was a landslide people might feel freer to rebel,
:19:46. > :19:53.but that is not necessarily the case, the discipline was obviously
:19:53. > :19:57.there in 1997. There is a big difference between 97 and 2010. In
:19:57. > :20:01.997 when Labour come in after that long period in opposition, there is
:20:01. > :20:04.rock solid opposition and I interviewed a lot of Labour MP, they
:20:04. > :20:09.would say things they were unhappy about, the line is we don't want to
:20:10. > :20:14.go into opposition, we will keep quiet. That broke down after 2001
:20:14. > :20:17.and they started to kick and kick heavily. You don't have anything
:20:17. > :20:21.like the same self discipline at the moment on the Conservative or
:20:21. > :20:28.Liberal Democrat benches. Presumably for administrations with small
:20:28. > :20:33.majority, there is the emtakes to rebel because you can have a big
:20:33. > :20:37.impact on legislation It depends where it comes in the cycle. Matthew
:20:37. > :20:42.rebelled very early on in his career, and look where it got him!
:20:42. > :20:46.But, you know, if you look at what happened to John Major after 1992,
:20:47. > :20:53.if there a period where MPs get used to breling they can't change
:20:53. > :20:56.behaviour. There are two reasons why a backbencher may rebel or two
:20:56. > :20:59.different justifications amay give themselves, one is the Government
:20:59. > :21:04.has a huge majority and so it doesn't matter, I can express my
:21:04. > :21:07.view and nobody will be hurt, but the other of course, is that when
:21:08. > :21:11.the Government has a small majority, well, I could make a difference,
:21:12. > :21:15.but, if the Government has a small majority, the whips can say do you
:21:15. > :21:18.it does matter, you are going to cause a lot of trouble, so the
:21:18. > :21:23.pressure increases This is a government with a big majority.
:21:23. > :21:26.sort of things are they defying the whips over? It depend which party.
:21:26. > :21:31.There is a difference between Conservative and Liberal Democrat
:21:31. > :21:36.rebellion, half of Liberal Democrat rebellions are on social policy,
:21:36. > :21:39.about 40% from memory of Conservative rebellions are on
:21:39. > :21:42.constitutional policy and a chunk, one in five are on Europe. The
:21:42. > :21:46.problem for the Europe ones is Europe ones are double the size of
:21:46. > :21:50.the others. Although interestingly, of course, if you don't bother whips
:21:50. > :21:55.MPs as there is going to be a free vote, ministers will be be allowed
:21:55. > :21:59.to abstain in the amendment to the Queen speeches, it is not a
:21:59. > :22:03.rebellion The only reason they are doing that is because they know the
:22:03. > :22:12.rebellion would be huge, you have to go back to 1946, to find an example
:22:12. > :22:13.of Government MPs moving an amendment to their own Queen's
:22:13. > :22:19.Speech and being willing to rebel in number this is unprecedented stuff.
:22:19. > :22:24.I can't find any examples of a gove say saying do what you want on the
:22:24. > :22:26.Queen's Speech. Is this a good thing they are a rebellious lot? It can go
:22:26. > :22:32.too far when team work breaks down and it may be about do that now, but
:22:33. > :22:36.on the whole, I think Members of Parliament are voicing their own
:22:36. > :22:41.opinions, it is a good thing, but within limits. I was looking from
:22:41. > :22:46.the sort of political science point of view, you must have difficulty in
:22:46. > :22:53.how to categorize rebellions that don't happen, because the rebellion
:22:53. > :22:56.was going to be so big... Or pulled the legislation or conceded huge
:22:56. > :23:00.ground, that is the big problem, nobody should look at the figures
:23:00. > :23:03.and say they indication influence, there can be considerable influence
:23:03. > :23:07.with no rebellions and that is because the Government is giving
:23:07. > :23:10.way. Now, there will be no rebellion on gay marriage when it returns to
:23:10. > :23:14.the Commons next week, because as we have been discussing the Government
:23:14. > :23:18.have promised a free vote on the issue. That doesn't Mina
:23:18. > :23:21.Conservative backbench dissent won't cause David Cameron trouble on a
:23:21. > :23:26.policy he has chosen to champion and opposition will come from other
:23:26. > :23:29.quarters too, when the gay marriage bill reaches the Lords. Here is the
:23:29. > :23:35.former Archbishop of Canterbury speaking in the upper House last
:23:35. > :23:38.week Of particular concern to many is the bewilderment caused bier a
:23:38. > :23:44.law concerning same-sex marriage, which would change the face of
:23:44. > :23:48.society and family with no mandate, or even a proper debate.
:23:48. > :23:55.Of particular concern at this point in the bill's passage, is for the
:23:55. > :24:00.first time, the way in which the proposals effectively
:24:00. > :24:06.institutionalise competing views of marriage in our society. Rather than
:24:06. > :24:10.promote promoting social cohesion this will lead to greater social
:24:10. > :24:14.fragmentation, far from ending the so-called battle of a marriage,
:24:14. > :24:20.these proposals will formalise it, and exacerbate it.
