14/05/2013 Daily Politics


14/05/2013

Jo Coburn is joined by the Times columnist Matthew Parris, to discuss all the main political news, including the latest on an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/05/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Daily Politics. The prime minister gives the order for a draft bill

:00:44.:00:47.

enabling an in-out referendum on Europe, but it has almost no chance

:00:47.:00:51.

of becoming law, so will it be enough to say to the appetite of the

:00:51.:00:55.

Tory backbenches? They are not happy about the

:00:55.:00:58.

prospect of this either. What trouble will the gay marriage bill

:00:58.:01:03.

run into when it returns to the Commons next week?

:01:03.:01:06.

Strivers and shirkers dash as the political rhetoric hots up, what

:01:06.:01:10.

does Britain really think about welfare benefits?

:01:10.:01:15.

And we will ask why politicians put themselves through this. Over the

:01:15.:01:19.

last few months, I have spent a long time trying to work hard on the

:01:19.:01:29.
:01:29.:01:30.

National Health Service. All that in the next 60 minutes. And

:01:30.:01:34.

cheers, not jeers, please, because joining me for the whole programme

:01:34.:01:41.

today is former Conservative MP and Times commentator Matthew Parris.

:01:41.:01:44.

When is a draft Bill ordered by the prime minister not a government

:01:44.:01:48.

Bill? When it is a bill enabling and in-out referendum on Europe in the

:01:48.:01:52.

teeth of opposition from your coalition partners. The Conservative

:01:52.:01:55.

leadership expects the bill to be picked by one of their backbench

:01:55.:02:00.

MPs. There should be plenty of willing volunteers. And introduced

:02:00.:02:04.

as a private members bill. Let's get more from our political

:02:04.:02:08.

correspondent. Take us through the process of what is being proposed

:02:08.:02:12.

here by the leadership? Just because the prime minister is the prime

:02:12.:02:17.

minister, it does not mean he can get his way on stuff. So when he

:02:17.:02:21.

gave his big speech about Europe in January, he was not able to say we

:02:21.:02:23.

would renegotiate and have a referendum before the election

:02:23.:02:28.

because those pesky Lib Dems would not let him. He could not promise a

:02:28.:02:32.

bill in government time to guarantee a referendum after an election, even

:02:32.:02:34.

if you take the principle that a bill could guarantee that something

:02:34.:02:38.

happened after an election, because again, the Lib Dems would not allow

:02:38.:02:43.

the government time for it. But when the draft bill that he mentioned in

:02:43.:02:46.

his speech did not turn up in the Queen's Speech, some of his

:02:46.:02:51.

backbenchers were not happy, put down this amendment, and started the

:02:51.:02:55.

process we have seen which began with number ten saying how relaxed

:02:55.:03:00.

they were and appears to have ended with them proposing printing a draft

:03:00.:03:04.

bill this afternoon which they will then have to find a willing

:03:04.:03:09.

backbencher who does well in the ballot to introduce into Parliament,

:03:09.:03:13.

which even then is highly unlikely to become law, because it is very

:03:13.:03:20.

easy to stop. So will it satisfy the back who are going to vote in favour

:03:20.:03:25.

of this amendment, regretting the absence of some sort of European

:03:25.:03:29.

legislation in the Queen's Speech? Depends which backbencher you speak

:03:29.:03:34.

to. Douglas Carswell, a prominent Euro-sceptic, has addressed this

:03:34.:03:38.

issue that people say about the Euro-sceptics, that they are never

:03:38.:03:45.

satisfied. He says he is happy. There is peace between the prime

:03:45.:03:47.

minister and Douglas Carswell. But John Barron, who is behind this

:03:47.:03:53.

amendment, is not. He has urged the prime minister to have the courage

:03:53.:03:58.

to back this amendment. He wants the prime minister to have the courage

:03:58.:04:02.

to back an amendment in effect rubbishing the prime minister's

:04:02.:04:04.

programme for government. It is unlikely that he will do that, not

:04:04.:04:10.

least because he will not be the country. The prime minister is in

:04:10.:04:14.

America at the moment. He has been in the Oval Office with the leader

:04:14.:04:19.

of the free world, to use a disputed term. And what are we doing? Banging

:04:19.:04:25.

on about Europe. He wanted to stop that sort of thing. He did indeed.

:04:25.:04:28.

With us now Chris Heaton-Harris, one of a group of Conservative MPs

:04:28.:04:32.

involved in discussions with other European countries about reforming

:04:32.:04:36.

the EU, and Labour MP Keith Vaz, who wants his party to back a

:04:36.:04:40.

referendum. We also hoped to be joined by a Liberal Democrat, but

:04:40.:04:46.

none of their 57 MPs was available. Matthew Parris, how does this make

:04:46.:04:52.

the Tory party look 's dreadful. thought your correspondent's

:04:52.:04:57.

analysis was flawless, but it will all be completely lost on most

:04:57.:05:03.

voters. And some of us. The voters just see the Tories Rowling about

:05:03.:05:06.

Europe again. I cannot understand why elements within the Conservative

:05:06.:05:13.

Party want to drag it into what can only be damaging to the party's

:05:13.:05:17.

electoral chances. You don't need a political commentator here today,

:05:17.:05:20.

you need a psychiatrist to talk about what is happening to parts of

:05:20.:05:26.

the Conservative Party. That is not exactly a vote of confidence, is it?

:05:26.:05:33.

I obviously disagree. The Parliamentary party is remarkably

:05:33.:05:38.

united over where we have come from and where we are now, with the prime

:05:38.:05:42.

minister's speech at Bloomberg and now a draft Bill. If you can get

:05:42.:05:49.

people across the Conservative Party to agree, the prime minister is a

:05:49.:05:52.

good uniting factor. People will remember that the Conservative Party

:05:52.:05:57.

will give the British people a referendum. And Keith Vaz, it is on

:05:57.:06:02.

that important point where Labour falls down, because Chris is right

:06:02.:06:07.

dash whatever else it does, it does underline a commitment to an in-out

:06:07.:06:12.

referendum, albeit in 2017, which neither Labour nor the Liberal

:06:12.:06:16.