:24:20. > :24:24.And the Conservative MP David were rows, the aide to the Environment
:24:24. > :24:27.Secretary Owen Paterson is here now. You are calling for a referendum on
:24:28. > :24:32.this issue, what is your justification for that? It is
:24:32. > :24:38.because we, there is not a clear mandate for change, ordinary lit
:24:38. > :24:42.would come within a main party manifesto and it wasn't in my of the
:24:43. > :24:48.main part ties manifesto, it is the significance of the change. It isn't
:24:48. > :24:51.just a tidying up of marriage law, it is a significant change that need
:24:51. > :24:55.to be dealt with carefully, proper scrutiny and if it needs to happen,
:24:55. > :24:58.it needs to happen building a consensus, the position of a
:24:58. > :25:02.Conservative Party which is divided is reflected in the country.
:25:02. > :25:08.Referendums normally are reserved for major constitutional change, not
:25:08. > :25:14.social change, do you accept that has but it has constitutional
:25:14. > :25:19.implications as well. Mr Burrows says he wants a consensus, but I
:25:19. > :25:22.don't think a consensus would be possible. I very much doubt whether
:25:22. > :25:25.anything would persuade you to be in favour of gay marriage. I know
:25:25. > :25:30.nothing would persuade me to be against it. You have to have a vote
:25:30. > :25:33.in end. I wouldn't fear a referendum, because I no doubt at
:25:33. > :25:40.all that gay marriage would pass a popular referendum. Absolutely no
:25:40. > :25:43.doubt at all. But I wonder about this principle that you have a
:25:43. > :25:46.friend when something wasn't in the manifesto, we are going to bring in
:25:46. > :25:52.charges for immigrants health charges until they start earning,
:25:52. > :25:59.that wasn't in the manifesto, do you want a referendum on that You have
:25:59. > :26:03.to accept the issue of gay marriage has been in the nation you must
:26:03. > :26:07.allow, obviously a referendum is hot just about the voter, it is about
:26:07. > :26:16.the national debate. It is good enough for the US, it should be good
:26:16. > :26:20.enough for us. We have had a debate in the media but not one that allows
:26:20. > :26:24.considered discussion of what is a vital institution, that reflects
:26:24. > :26:28.concerns of church, state and all individuals of all faiths, surely we
:26:28. > :26:33.should allow time to have that debate and put it... You don't want
:26:33. > :26:38.a debate, you want to defeat the measure So it is a vehicle you want
:26:38. > :26:42.to use it as a vehicle, to defeat a measure you don't like? It would be,
:26:42. > :26:46.it would be affect the commencement of this bill, but I am concerned
:26:46. > :26:49.about that as well as trying to ensure we have freedom of speech,
:26:49. > :26:52.properly protect and surely the Government should be able to accept
:26:52. > :26:56.that. It has been controversial, what is your evidence for saying
:26:56. > :27:00.that it is so controversial in the nation, that it deserves a
:27:00. > :27:05.referendum? It is controversial for certain parts of the population but
:27:05. > :27:12.MPs voted in favour by a huge majority, didn't they, of 225 and a
:27:12. > :27:16.poll by ICM but public support at 62% compared to 31% against. I
:27:16. > :27:21.suggest Matthew is right. If you had a referendum it would pass the test
:27:21. > :27:26.We would have to have a proper debate. It depends, with opinion
:27:26. > :27:32.polls, if you say that civil partnerships give effective legal
:27:32. > :27:36.rights, then do you want to support gay marriage, it goes up to 70% of
:27:36. > :27:42.people who are against. Just ask people are you in favour of gay
:27:42. > :27:48.marriage or not? That is one where you get a clear majority. People
:27:48. > :27:53.over 50 or 60 tend to be against it. People under it tend to ask what the
:27:53. > :27:58.fuss is about I am under 50 myself. And you look it. The case we found
:27:58. > :28:03.in the bill, the lack of the voice of of the reputation, has been
:28:03. > :28:11.profound in the scrutiny. That is of concern we will make a change
:28:11. > :28:15.without hearing properly from them. From who? BME.Who are BME From
:28:15. > :28:20.black majority church, from Hindu, Sikh, we didn't hear any evidence
:28:20. > :28:25.from them, in the public evidence session, that is a real concern,
:28:25. > :28:29.they are concerned. It crosses the divides, ethnic divides. Black
:28:29. > :28:33.andation people have every right to express their opinion in many ways
:28:33. > :28:38.to do it, but I don't think that you stop a measure, just because one
:28:38. > :28:43.section of the community is predominantly against it We don't go
:28:43. > :28:48.ahead without properly considering with care, communities, interests,
:28:48. > :28:53.the word said by Lord Carey were ones that said scrutiny has been
:28:53. > :28:56.pushed there consultation, it would move the goal posts from trying to
:28:56. > :29:00.separate civil and religious marriages to these proposals. It's a
:29:00. > :29:03.big change. We should have a brother debate about that, and allow it to
:29:03. > :29:07.come to a public vote. This Government isn't proposing any
:29:07. > :29:11.church will be forced to conduct same-sex marriage, there will be
:29:11. > :29:14.protections put in place, so is there any evidence people's
:29:14. > :29:17.religious freedoms will be compromised? We have to recognise
:29:17. > :29:21.the issue of marriage is not just about the marriage ceremony. We are
:29:21. > :29:26.not just talking about that here. The issue of marriage is how people
:29:26. > :29:30.express it, how they have it as basis as charities doing marriage
:29:30. > :29:38.preparation, hiring a haul from a Local Authority, teaching about it
:29:38. > :29:40.in school, expressing the views of employer, we have found examples of
:29:40. > :29:45.that, and I want to ensure on the face of it we are protecting not
:29:45. > :29:48.just the church ceremonies but for people's views. I am in favour of
:29:49. > :29:53.that and the bill will give protection to church ceremony, as
:29:53. > :29:57.for freedom to express opinion, in a sense that is a different issue, but
:29:57. > :30:02.I don't think, I don't think those people who are e unhappy ant gay
:30:02. > :30:07.marriage have been in any sense gagged during this debate. We seem
:30:07. > :30:13.to have heard endlessly from you all The hostility, the threats and you
:30:14. > :30:18.will know yourself, this generates. Hostility to you? And the rest of it
:30:18. > :30:22.and even for myself proposing we should have amendment enshrining
:30:22. > :30:28.freedom of speech, the hostility on social media to myself, even for
:30:28. > :30:32.suggesting that. We should allow protection for people allow
:30:32. > :30:34.allowing... You should have broad shoulders, you are a member of
:30:34. > :30:39.Parliament and members who have spoken out in favour of gay marriage
:30:39. > :30:43.have had to put up with hostility too. People feel strongly about it
:30:43. > :30:48.He got demoted from his job and he has to rely on the Equality Act.
:30:49. > :30:52.Allow people the extra probing e-- protection, they won't be
:30:52. > :30:56.discriminated against. How much dissent do you think there will be
:30:56. > :30:59.when this comes back to the Commons? There will be I would say at least
:30:59. > :31:04.the same dissent in the same majority who are against, there will
:31:04. > :31:07.be people who have abstained who want to see additional protections
:31:07. > :31:12.that go I don't know whatted happens in the church premise, to issues of
:31:12. > :31:16.freedom of speech. People want to see extra assurance, the government
:31:16. > :31:19.through the 13 it issings of the bill didn't make any amendments in
:31:19. > :31:23.that regard. They spoke warmly and positively but nothing on the face
:31:24. > :31:28.of the bill. There is one question again about UKIP and its uninfluence
:31:28. > :31:32.in the last set of election, the local elections and also many grass
:31:32. > :31:41.roots Tories have expressed concern about this. Is that something that
:31:41. > :31:45.perhaps the leadership should be listening to? It could listen, but
:31:45. > :31:49.in the end it has to reject that view. Good old UKIP. They are in
:31:49. > :31:53.favour of a room where people can smoke in pubs, but not a room where
:31:54. > :31:58.people can have gay marriage. Their view of individual liberty is
:31:58. > :32:02.extremely selective. This will pass the Lords easily. It will pass into
:32:02. > :32:07.law easily, and in five or ten years time, you will feel a bit rueful
:32:07. > :32:11.that you got yourself on the wrong side of a social change. I think I
:32:11. > :32:16.am on the right side of the argument in favour of marriage. But do you
:32:16. > :32:21.think in a few years time, in society, it will be regarded in the
:32:21. > :32:27.same way as civil partnerships, just something that happens? We have come
:32:27. > :32:37.to recognise and respect civil partnerships. Would you have voted
:32:37. > :32:40.for them? The position is that we will look back and see whether this
:32:40. > :32:45.has strengthened marriage. I am in favour of marriage as well, but I
:32:45. > :32:48.want a broader... Surely there is more we should be concentrating on
:32:48. > :32:56.which is in our Queen's Speech, rather than getting distracted by
:32:56. > :33:00.this. What is your reaction to David Cameron's proposal for this draft
:33:00. > :33:06.bill on Europe? It is excellent news. It makes it crystal clear
:33:06. > :33:12.whether Palin it is coming from -- where the prime minister is coming
:33:12. > :33:19.from in ensuring that we will have a referendum. And how will you vote on
:33:19. > :33:24.the amendment? I will be supporting Thank you very much. Now, strivers
:33:24. > :33:28.and shirkers. Hard-working families and benefit cheats. The rhetorical
:33:28. > :33:35.temperature on welfare has risen in recent years, and a report out today