Democrats are promising. I can only speak for myself, not the leader of

:06:16.:06:20.

the Labour Party, although Ed Miliband has made it clear that it

:06:20.:06:24.

is a question of timing. He has not ruled it out forever. I believe we

:06:24.:06:29.

should have a referendum now. I don't think we need to wait. I think

:06:29.:06:33.

the case has been made on one side or the other. The British people

:06:33.:06:39.

need to have a choice, and we need to land this boil. So you are closer

:06:39.:06:44.

to David Cameron than anyone in the Labour leadership? For the reasons

:06:44.:06:48.

that Matthew has outlined, this could drag on for four years. I have

:06:48.:06:52.

been at these summits as Minister for Europe. I know how difficult it

:06:52.:06:55.

is for the prime minister and Minister is to have discussions with

:06:55.:07:00.

continental colleagues. This has been an MEP, he knows how slowly

:07:00.:07:05.

Europe works. It is important to land the boil. We should have this

:07:05.:07:08.

referendum before or at the next general election, and just get on

:07:08.:07:13.

with it. I don't think four years of negotiations will make any

:07:13.:07:17.

difference. The quicker we do it, the better. My job as a humble

:07:17.:07:22.

backbencher is to try and gently persuade Ed Miliband. Have you got

:07:22.:07:27.

any chance of persuading him? have not rung me yet. But I hope

:07:27.:07:32.

that over the next few months, we will have a gentle debate about

:07:32.:07:38.

this. But you are closer to Chris Heaton-Harris and David Cameron on

:07:38.:07:40.

this issue than you are too Ed Miliband. I have always been closer

:07:40.:07:44.

to Chris on this issue. We both believe it is important that the

:07:44.:07:49.

choice should be given to the British people. Let them decide.

:07:49.:07:54.

Whatever the result, if it is a yes, we stay in. If it is a no, we come

:07:54.:07:59.

out. Will you vote for the amendment? I will not vote for the

:07:59.:08:02.

amendment, because it says we should have legislation for a referendum in

:08:02.:08:08.

the future. But that is closer than Ed Miliband. I will not be voting

:08:08.:08:13.

against the amendment, because we should have a discussion about this.

:08:13.:08:19.

At the moment, my position is that we should abstain. Chris

:08:19.:08:23.

Heaton-Harris, if there were a referendum tomorrow, which way would

:08:23.:08:28.

you vote? There will not be one tomorrow, but if there were, I would

:08:28.:08:32.

be campaigning to come out. But I believe we need to have a

:08:32.:08:36.

renegotiation. There are lots of good reasons why we have a Eurozone

:08:36.:08:42.

that is coming together in political union, 17 countries which will be

:08:42.:08:46.

able to outvote the UK at the end of this year. That could have massive

:08:46.:08:51.

implications for our access to the single market. We need legal

:08:51.:08:54.

safeguards to stop that. You don't think the electorate trust David

:08:54.:09:01.

Cameron's word? I do think they will trust him, and even more now with

:09:01.:09:04.

this bill. Because they did not trust him enough beforehand. That is

:09:04.:09:10.

why it is necessary to have this draft will? The county council

:09:10.:09:13.

elections showed that enough people were happy with the prime

:09:13.:09:20.

minister's view on this. And many of them were happy with what UKIP were

:09:20.:09:24.

saying. That is why there are these shenanigans over Europe, because of

:09:24.:09:31.

fear of UKIP. That is not true. The prime minister did not mention the

:09:31.:09:36.

fact that there would be a bill in his speech earlier in the year.

:09:36.:09:42.

did not come out yesterday. I believe this was prepared some time

:09:42.:09:46.

ago, and it was ready to be published. They decided not to have

:09:46.:09:48.

negotiations with the Liberal Democrats, even though it was

:09:48.:09:52.

Liberal Democrat policy just a few years ago to have an in-out

:09:52.:09:56.

referendum. I am thinking of the ordinary voter listening to this

:09:56.:10:01.

conversation. What is a paving bill? Referendum in four years? All the

:10:02.:10:10.

electorate here is blah blah blah, Tories Rowling. -- Rowling. If Keith

:10:10.:10:14.

Vaz's suggest were to be taken up and we had a snap referendum now on

:10:14.:10:18.

in or out, do you think the Tory Euro-sceptics would be satisfied?

:10:18.:10:23.

They would immediately say no, they are trying to bounce us into a

:10:23.:10:27.

referendum. People need to put this to the electorate. It does not need

:10:27.:10:32.

to be a snap referendum and you do not need a long campaign. Michael

:10:32.:10:36.

Gove has already said he would vote no. I would vote yes, because I

:10:36.:10:40.

believe the best way to reform is from within the European Union.

:10:40.:10:45.

would vote to stay with the status quo? Because the best way to reform

:10:45.:10:50.

is from within. How do you think the electorate would vote? I think they

:10:50.:10:55.

would vote yes, because the three party leaders would all be on the

:10:55.:10:59.

same platform. It would be catastrophic if Britain came out of

:10:59.:11:03.

the European Union in a referendum at this moment. Do you agree that it

:11:03.:11:08.

would be catastrophic? If we were to leave the EU? Not at all, otherwise

:11:08.:11:15.

I would not think it would be a good idea. You want renegotiation, so you

:11:15.:11:17.

believe that staying within a reformed EU is a good idea.

:11:17.:11:24.

Absolutely, but as it stands now, we have all sorts of issues on access

:11:24.:11:28.

to the single market and working practices may you could list a whole

:11:28.:11:32.

gambit of things that need to be changed. But David Cameron promised

:11:32.:11:35.

a referendum. Don't you see the damage that you and some of your

:11:35.:11:38.

colleagues are now doing to any impression of unity that the party

:11:38.:11:42.

needs to take into the next election? I see a bunch of pundits

:11:42.:11:46.

talking about something that is not there. There is a whole group of

:11:46.:11:51.

Conservative MPs from left to right that I united. You have an amendment

:11:51.:11:55.

to the Queen's Speech regretting the absence of any legislation. You have

:11:55.:12:01.

calls for a man the tree -- mandatory referendum now, and you

:12:01.:12:06.

have the Tory leadership publishing a draft bill for paving legislation,

:12:06.:12:10.

which many people are not sure what that means. And you have others

:12:10.:12:14.

calling for Britain to leave the EU now because renegotiation is

:12:14.:12:18.

pointless. That is a united party? They are all the nuances of the same

:12:18.:12:21.

thing, which is that we need a better relationship now, or we might

:12:21.:12:26.

have to leave in the future. Is it politically the right place for Ed

:12:26.:12:31.

Miliband to be in, to almost be ruling out a referendum? He said not

:12:31.:12:41.
:12:41.:12:42.

now. Not in 2017. So in effect, no referendum. Politically, is that

:12:42.:12:48.

wrong? At the end of the day, all the political parties will have to

:12:48.:12:51.

sign up to offering the British electorate a referendum. This issue

:12:51.:12:57.

cannot go on dominating our politics year after year. We have a

:12:57.:13:01.