:33:35. > :33:37.from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that our attitudes have
:33:37. > :33:43.been hardening, too. In 1994, 15% of the public thought people lived in
:33:43. > :33:47.need because of laziness or lack of willpower. In 2010, that figure has
:33:47. > :33:54.risen to 23%. And the report says the explanation for the change in
:33:54. > :33:57.attitudes seems to lie amongst Labour supporters. In 1987, 20 1% of
:33:57. > :34:02.Labour supporters said welfare recipients were undeserving,
:34:02. > :34:08.compared with 31% in 2011, an increase of 10%. And there was an
:34:08. > :34:14.increase from 16% to 46% over the same period in the number of Labour
:34:14. > :34:17.voters saying that the welfare state encourages dependency. We are joined
:34:17. > :34:24.now by Julia Unwin, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
:34:24. > :34:28.and the Shadow implement minister, Stephen Timms. Julia Unwin, we have
:34:28. > :34:32.had economic uncertainty before, so why have attitudes hardened so much
:34:32. > :34:36.during this recession? What has changed? It is striking that in
:34:36. > :34:41.previous recessions, people have expressed more sympathy. They have
:34:41. > :34:44.no more people who have lost their jobs. It has come closer to them. In
:34:44. > :34:48.this recession, in part because of the rhetoric you were describing,
:34:48. > :34:52.but also because people have lost confidence in the welfare system to
:34:52. > :35:01.support them, they express this hostility. But they express
:35:01. > :35:04.hostility to the welfare system. But not to the recipients? Much less to
:35:04. > :35:08.the recipients. People said there was a real problem with child
:35:08. > :35:15.poverty. They have little confidence in any government of any colour to
:35:15. > :35:20.fix it. So in response, what does Labour have to do? Does it need to
:35:20. > :35:23.influence the debate to make people more sympathetic to benefit payments
:35:23. > :35:28.and recipients, or does Labour need to adjust its policy to look
:35:28. > :35:32.tougher? I don't think it is about sympathy or looking tough, it is
:35:32. > :35:36.about making the right moves so that people don't live in poverty. The
:35:36. > :35:41.welfare system is only one part of that. Unless we have jobs paying the
:35:41. > :35:45.right sort of money, people will remain poor and the cost to us as a
:35:45. > :35:49.country of that are astronomic. We cannot afford to have another
:35:49. > :35:54.generation growing up in poverty. We believe any incoming government
:35:54. > :36:00.needs to address housing, jobs, skills, education, as well as
:36:00. > :36:03.ensuring that you have a reliable welfare system for those who can't
:36:03. > :36:08.work. What is your view towards the universal credit, this complete
:36:08. > :36:13.overhaul of the system that the government claims will make it more
:36:13. > :36:15.targeted to people who need it and will ensure that there are not, to
:36:15. > :36:21.use the rhetoric, people shirking and picking benefits they don't
:36:21. > :36:24.deserve? We support the notion of universal credit. The idea of some
:36:24. > :36:28.providing benefits must be the right thing to do. The idea that you bring
:36:28. > :36:32.it all together in one place is an important step forward. We worry
:36:32. > :36:37.about the way it is being implemented and all the other things
:36:37. > :36:40.being done at the same time. And we particularly worry about all of this
:36:40. > :36:45.happening in a falling, insecure and dangerous labour market in which
:36:45. > :36:49.jobs are temporary, poorly paid and offer no progression. Stephen Timms,
:36:49. > :36:54.do you think more people are living on benefit as a result of laziness
:36:54. > :36:58.or lack of willpower? I am not sure the numbers are any greater than
:36:58. > :37:01.they ever have been. There are two macro problems here which are
:37:01. > :37:09.undermining confidence in the system. One is that the system is
:37:09. > :37:11.supposed to encourage people into work and help them into jobs. The
:37:11. > :37:16.other is that people who pay into the system although working lives
:37:16. > :37:21.and then need help too often find there is not help when they require
:37:22. > :37:25.it. What sort of people are those? I am thinking of people perhaps in
:37:25. > :37:29.their 50s who have worked their whole adult lives, running into a
:37:29. > :37:33.health problem and having to give up work as a result, and then they find
:37:33. > :37:37.out there is only one year's worth of funding available to them, and
:37:37. > :37:40.the amount is far lower than they thought it would be. That is
:37:40. > :37:45.weakening confidence in the system. But do you accept that you as
:37:45. > :37:55.politicians have played into the portrayal and the rhetoric that has
:37:55. > :37:58.been used to talk about the welfare debate that has not helped? Labour
:37:58. > :38:08.policies have promoted individual responsibility. But I am talking
:38:08. > :38:08.
:38:08. > :38:09.about the rhetoric used by politicians. Well, you are right. We
:38:09. > :38:11.have promoted individual responsibility over the last 20
:38:11. > :38:16.years. Julia is making the point that that is reflected in the way
:38:16. > :38:19.Labour views have changed. Why is there a perception that Labour is
:38:19. > :38:25.soft on welfare? I don't think that is a fair perception. But it is what
:38:25. > :38:32.the polling shows, that Labour is not seen as being tough enough in
:38:32. > :38:35.terms of welfare and the people who receive it. In government, we
:38:35. > :38:39.actually made the system much better, but there is more to be
:38:39. > :38:42.done. That is why we have our jobs guarantee policy at the moment,
:38:42. > :38:47.where we say everybody is entitled to the offer of a job, but once
:38:47. > :38:50.offered, they will be required to take it up. Do you think the
:38:50. > :38:53.government has succeeded in changing the debate on welfare and have
:38:53. > :38:59.managed to champion the idea that it will be tougher in future to get
:38:59. > :39:04.welfare? I think it is the other way round. All parties have noticed a
:39:04. > :39:07.hardening in public attitudes. they have responded to it? They have
:39:07. > :39:12.responded. And we should consider the possibility that the public are
:39:12. > :39:15.right, that there has been growing abuse of the benefit system. When
:39:15. > :39:20.the more stringent tests for what used to be called is a bloody
:39:20. > :39:24.benefit were brought in recently, there was a huge drop in people
:39:24. > :39:27.claiming it. But there are also many people claiming that there will be
:39:27. > :39:31.awful in justice is done to people who will genuinely need it in their
:39:31. > :39:35.lives and may not be able to get it. Around the margins of any system,
:39:35. > :39:40.there will always be injustices. But there is a public perception that
:39:40. > :39:43.the bar should be raised a bit, and I think the public may be right. I
:39:43. > :39:51.can see that the Conservative Party has understood that and I believe
:39:51. > :39:54.the Labour Party has, too. What about the misconception by many
:39:54. > :39:58.people about where the bulk of money on benefit is actually spent? Half
:39:58. > :40:02.of it is on pensions. And then at least another quarter is on people
:40:02. > :40:09.who are in work. That is the point I want to make. The vast majority goes
:40:09. > :40:11.on pensions. And most people think that is appropriate. Indeed, most
:40:12. > :40:18.people are shocked by how little money is received on pensions. They
:40:18. > :40:23.are also shocked by how many families receiving benefits where
:40:23. > :40:32.someone is in poverty, somebody is going to work. We are right that we
:40:32. > :40:37.a system that is not working. We can't walk away from provision for
:40:37. > :40:40.people who are not in work. Are you saying the parties are doing that?
:40:40. > :40:46.am not saying that, but we need a system in which people have
:40:46. > :40:49.confidence. The previous system did not do that. We are now going for
:40:49. > :40:54.what I have described as a gamble with universal credit. We have to
:40:54. > :40:59.hope it works, because the price paid by people who fall through the
:40:59. > :41:04.gaps will be very high. How else do you bring the welfare bill down?
:41:04. > :41:08.have to create jobs which pay enough to enable people to work without
:41:08. > :41:12.using benefits. But do you think the tax credit system championed by
:41:12. > :41:18.Gordon Brown as chancellor and prime minister actually created dependency
:41:18. > :41:24.in itself, that it was not enough to get a job that paid you a living
:41:24. > :41:27.wage, you had to rely on handouts from the state in order to survive?
:41:27. > :41:32.The handouts came because people were not getting a living wage. They
:41:32. > :41:36.were working for very low wages, paying high rents, and the
:41:36. > :41:39.completion of those two put our benefits bill up to a level that is
:41:39. > :41:44.unacceptable. So in the end, it was a false economy having such an
:41:44. > :41:48.intricate and edit system. At one of the results was a big increase in
:41:48. > :41:53.the number of lone parents working, which is a big game for the economy
:41:53. > :41:57.and society. We need the system to help people into work. You are right
:41:57. > :42:01.about pensions. I shall be approaching the time I get a pension
:42:01. > :42:05.at the next general election, but I don't think any party should repeat
:42:05. > :42:11.the pledge the Conservative Party made not to touch pensions. Do you
:42:11. > :42:14.agree with that? I think we will have to look at all these things,
:42:14. > :42:19.given continuing austerity beyond the next election. But Labour have
:42:19. > :42:22.not said that yet, so do you think Labour should look again at
:42:22. > :42:26.universal benefits to pensioners? will have to look at a range of
:42:26. > :42:30.things, and that is one of them. the weekend, Peter Mandelson said
:42:30. > :42:34.the Labour government in 2004 were sending out such parties for people
:42:34. > :42:39.to come to work in this country. Then yesterday, he said, we have to
:42:39. > :42:43.realise that the entry of migrants to the labour market is hard for
:42:43. > :42:49.people entering the labour market to get jobs or keep jobs. Does
:42:49. > :42:54.Labour's immigration policy have something to answer for? He was in
:42:54. > :42:59.the government at the time. He says it did create that sort of