Conservative government now. This is not the biggest issue in the world,

:13:01.:13:06.

but it is taking up time. The best way to deal with it is to have a

:13:06.:13:10.

referendum. All three major political parties will have to sign

:13:10.:13:15.

up to one, I think. Ed Miliband does not want a referendum on the

:13:15.:13:18.

European Union, but he may be forced to agree to one unless the

:13:19.:13:21.

Conservative Party manages to pull itself to pieces between now and the

:13:21.:13:25.

next general election. Some of you, Douglas, are doing your best to do

:13:25.:13:35.
:13:35.:13:38.

that. Not Douglas! Let's go to the issue of terror in the party apart.

:13:38.:13:43.

We saw it before over Maastricht. You could argue about the nuances of

:13:43.:13:46.

where everyone is standing, but there is still a risk that the

:13:46.:13:51.

perception in the voting public is, what is going on? We don't

:13:51.:13:57.

understand. It is clearer when we listen to UKIP. It is clear that the

:13:57.:14:03.

only party with chants of delivering a referendum to the UK on their

:14:03.:14:07.

relationship with Europe is the Conservative Party. That is a good

:14:07.:14:11.

message for Conservative MPs to get behind. The fact that we now have a

:14:11.:14:17.

paving Bill adds an extra level of proof, if it were needed, that we

:14:17.:14:23.

can head in this direction. How did you think the media would talk this

:14:23.:14:33.
:14:33.:14:33.

up? But Matthew, why are we not being allowed to discuss this issue

:14:33.:14:36.

and put it to the British public? I can't understand your objection to a

:14:36.:14:39.

referendum that would allow the issue to be settled one way or the

:14:39.:14:47.

other. The Labour Party offered a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

:14:47.:14:51.

That offer did not have to be brought to fruition because of what

:14:51.:14:54.

happened in France. There is legislation which says we have to

:14:54.:14:59.

have a referendum if there is major treaty change. I have no objection

:14:59.:15:03.

to a referendum now, except that the let's stay in vote would win it and

:15:03.:15:07.

I would not have been a proper discussion beforehand. I have no

:15:07.:15:11.

objection to David Cameron's proposals for a referendum. I am

:15:11.:15:15.

speaking as a Conservative, thinking it is important that the

:15:15.:15:17.

Conservative Party wins direct election, and Chris, what you are

:15:17.:15:27.

doing is not helping. I disagree. The minister has spelt out in his

:15:27.:15:33.

speech his policies. How much of an impact has UKIP had on what is going

:15:33.:15:40.

on now? It has had a huge impact on the more nervous Conservative MPs. I

:15:40.:15:45.

think they will take the wrong lesson from it. They will think that

:15:45.:15:50.

if they get closer to UKIP, people will like them or, instead of

:15:50.:15:53.

thinking UKIP is winning the argument. UKIP is important, but we

:15:53.:16:03.
:16:03.:16:07.

have to answer their arguments, not move closer. There was a huge spike

:16:07.:16:12.

in UKIP support, you do, you tackle UKIP by having the conversation on

:16:12.:16:17.

tissues that count, which is immigration, which could easily be

:16:17.:16:21.

in my case windfarms and Europe as well. Europe is a by product of

:16:21.:16:26.

this. I agree with Chris and Matthew. A bit of consensus at the

:16:26.:16:33.

end? In the East Midlands they said kill Roy sill ing was going to

:16:33.:16:36.

change the course of British politics and it didn't happen.

:16:36.:16:40.

you for joining u we will talk end Leslie about Europe for the next few

:16:40.:16:45.

days. So, the coalition whips have had their work cut out to keep their

:16:45.:16:52.

troops in line, but just how rebellious are the MPs? Phil Cowley

:16:52.:16:57.

has been tallying the transgressions for his new book. The last session

:16:57.:17:02.

of Parliament saw rebellions in 61 Parliamentary votes. That is a

:17:02.:17:07.

rebellion in more nan quarter of all the votes taken. But it is not the

:17:07.:17:11.

most rebellious on record. That prize goes to yes, Mr Cameron's

:17:11.:17:16.

first session as Prime Minister, when there was a rebellion in 44% of

:17:16.:17:20.

votes. The high levels for any post-war Prime Minister.

:17:20.:17:25.

So far, 185 of the Government's MPs have rebelled since the general

:17:25.:17:29.

election, and Professor coulis is here in the studio. Welcome to the

:17:29.:17:32.

programme. You could say things are looking up for David Cameron this

:17:32.:17:36.

year? They are looking up, if you just take the numbers, and I would

:17:36.:17:40.

never advice anyone just to take the number, one of the reasons there has

:17:40.:17:44.

been a drop from the last session there was a huge House of Lords

:17:44.:17:48.

shaped hole in the legislative programme. Had the Government

:17:48.:17:51.

managed to get that bill programmed and take it through, there would

:17:51.:17:57.

have been dozens more and we would be talking about the same level of

:17:57.:18:00.

rebellion; even the drop you have seen is to a level that is still

:18:00.:18:04.

high for a post-war Government. comparing it to previous

:18:05.:18:09.

administration, how rebellious are the Government's MPs? One of the

:18:09.:18:13.

most rebellious sessions in the pre-war era, for example, I can find

:18:13.:18:18.

only one Conservative session which is Edward Heath's session, which saw

:18:18.:18:22.

a higher level of rebellion. You are talking one of the most rebellious

:18:22.:18:26.

session, that is true if you split it down into Conservatives and

:18:26.:18:29.

Liberal Democrats. One would automatically assume it is because

:18:29.:18:33.

they are in a coalition? Normally one of the deals with coalition

:18:33.:18:36.

Government is if we do a deal to govern together, we have to deliver

:18:36.:18:39.

MPs to support the programme, because otherwise there is no point

:18:39.:18:43.

in being in the coalition. So one of the norms of coalition Government is

:18:43.:18:47.

that where you have coalitions you normally have low levels of dissent,

:18:47.:18:50.

we seem to be doing things differently. It has bucked the

:18:50.:18:56.

trend. Are you surprised? I wonder whether this spike if it is a spike,

:18:56.:19:01.

in rebellions, is part of a long-term trend since the Second

:19:01.:19:05.