:42:59. > :43:05.dependency. We are numbers of the European Union. Sending out such
:43:05. > :43:08.parties for people to come to work? I certainly did not send out any
:43:08. > :43:14.search parties. There are big challenges. I agree with Julia that
:43:14. > :43:19.we need to find ways of raising the levels of income in work to tackle
:43:20. > :43:25.the problem of in work poverty. is 30 years since your experience
:43:25. > :43:30.when you were unable to live successfully on benefits. When was
:43:30. > :43:38.that? That was the television in 1981. I tried living on �26 74 week
:43:38. > :43:43.near Newcastle. And you did not manage it. I didn't. But I decided
:43:43. > :43:46.to go with the flow. But you think the government has got the right
:43:46. > :43:52.level now, both in terms of pitching it to the public, whose attitudes
:43:52. > :43:58.are hardening? There is no right level for benefits. It will always
:43:58. > :44:02.be hard to live on benefits. What I hate about unemployment is the way
:44:02. > :44:05.it breaks people's spirits. People need to feel they have a purpose. It
:44:05. > :44:10.does not matter what level of benefits they are getting. And they
:44:10. > :44:14.need employment of the right sort. Currently, our labour market
:44:14. > :44:20.provides jobs with zero hours contracts, no security. That is no
:44:20. > :44:23.way to build a life. Thank you very much. Now, it is more
:44:23. > :44:27.than five years since the start of the global financial crisis, and we
:44:27. > :44:31.have all spent a lot of that time try to work out who to blame. Was it
:44:31. > :44:35.the bankers, the economists or the politicians who led Britain into the
:44:35. > :44:42.longest slump in living memory? A new series on BBC Two called Bankers
:44:42. > :44:46.has been looking at what went wrong. Rules and regulations were designed
:44:46. > :44:48.to enable the City to grow, and both Conservative and new Labour
:44:48. > :44:55.government is appreciated the value and tax revenue that the bankers
:44:56. > :45:04.brought in. The financial sector was growing at an average of 6% a year,
:45:04. > :45:08.twice as fast as the wider economy. Lunch? Can't even spell it, but it
:45:08. > :45:15.virtually went out of the window. There was so much money to be made,
:45:15. > :45:21.so much of an opportunity. There is probably a disturbing, sometimes
:45:21. > :45:26.admirable aspect of human nature that we just enjoy a party.
:45:26. > :45:34.You can watch the next episode tomorrow on BBC 2000 at 9.00. One
:45:34. > :45:38.man has has been thinking hard about who went wrong is the former Labour
:45:38. > :45:41.MP who has written a book called Progressive Capitalism. Welcome back
:45:41. > :45:45.welcome to the programme. Your book is highly critical of the financial
:45:46. > :45:50.system and there have been other critic, you say the markets became
:45:50. > :45:54.too focussed on take wealth, why did no-one, including the. Go of which
:45:54. > :46:01.you were a member notice? Think they is a very fundamental question, and
:46:01. > :46:06.the answer is we were all sold on this idea of the liberal market
:46:06. > :46:13.economics that this was the answer, it seemed to get us out of real
:46:13. > :46:18.problems in the '60s and 70s, when we were faced with stagflation, and
:46:18. > :46:21.everything seemed to be toing very well, in the years I was -- to be
:46:21. > :46:25.going very well. In my own case it was only when I came out of
:46:25. > :46:30.Government that was once again allowed to talk to people in the
:46:30. > :46:34.financial world, and I sat down with financial advisers and they said
:46:34. > :46:38.there is real problems occurring now. But in Government did you not
:46:38. > :46:41.talk to people in the financial world who are saying, this cannot go
:46:41. > :46:48.on? I don't think they were saying that, they were saying this is
:46:48. > :46:52.great, we are doing very well, I didn't, because all my investments
:46:52. > :46:57.were blind trust, and any idea I might meet with a financial person
:46:57. > :47:00.was out of the question. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it.
:47:00. > :47:06.Certainly no-one, or no-one that I can recall, who was saying at the
:47:06. > :47:10.time in any of the party, let's stop the party rolling, the credit boom
:47:10. > :47:13.is going to go on and all, what we need now is lots more regulation, to
:47:13. > :47:18.make sure the bankers are going to be behave themselves, no-one was
:47:18. > :47:24.calling for that were they? We were all sold on this idea, and we
:47:24. > :47:28.thought that was right, in the same way in the 30 years before that, we
:47:28. > :47:31.all thought Keynesian economics and planning was a good thing.
:47:31. > :47:36.intervention is what should be happening, in terms of financial
:47:36. > :47:40.regulation and trying to take a more interventionist view? You put the
:47:40. > :47:47.word intervention because you want to make it sound sinister and awful.
:47:47. > :47:52.No! What I am talking about is we had three major, three or four major
:47:52. > :47:56.institutional failures which caused a monetary boom, to really collapse.
:47:56. > :48:00.We need to put those things right. Your idea of Progressive Capitalism
:48:00. > :48:05.seems to be very much the way Ed Miliband is thinking, yet you are
:48:05. > :48:10.very critical of him? You say... is different. What I am saying is
:48:10. > :48:17.you need to define what is the role of the state in the economy. We have
:48:17. > :48:22.defined that, over the last 30 years, as there would be no role.