World War or just a feature of the Government? This is a trend that has

:19:05.:19:09.

begun for the last 20 or 30 year, MPs are much more independent

:19:09.:19:13.

minded, the period where they were really plieant to whips is the

:19:13.:19:18.

immediate post-war period. The '40s and 50, you begin in the late 60s

:19:18.:19:23.

and 70s to see MPs becoming more rebellious. The 2001 Parliament is

:19:23.:19:27.

the record breaking and this is on course, despite the drop to be the

:19:27.:19:33.

most rebellious in the post-war era, it is a long-term trend. The whips

:19:33.:19:39.

need another war in other words! 1997, presumably, I mean you would

:19:39.:19:42.

assume where there was a landslide people might feel freer to rebel,

:19:42.:19:46.

but that is not necessarily the case, the discipline was obviously

:19:46.:19:53.

there in 1997. There is a big difference between 97 and 2010. In

:19:53.:19:57.

997 when Labour come in after that long period in opposition, there is

:19:57.:20:01.

rock solid opposition and I interviewed a lot of Labour MP, they

:20:01.:20:04.

would say things they were unhappy about, the line is we don't want to

:20:04.:20:09.

go into opposition, we will keep quiet. That broke down after 2001

:20:10.:20:14.

and they started to kick and kick heavily. You don't have anything

:20:14.:20:17.

like the same self discipline at the moment on the Conservative or

:20:17.:20:21.

Liberal Democrat benches. Presumably for administrations with small

:20:21.:20:28.

majority, there is the emtakes to rebel because you can have a big

:20:28.:20:33.

impact on legislation It depends where it comes in the cycle. Matthew

:20:33.:20:37.

rebelled very early on in his career, and look where it got him!

:20:37.:20:42.

But, you know, if you look at what happened to John Major after 1992,

:20:42.:20:46.

if there a period where MPs get used to breling they can't change

:20:47.:20:53.

behaviour. There are two reasons why a backbencher may rebel or two

:20:53.:20:56.

different justifications amay give themselves, one is the Government

:20:56.:20:59.

has a huge majority and so it doesn't matter, I can express my

:20:59.:21:04.

view and nobody will be hurt, but the other of course, is that when

:21:04.:21:07.

the Government has a small majority, well, I could make a difference,

:21:08.:21:11.

but, if the Government has a small majority, the whips can say do you

:21:12.:21:15.

it does matter, you are going to cause a lot of trouble, so the

:21:15.:21:18.

pressure increases This is a government with a big majority.

:21:18.:21:23.

sort of things are they defying the whips over? It depend which party.

:21:23.:21:26.

There is a difference between Conservative and Liberal Democrat

:21:26.:21:31.

rebellion, half of Liberal Democrat rebellions are on social policy,

:21:31.:21:36.

about 40% from memory of Conservative rebellions are on

:21:36.:21:39.

constitutional policy and a chunk, one in five are on Europe. The

:21:39.:21:42.

problem for the Europe ones is Europe ones are double the size of

:21:42.:21:46.

the others. Although interestingly, of course, if you don't bother whips

:21:46.:21:50.

MPs as there is going to be a free vote, ministers will be be allowed

:21:50.:21:55.

to abstain in the amendment to the Queen speeches, it is not a

:21:55.:21:59.

rebellion The only reason they are doing that is because they know the

:21:59.:22:03.

rebellion would be huge, you have to go back to 1946, to find an example

:22:03.:22:12.

of Government MPs moving an amendment to their own Queen's

:22:12.:22:13.

Speech and being willing to rebel in number this is unprecedented stuff.

:22:13.:22:19.

I can't find any examples of a gove say saying do what you want on the

:22:19.:22:24.

Queen's Speech. Is this a good thing they are a rebellious lot? It can go

:22:24.:22:26.

too far when team work breaks down and it may be about do that now, but

:22:26.:22:32.

on the whole, I think Members of Parliament are voicing their own

:22:33.:22:36.

opinions, it is a good thing, but within limits. I was looking from

:22:36.:22:41.

the sort of political science point of view, you must have difficulty in

:22:41.:22:46.

how to categorize rebellions that don't happen, because the rebellion

:22:46.:22:53.

was going to be so big... Or pulled the legislation or conceded huge

:22:53.:22:56.

ground, that is the big problem, nobody should look at the figures

:22:56.:23:00.

and say they indication influence, there can be considerable influence

:23:00.:23:03.

with no rebellions and that is because the Government is giving

:23:03.:23:07.

way. Now, there will be no rebellion on gay marriage when it returns to

:23:07.:23:10.

the Commons next week, because as we have been discussing the Government

:23:10.:23:14.

have promised a free vote on the issue. That doesn't Mina

:23:14.:23:18.

Conservative backbench dissent won't cause David Cameron trouble on a

:23:18.:23:21.

policy he has chosen to champion and opposition will come from other

:23:21.:23:26.

quarters too, when the gay marriage bill reaches the Lords. Here is the

:23:26.:23:29.

former Archbishop of Canterbury speaking in the upper House last

:23:29.:23:35.

week Of particular concern to many is the bewilderment caused bier a

:23:35.:23:38.

law concerning same-sex marriage, which would change the face of

:23:38.:23:44.

society and family with no mandate, or even a proper debate.

:23:44.:23:48.

Of particular concern at this point in the bill's passage, is for the

:23:48.:23:55.

first time, the way in which the proposals effectively

:23:55.:24:00.

institutionalise competing views of marriage in our society. Rather than

:24:00.:24:06.

promote promoting social cohesion this will lead to greater social

:24:06.:24:10.

fragmentation, far from ending the so-called battle of a marriage,

:24:10.:24:14.

these proposals will formalise it, and exacerbate it.

:24:14.:24:20.

And the Conservative MP David were rows, the aide to the Environment

:24:20.:24:24.

Secretary Owen Paterson is here now. You are calling for a referendum on

:24:24.:24:27.

this issue, what is your justification for that? It is

:24:28.:24:32.

because we, there is not a clear mandate for change, ordinary lit

:24:32.:24:38.

would come within a main party manifesto and it wasn't in my of the

:24:38.:24:42.

main part ties manifesto, it is the significance of the change. It isn't

:24:43.:24:48.

just a tidying up of marriage law, it is a significant change that need

:24:48.:24:51.

to be dealt with carefully, proper scrutiny and if it needs to happen,

:24:51.:24:55.

it needs to happen building a consensus, the position of a

:24:55.:24:58.

Conservative Party which is divided is reflected in the country.

:24:58.:25:02.