:48:22. > :48:25.Governments should stay out of it. We saw some really major
:48:25. > :48:29.institutional failure, and government has to create it will
:48:29. > :48:32.right conditions, in terms of corporate governance, the balance
:48:32. > :48:36.sheet of banks and others. Isn't that what Ed Miliband has been
:48:37. > :48:40.talking about? He has talked about ending the fast buck culture, about
:48:40. > :48:46.having a role for the state, in terms of looking or regulating the
:48:46. > :48:50.economy. Banks are subject to a raft of new rules. David Cameron has
:48:50. > :48:54.talked about socially responsible capitalism. Do you not think the
:48:54. > :49:00.problem is being addressed and dealt with? No. These are fine words, but
:49:00. > :49:06.you need to translate them, into clear policy, for example, the
:49:06. > :49:10.question of what the balance sheet of banks should be like. We are
:49:10. > :49:16.debating 3-# % equity, that is absurd. It should be something close
:49:16. > :49:21.to 20%. All we will see... Then they will stop lending all together.
:49:21. > :49:27.have to phase this in because of that, the idea we have solved any of
:49:27. > :49:30.the problems of derivatives of bank balance sheets is farcical. You are
:49:30. > :49:35.a member of the Labour Party. Who in the Labour Party is there to carry
:49:35. > :49:39.this torch, if it is not going to be Ed Miliband? I think there are a lot
:49:39. > :49:44.of bright people there and you can even hope than Ed Miliband will be
:49:44. > :49:49.the one of the people who carries this torch. I think the problem has
:49:49. > :49:55.been with both political party, there hasn't been an all terntive
:49:55. > :49:58.political economy. -- parties. We have begun to realise the nigh owe
:49:58. > :50:03.liberal one is wrong but no-one is putting forward and alteshtive,
:50:03. > :50:06.which is why I have writ then book. Ed Miliband isn't doing that either?
:50:06. > :50:11.I don't think any of the political leaders are. I don't think they
:50:11. > :50:15.understand that we have got to move away from what was the kind of
:50:15. > :50:23.received opinion over 30 years, and move to something new. What do you
:50:23. > :50:29.think of him? I said that I, on the time, I thought he was average. What
:50:29. > :50:33.I said was... Pretty damningI said all three political leaders are
:50:33. > :50:38.Avram, if there is anyone out there in your world, who would like to
:50:38. > :50:46.argue that David Cameron Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband are more than
:50:46. > :50:49.average, in the same category as Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair...
:50:49. > :50:55.Speaking from my newspaper if you tell a newspaper that three people
:50:55. > :51:01.are average, we are entitled to assume you do think Ed Miliband is
:51:01. > :51:06.average. I do. Equally think that average is in this context is used
:51:07. > :51:09.to describe all three political leaders, and that none of them are
:51:09. > :51:13.of the calibre of Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, in leadership. Do
:51:13. > :51:17.you agree with that? You have stopped giving financial support to
:51:17. > :51:21.the Labour Party? That is a rather different eschew which has to do
:51:21. > :51:27.with the fact I now have two job, one in the institute of Government
:51:27. > :51:31.and Chancellor of came bridge, and I like to keep them out of the thick
:51:31. > :51:35.and thrust and parry of party political situation. In your book
:51:35. > :51:38.you say you part funded Labour bah because you didn't want it to be
:51:38. > :51:42.solely funded by the trade union, since Ed Miliband has come to power,
:51:42. > :51:46.leading the Labour Party, 80% of the party's money does come from Labour.
:51:46. > :51:51.It sounds like they need you What I also said was I don't like the
:51:51. > :51:55.situation, where 80% of the money for the Conservative Party is coming
:51:55. > :52:00.from financial people, and I think the British public would support
:52:00. > :52:04.what was put forward, as a very sensible thing, on professional,
:52:04. > :52:08.standards in public life, which is we should have state funding of
:52:08. > :52:14.party, so party leaders are not dependent on particular groups of
:52:14. > :52:18.people. And what about the average comment? Do you agree with David
:52:18. > :52:22.that the three current leaders are average compared to Margaret
:52:22. > :52:26.Thatcher and Tony Blair? I think different times call for different
:52:26. > :52:32.types of leadership. At the moment I don't think a Margaret Thatcher
:52:32. > :52:36.would be the right person. I like David Cameron's conciliate tristyle.
:52:36. > :52:42.Like the way he thinks before he acts, I want to believe that there
:52:42. > :52:47.are limits, to how far he will go, and I am still clinging on to that
:52:47. > :52:54.belief, but it has been a difficult few days. You would think it was a
:52:54. > :53:00.good sign to have a situation where ministers are allowed to abstain on
:53:00. > :53:04.the Queen's Speech? It is not satisfactory It cannot be. I agree.
:53:04. > :53:09.Do you feel like being booed today? What a bizarre question! You could
:53:09. > :53:12.do worse than to head down to bourment with the Police
:53:12. > :53:15.Federation's annual conference is kicking off. Theresa May and Jack
:53:15. > :53:20.Straw have been on the receiving end of police heckles in the past but it
:53:20. > :53:24.is not the only bear pit for politician, being booed by hundreds
:53:24. > :53:32.wouldn't be most people's idea of fun so why do they put themselves
:53:32. > :53:38.through it? Fist, do you remember these cringeworthy scenes?