Referendums normally are reserved for major constitutional change, not

:25:02.:25:08.

social change, do you accept that has but it has constitutional

:25:08.:25:14.

implications as well. Mr Burrows says he wants a consensus, but I

:25:14.:25:19.

don't think a consensus would be possible. I very much doubt whether

:25:19.:25:22.

anything would persuade you to be in favour of gay marriage. I know

:25:22.:25:25.

nothing would persuade me to be against it. You have to have a vote

:25:25.:25:30.

in end. I wouldn't fear a referendum, because I no doubt at

:25:30.:25:33.

all that gay marriage would pass a popular referendum. Absolutely no

:25:33.:25:40.

doubt at all. But I wonder about this principle that you have a

:25:40.:25:43.

friend when something wasn't in the manifesto, we are going to bring in

:25:43.:25:46.

charges for immigrants health charges until they start earning,

:25:46.:25:52.

that wasn't in the manifesto, do you want a referendum on that You have

:25:52.:25:59.

to accept the issue of gay marriage has been in the nation you must

:25:59.:26:03.

allow, obviously a referendum is hot just about the voter, it is about

:26:03.:26:07.

the national debate. It is good enough for the US, it should be good

:26:07.:26:16.

enough for us. We have had a debate in the media but not one that allows

:26:16.:26:20.

considered discussion of what is a vital institution, that reflects

:26:20.:26:24.

concerns of church, state and all individuals of all faiths, surely we

:26:24.:26:28.

should allow time to have that debate and put it... You don't want

:26:28.:26:33.

a debate, you want to defeat the measure So it is a vehicle you want

:26:33.:26:38.

to use it as a vehicle, to defeat a measure you don't like? It would be,

:26:38.:26:42.

it would be affect the commencement of this bill, but I am concerned

:26:42.:26:46.

about that as well as trying to ensure we have freedom of speech,

:26:46.:26:49.

properly protect and surely the Government should be able to accept

:26:49.:26:52.

that. It has been controversial, what is your evidence for saying

:26:52.:26:56.

that it is so controversial in the nation, that it deserves a

:26:56.:27:00.

referendum? It is controversial for certain parts of the population but

:27:00.:27:05.

MPs voted in favour by a huge majority, didn't they, of 225 and a

:27:05.:27:12.

poll by ICM but public support at 62% compared to 31% against. I

:27:12.:27:16.

suggest Matthew is right. If you had a referendum it would pass the test

:27:16.:27:21.

We would have to have a proper debate. It depends, with opinion

:27:21.:27:26.

polls, if you say that civil partnerships give effective legal

:27:26.:27:32.

rights, then do you want to support gay marriage, it goes up to 70% of

:27:32.:27:36.

people who are against. Just ask people are you in favour of gay

:27:36.:27:42.

marriage or not? That is one where you get a clear majority. People

:27:42.:27:48.

over 50 or 60 tend to be against it. People under it tend to ask what the

:27:48.:27:53.

fuss is about I am under 50 myself. And you look it. The case we found

:27:53.:27:58.

in the bill, the lack of the voice of of the reputation, has been

:27:58.:28:03.

profound in the scrutiny. That is of concern we will make a change

:28:03.:28:11.

without hearing properly from them. From who? BME.Who are BME From

:28:11.:28:15.

black majority church, from Hindu, Sikh, we didn't hear any evidence

:28:15.:28:20.

from them, in the public evidence session, that is a real concern,

:28:20.:28:25.

they are concerned. It crosses the divides, ethnic divides. Black

:28:25.:28:29.

andation people have every right to express their opinion in many ways

:28:29.:28:33.

to do it, but I don't think that you stop a measure, just because one

:28:33.:28:38.

section of the community is predominantly against it We don't go

:28:38.:28:43.

ahead without properly considering with care, communities, interests,

:28:43.:28:48.

the word said by Lord Carey were ones that said scrutiny has been

:28:48.:28:53.

pushed there consultation, it would move the goal posts from trying to

:28:53.:28:56.

separate civil and religious marriages to these proposals. It's a

:28:56.:29:00.

big change. We should have a brother debate about that, and allow it to

:29:00.:29:03.

come to a public vote. This Government isn't proposing any

:29:03.:29:07.

church will be forced to conduct same-sex marriage, there will be

:29:07.:29:11.

protections put in place, so is there any evidence people's

:29:11.:29:14.

religious freedoms will be compromised? We have to recognise

:29:14.:29:17.

the issue of marriage is not just about the marriage ceremony. We are

:29:17.:29:21.

not just talking about that here. The issue of marriage is how people

:29:21.:29:26.

express it, how they have it as basis as charities doing marriage

:29:26.:29:30.

preparation, hiring a haul from a Local Authority, teaching about it

:29:30.:29:38.

in school, expressing the views of employer, we have found examples of

:29:38.:29:40.

that, and I want to ensure on the face of it we are protecting not

:29:40.:29:45.

just the church ceremonies but for people's views. I am in favour of

:29:45.:29:48.

that and the bill will give protection to church ceremony, as

:29:49.:29:53.

for freedom to express opinion, in a sense that is a different issue, but

:29:53.:29:57.

I don't think, I don't think those people who are e unhappy ant gay

:29:57.:30:02.

marriage have been in any sense gagged during this debate. We seem

:30:02.:30:07.

to have heard endlessly from you all The hostility, the threats and you

:30:07.:30:13.

will know yourself, this generates. Hostility to you? And the rest of it

:30:14.:30:18.

and even for myself proposing we should have amendment enshrining

:30:18.:30:22.

freedom of speech, the hostility on social media to myself, even for

:30:22.:30:28.

suggesting that. We should allow protection for people allow

:30:28.:30:32.

allowing... You should have broad shoulders, you are a member of

:30:32.:30:34.

Parliament and members who have spoken out in favour of gay marriage

:30:34.:30:39.

have had to put up with hostility too. People feel strongly about it

:30:39.:30:43.

He got demoted from his job and he has to rely on the Equality Act.

:30:43.:30:48.

Allow people the extra probing e-- protection, they won't be

:30:49.:30:52.

discriminated against. How much dissent do you think there will be

:30:52.:30:56.

when this comes back to the Commons? There will be I would say at least

:30:56.:30:59.

the same dissent in the same majority who are against, there will

:30:59.:31:04.

be people who have abstained who want to see additional protections

:31:04.:31:07.

that go I don't know whatted happens in the church premise, to issues of

:31:07.:31:12.

freedom of speech. People want to see extra assurance, the government

:31:12.:31:16.

through the 13 it issings of the bill didn't make any amendments in

:31:16.:31:19.

that regard. They spoke warmly and positively but nothing on the face

:31:19.:31:23.

of the bill. There is one question again about UKIP and its uninfluence

:31:24.:31:28.

in the last set of election, the local elections and also many grass

:31:28.:31:32.

roots Tories have expressed concern about this. Is that something that

:31:32.:31:41.

perhaps the leadership should be listening to? It could listen, but

:31:41.:31:45.

in the end it has to reject that view. Good old UKIP. They are in

:31:45.:31:49.

favour of a room where people can smoke in pubs, but not a room where

:31:49.:31:53.

people can have gay marriage. Their view of individual liberty is

:31:54.:31:58.

extremely selective. This will pass the Lords easily. It will pass into

:31:58.:32:02.

law easily, and in five or ten years time, you will feel a bit rueful

:32:02.:32:07.

that you got yourself on the wrong side of a social change. I think I

:32:07.:32:11.

am on the right side of the argument in favour of marriage. But do you

:32:11.:32:16.

think in a few years time, in society, it will be regarded in the

:32:16.:32:21.

same way as civil partnerships, just something that happens? We have come

:32:21.:32:27.

to recognise and respect civil partnerships. Would you have voted

:32:27.:32:37.

for them? The position is that we will look back and see whether this

:32:37.:32:40.

has strengthened marriage. I am in favour of marriage as well, but I

:32:40.:32:45.

want a broader... Surely there is more we should be concentrating on

:32:45.:32:48.

which is in our Queen's Speech, rather than getting distracted by

:32:48.:32:56.

this. What is your reaction to David Cameron's proposal for this draft

:32:56.:33:00.

bill on Europe? It is excellent news. It makes it crystal clear

:33:00.:33:06.

whether Palin it is coming from -- where the prime minister is coming

:33:06.:33:12.

from in ensuring that we will have a referendum. And how will you vote on

:33:12.:33:19.

the amendment? I will be supporting Thank you very much. Now, strivers

:33:19.:33:24.

and shirkers. Hard-working families and benefit cheats. The rhetorical

:33:24.:33:28.

temperature on welfare has risen in recent years, and a report out today

:33:28.:33:35.

from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that our attitudes have

:33:35.:33:37.

been hardening, too. In 1994, 15% of the public thought people lived in

:33:37.:33:43.

need because of laziness or lack of willpower. In 2010, that figure has

:33:43.:33:47.

risen to 23%. And the report says the explanation for the change in

:33:47.:33:54.

attitudes seems to lie amongst Labour supporters. In 1987, 20 1% of

:33:54.:33:57.

Labour supporters said welfare recipients were undeserving,

:33:57.:34:02.

compared with 31% in 2011, an increase of 10%. And there was an

:34:02.:34:08.

increase from 16% to 46% over the same period in the number of Labour

:34:08.:34:14.

voters saying that the welfare state encourages dependency. We are joined

:34:14.:34:17.

now by Julia Unwin, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

:34:17.:34:24.

and the Shadow implement minister, Stephen Timms. Julia Unwin, we have

:34:24.:34:28.

had economic uncertainty before, so why have attitudes hardened so much

:34:28.:34:32.

during this recession? What has changed? It is striking that in

:34:32.:34:36.

previous recessions, people have expressed more sympathy. They have

:34:36.:34:41.

no more people who have lost their jobs. It has come closer to them. In

:34:41.:34:44.

this recession, in part because of the rhetoric you were describing,

:34:44.:34:48.

but also because people have lost confidence in the welfare system to

:34:48.:34:52.

support them, they express this hostility. But they express

:34:52.:35:01.

hostility to the welfare system. But not to the recipients? Much less to

:35:01.:35:04.

the recipients. People said there was a real problem with child

:35:04.:35:08.

poverty. They have little confidence in any government of any colour to

:35:08.:35:15.

fix it. So in response, what does Labour have to do? Does it need to

:35:15.:35:20.

influence the debate to make people more sympathetic to benefit payments

:35:20.:35:23.

and recipients, or does Labour need to adjust its policy to look

:35:23.:35:28.

tougher? I don't think it is about sympathy or looking tough, it is

:35:28.:35:32.

about making the right moves so that people don't live in poverty. The

:35:32.:35:36.

welfare system is only one part of that. Unless we have jobs paying the

:35:36.:35:41.

right sort of money, people will remain poor and the cost to us as a

:35:41.:35:45.

country of that are astronomic. We cannot afford to have another

:35:45.:35:49.

generation growing up in poverty. We believe any incoming government

:35:49.:35:54.

needs to address housing, jobs, skills, education, as well as

:35:54.:36:00.

ensuring that you have a reliable welfare system for those who can't

:36:00.:36:03.

work. What is your view towards the universal credit, this complete

:36:03.:36:08.

overhaul of the system that the government claims will make it more

:36:08.:36:13.

targeted to people who need it and will ensure that there are not, to

:36:13.:36:15.

use the rhetoric, people shirking and picking benefits they don't

:36:15.:36:21.

deserve? We support the notion of universal credit. The idea of some

:36:21.:36:24.

providing benefits must be the right thing to do. The idea that you bring

:36:24.:36:28.

it all together in one place is an important step forward. We worry

:36:28.:36:32.

about the way it is being implemented and all the other things

:36:32.:36:37.

being done at the same time. And we particularly worry about all of this

:36:37.:36:40.

happening in a falling, insecure and dangerous labour market in which

:36:40.:36:45.

jobs are temporary, poorly paid and offer no progression. Stephen Timms,

:36:45.:36:49.

do you think more people are living on benefit as a result of laziness

:36:49.:36:54.

or lack of willpower? I am not sure the numbers are any greater than

:36:54.:36:58.

they ever have been. There are two macro problems here which are

:36:58.:37:01.

undermining confidence in the system. One is that the system is

:37:01.:37:09.

supposed to encourage people into work and help them into jobs. The

:37:09.:37:11.

other is that people who pay into the system although working lives

:37:11.:37:16.

and then need help too often find there is not help when they require

:37:16.:37:21.

it. What sort of people are those? I am thinking of people perhaps in

:37:22.:37:25.

their 50s who have worked their whole adult lives, running into a

:37:25.:37:29.

health problem and having to give up work as a result, and then they find

:37:29.:37:33.

out there is only one year's worth of funding available to them, and

:37:33.:37:37.

the amount is far lower than they thought it would be. That is

:37:37.:37:40.

weakening confidence in the system. But do you accept that you as

:37:40.:37:45.

politicians have played into the portrayal and the rhetoric that has

:37:45.:37:55.

been used to talk about the welfare debate that has not helped? Labour

:37:55.:37:58.

policies have promoted individual responsibility. But I am talking

:37:58.:38:08.
:38:08.:38:08.

about the rhetoric used by politicians. Well, you are right. We

:38:08.:38:09.

have promoted individual responsibility over the last 20

:38:09.:38:11.

years. Julia is making the point that that is reflected in the way

:38:11.:38:16.