:53:38. > :53:46.Over the last few months I have spent working hard on the National
:53:46. > :53:56.Health Service. Yes, well, you don't remember it, I do, because I spent
:53:56. > :54:18.
:54:18. > :54:28.18 years in opposition fighting it. nursing director, and of trust
:54:28. > :54:43.
:54:43. > :54:48.boards is to listen to you when you Why do they put themselves through
:54:48. > :54:54.it? Lucy Beresford is here, and of course Matthew Parris is still with
:54:54. > :54:58.us. Why do they do it to themselves? They are partly playing a game and
:54:58. > :55:03.they want to be seen to be humble, reaching out in the current phrase,
:55:03. > :55:10.to people who they know, don't share their belief, but politicians are
:55:10. > :55:15.nothing, if not narcissistic and there is this huge addiction to
:55:15. > :55:18.almost a zeal to try and convert people who, it is one thing to
:55:18. > :55:22.preach to a party conference where you hope at least one or two people
:55:22. > :55:26.will share your views but if you go somewhere where you know they don't
:55:26. > :55:32.approve of you, what could be more glorifying than to walk off that
:55:32. > :55:39.stage to triumphant cheers. Is that the truth? The thrill of trying to
:55:39. > :55:43.get people to come to your point of view? There is an element I I think
:55:43. > :55:48.desire for publicity of showing off, everybody who goes into politics, I
:55:48. > :55:52.was not exempt from that. There is one thing worse than a whole lot of
:55:52. > :55:56.people booing you and that would be an empty hall, people who were not
:55:56. > :55:59.interested in you. I think they like the attention, they prefer it to be
:55:59. > :56:04.favourable, if it is unfavourable, that is better than no attention at
:56:04. > :56:11.all. Ministers are grown up, you don't go into politics if you are a
:56:11. > :56:14.fading flower. Do they feel bad? Psychologically do they feel bad?
:56:14. > :56:20.all want positive affirmation, you would want to receive claps and
:56:20. > :56:25.cheer, but as Matthew said, in a way, to not be talked about,
:56:25. > :56:27.ignored, would make your ego shrivel and these are people who are
:56:28. > :56:32.performer, this the what they want. They want the audience and whether
:56:32. > :56:35.it is the audience in the hall, or the audience subsequently on the
:56:35. > :56:40.news bulletin, it is all the oxygen that fuels their life as a
:56:40. > :56:45.politician. And I think too, if you are a minister, it is a feather in
:56:45. > :56:48.your cap, and it is a sign you are doing something right, if these
:56:48. > :56:52.ghastly professional organisations and trade unions begin to boo you,
:56:52. > :56:56.it is standing up to vested interests like that I think is the
:56:56. > :57:00.mark of a good minister, I think you can console yourself you are doing
:57:00. > :57:03.something right. Thing on thing you can console yourself is the group
:57:03. > :57:07.dynamic, to say, it is one thing to be heckled by a very very brave
:57:07. > :57:12.person, who comes up to you in the street, and really has a go, but if
:57:12. > :57:17.you are standing in a hall, and one or two people start the slow hand
:57:17. > :57:21.clap or booing, then you could probably count that as just group
:57:21. > :57:25.dynamics of a sort of vaguely hysterical kind, if they were on
:57:25. > :57:30.their own, if they met you in a lift they won't be so brave. What is the
:57:30. > :57:35.best way to deal with it? You are trying to say your piece, you are
:57:35. > :57:38.trying to appeal to whoever it is, nurses, police officers, and people
:57:38. > :57:42.just don't want to hear it or think they you are being unfair, what is
:57:42. > :57:46.the best way of dealing with it? have to desigh what proportion of
:57:46. > :57:51.the hall is on your side. If most are on your side and and there is a
:57:51. > :57:54.small group, you can by a clever response to a heck, win people your
:57:54. > :57:59.way, but once you have sensed the mood of the meeting is against you,
:57:59. > :58:03.the best thing to do is to take no notice and plough on, as though it
:58:03. > :58:08.wasn't happening. Is that right? don't know, you have to acknowledge
:58:08. > :58:14.it, you have to respect that to show them you are listening, and that is
:58:14. > :58:17.what politicians are meant to do, but you must never get angry you
:58:17. > :58:26.must never show you are riled. The problem with one that happened with
:58:26. > :58:28.Tony Blair, was he so- didn't expect it He did not see that coming. It
:58:28. > :58:32.was that level of complacency that did for him. A bit quickly, is Lucy
:58:32. > :58:35.the lady, the psychotherapist to come and help the tomorrow over
:58:35. > :58:39.Europe? I wish you would tell me what has gone wrong. They are
:58:39. > :58:45.tearing themselves apart. That is another conversation you can have in
:58:45. > :58:49.the privacy outside the studio. Thanks to our guest guests, the one