Labour views have changed. Why is there a perception that Labour is

:38:16.:38:19.

soft on welfare? I don't think that is a fair perception. But it is what

:38:19.:38:25.

the polling shows, that Labour is not seen as being tough enough in

:38:25.:38:32.

terms of welfare and the people who receive it. In government, we

:38:32.:38:35.

actually made the system much better, but there is more to be

:38:35.:38:39.

done. That is why we have our jobs guarantee policy at the moment,

:38:39.:38:42.

where we say everybody is entitled to the offer of a job, but once

:38:42.:38:47.

offered, they will be required to take it up. Do you think the

:38:47.:38:50.

government has succeeded in changing the debate on welfare and have

:38:50.:38:53.

managed to champion the idea that it will be tougher in future to get

:38:53.:38:59.

welfare? I think it is the other way round. All parties have noticed a

:38:59.:39:04.

hardening in public attitudes. they have responded to it? They have

:39:04.:39:07.

responded. And we should consider the possibility that the public are

:39:07.:39:12.

right, that there has been growing abuse of the benefit system. When

:39:12.:39:15.

the more stringent tests for what used to be called is a bloody

:39:15.:39:20.

benefit were brought in recently, there was a huge drop in people

:39:20.:39:24.

claiming it. But there are also many people claiming that there will be

:39:24.:39:27.

awful in justice is done to people who will genuinely need it in their

:39:27.:39:31.

lives and may not be able to get it. Around the margins of any system,

:39:31.:39:35.

there will always be injustices. But there is a public perception that

:39:35.:39:40.

the bar should be raised a bit, and I think the public may be right. I

:39:40.:39:43.

can see that the Conservative Party has understood that and I believe

:39:43.:39:51.

the Labour Party has, too. What about the misconception by many

:39:51.:39:54.

people about where the bulk of money on benefit is actually spent? Half

:39:54.:39:58.

of it is on pensions. And then at least another quarter is on people

:39:58.:40:02.

who are in work. That is the point I want to make. The vast majority goes

:40:02.:40:09.

on pensions. And most people think that is appropriate. Indeed, most

:40:09.:40:11.

people are shocked by how little money is received on pensions. They

:40:12.:40:18.

are also shocked by how many families receiving benefits where

:40:18.:40:23.

someone is in poverty, somebody is going to work. We are right that we

:40:23.:40:32.

a system that is not working. We can't walk away from provision for

:40:32.:40:37.

people who are not in work. Are you saying the parties are doing that?

:40:37.:40:40.

am not saying that, but we need a system in which people have

:40:40.:40:46.

confidence. The previous system did not do that. We are now going for

:40:46.:40:49.

what I have described as a gamble with universal credit. We have to

:40:49.:40:54.

hope it works, because the price paid by people who fall through the

:40:54.:40:59.

gaps will be very high. How else do you bring the welfare bill down?

:40:59.:41:04.

have to create jobs which pay enough to enable people to work without

:41:04.:41:08.

using benefits. But do you think the tax credit system championed by

:41:08.:41:12.

Gordon Brown as chancellor and prime minister actually created dependency

:41:12.:41:18.

in itself, that it was not enough to get a job that paid you a living

:41:18.:41:24.

wage, you had to rely on handouts from the state in order to survive?

:41:24.:41:27.

The handouts came because people were not getting a living wage. They

:41:27.:41:32.

were working for very low wages, paying high rents, and the

:41:32.:41:36.

completion of those two put our benefits bill up to a level that is

:41:36.:41:39.

unacceptable. So in the end, it was a false economy having such an

:41:39.:41:44.

intricate and edit system. At one of the results was a big increase in

:41:44.:41:48.

the number of lone parents working, which is a big game for the economy

:41:48.:41:53.

and society. We need the system to help people into work. You are right

:41:53.:41:57.

about pensions. I shall be approaching the time I get a pension

:41:57.:42:01.

at the next general election, but I don't think any party should repeat

:42:01.:42:05.

the pledge the Conservative Party made not to touch pensions. Do you

:42:05.:42:11.

agree with that? I think we will have to look at all these things,

:42:11.:42:14.

given continuing austerity beyond the next election. But Labour have

:42:14.:42:19.

not said that yet, so do you think Labour should look again at

:42:19.:42:22.

universal benefits to pensioners? will have to look at a range of

:42:22.:42:26.

things, and that is one of them. the weekend, Peter Mandelson said

:42:26.:42:30.

the Labour government in 2004 were sending out such parties for people

:42:30.:42:34.

to come to work in this country. Then yesterday, he said, we have to

:42:34.:42:39.

realise that the entry of migrants to the labour market is hard for

:42:39.:42:43.

people entering the labour market to get jobs or keep jobs. Does

:42:43.:42:49.

Labour's immigration policy have something to answer for? He was in

:42:49.:42:54.

the government at the time. He says it did create that sort of

:42:54.:42:59.

dependency. We are numbers of the European Union. Sending out such

:42:59.:43:05.

parties for people to come to work? I certainly did not send out any

:43:05.:43:08.

search parties. There are big challenges. I agree with Julia that

:43:08.:43:14.

we need to find ways of raising the levels of income in work to tackle

:43:14.:43:19.

the problem of in work poverty. is 30 years since your experience

:43:20.:43:25.

when you were unable to live successfully on benefits. When was

:43:25.:43:30.

that? That was the television in 1981. I tried living on �26 74 week

:43:30.:43:38.

near Newcastle. And you did not manage it. I didn't. But I decided

:43:38.:43:43.

to go with the flow. But you think the government has got the right

:43:43.:43:46.

level now, both in terms of pitching it to the public, whose attitudes

:43:46.:43:52.

are hardening? There is no right level for benefits. It will always

:43:52.:43:58.

be hard to live on benefits. What I hate about unemployment is the way

:43:58.:44:02.

it breaks people's spirits. People need to feel they have a purpose. It

:44:02.:44:05.

does not matter what level of benefits they are getting. And they

:44:05.:44:10.

need employment of the right sort. Currently, our labour market

:44:10.:44:14.

provides jobs with zero hours contracts, no security. That is no

:44:14.:44:20.

way to build a life. Thank you very much. Now, it is more

:44:20.:44:23.

than five years since the start of the global financial crisis, and we

:44:23.:44:27.

have all spent a lot of that time try to work out who to blame. Was it

:44:27.:44:31.

the bankers, the economists or the politicians who led Britain into the

:44:31.:44:35.

longest slump in living memory? A new series on BBC Two called Bankers

:44:35.:44:42.

has been looking at what went wrong. Rules and regulations were designed

:44:42.:44:46.

to enable the City to grow, and both Conservative and new Labour

:44:46.:44:48.

government is appreciated the value and tax revenue that the bankers

:44:48.:44:55.

brought in. The financial sector was growing at an average of 6% a year,

:44:56.:45:04.

twice as fast as the wider economy. Lunch? Can't even spell it, but it

:45:04.:45:08.

virtually went out of the window. There was so much money to be made,

:45:08.:45:15.

so much of an opportunity. There is probably a disturbing, sometimes

:45:15.:45:21.

admirable aspect of human nature that we just enjoy a party.

:45:21.:45:26.

You can watch the next episode tomorrow on BBC 2000 at 9.00. One

:45:26.:45:34.

man has has been thinking hard about who went wrong is the former Labour

:45:34.:45:38.

MP who has written a book called Progressive Capitalism. Welcome back

:45:38.:45:41.

welcome to the programme. Your book is highly critical of the financial

:45:41.:45:45.

system and there have been other critic, you say the markets became

:45:46.:45:50.

too focussed on take wealth, why did no-one, including the. Go of which

:45:50.:45:54.

you were a member notice? Think they is a very fundamental question, and

:45:54.:46:01.

the answer is we were all sold on this idea of the liberal market

:46:01.:46:06.

economics that this was the answer, it seemed to get us out of real

:46:06.:46:13.

problems in the '60s and 70s, when we were faced with stagflation, and

:46:13.:46:18.

everything seemed to be toing very well, in the years I was -- to be

:46:18.:46:21.

going very well. In my own case it was only when I came out of

:46:21.:46:25.

Government that was once again allowed to talk to people in the

:46:25.:46:30.

financial world, and I sat down with financial advisers and they said

:46:30.:46:34.

there is real problems occurring now. But in Government did you not

:46:34.:46:38.

talk to people in the financial world who are saying, this cannot go

:46:38.:46:41.

on? I don't think they were saying that, they were saying this is

:46:41.:46:48.

great, we are doing very well, I didn't, because all my investments

:46:48.:46:52.

were blind trust, and any idea I might meet with a financial person

:46:52.:46:57.

was out of the question. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it.

:46:57.:47:00.

Certainly no-one, or no-one that I can recall, who was saying at the

:47:00.:47:06.

time in any of the party, let's stop the party rolling, the credit boom

:47:06.:47:10.

is going to go on and all, what we need now is lots more regulation, to

:47:10.:47:13.

make sure the bankers are going to be behave themselves, no-one was

:47:13.:47:18.

calling for that were they? We were all sold on this idea, and we

:47:18.:47:24.

thought that was right, in the same way in the 30 years before that, we

:47:24.:47:28.

all thought Keynesian economics and planning was a good thing.

:47:28.:47:31.

intervention is what should be happening, in terms of financial

:47:31.:47:36.

regulation and trying to take a more interventionist view? You put the

:47:36.:47:40.

word intervention because you want to make it sound sinister and awful.

:47:40.:47:47.

No! What I am talking about is we had three major, three or four major

:47:47.:47:52.

institutional failures which caused a monetary boom, to really collapse.

:47:52.:47:56.

We need to put those things right. Your idea of Progressive Capitalism

:47:56.:48:00.

seems to be very much the way Ed Miliband is thinking, yet you are

:48:00.:48:05.

very critical of him? You say... is different. What I am saying is

:48:05.:48:10.

you need to define what is the role of the state in the economy. We have

:48:10.:48:17.

defined that, over the last 30 years, as there would be no role.

:48:17.:48:22.

Governments should stay out of it. We saw some really major

:48:22.:48:25.

institutional failure, and government has to create it will

:48:25.:48:29.

right conditions, in terms of corporate governance, the balance

:48:29.:48:32.

sheet of banks and others. Isn't that what Ed Miliband has been

:48:32.:48:36.

talking about? He has talked about ending the fast buck culture, about

:48:37.:48:40.

having a role for the state, in terms of looking or regulating the

:48:40.:48:46.

economy. Banks are subject to a raft of new rules. David Cameron has

:48:46.:48:50.

talked about socially responsible capitalism. Do you not think the

:48:50.:48:54.

problem is being addressed and dealt with? No. These are fine words, but

:48:54.:49:00.

you need to translate them, into clear policy, for example, the

:49:00.:49:06.

question of what the balance sheet of banks should be like. We are

:49:06.:49:10.

debating 3-# % equity, that is absurd. It should be something close

:49:10.:49:16.

to 20%. All we will see... Then they will stop lending all together.

:49:16.:49:21.

have to phase this in because of that, the idea we have solved any of

:49:21.:49:27.

the problems of derivatives of bank balance sheets is farcical. You are

:49:27.:49:30.

a member of the Labour Party. Who in the Labour Party is there to carry

:49:30.:49:35.

this torch, if it is not going to be Ed Miliband? I think there are a lot

:49:35.:49:39.

of bright people there and you can even hope than Ed Miliband will be

:49:39.:49:44.

the one of the people who carries this torch. I think the problem has

:49:44.:49:49.

been with both political party, there hasn't been an all terntive

:49:49.:49:55.

political economy. -- parties. We have begun to realise the nigh owe

:49:55.:49:58.

liberal one is wrong but no-one is putting forward and alteshtive,

:49:58.:50:03.

which is why I have writ then book. Ed Miliband isn't doing that either?

:50:03.:50:06.

I don't think any of the political leaders are. I don't think they

:50:06.:50:11.

understand that we have got to move away from what was the kind of

:50:11.:50:15.

received opinion over 30 years, and move to something new. What do you

:50:15.:50:23.

think of him? I said that I, on the time, I thought he was average. What

:50:23.:50:29.

I said was... Pretty damningI said all three political leaders are

:50:29.:50:33.

Avram, if there is anyone out there in your world, who would like to

:50:33.:50:38.

argue that David Cameron Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband are more than

:50:38.:50:46.

average, in the same category as Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair...

:50:46.:50:49.

Speaking from my newspaper if you tell a newspaper that three people

:50:49.:50:55.

are average, we are entitled to assume you do think Ed Miliband is

:50:55.:51:01.

average. I do. Equally think that average is in this context is used

:51:01.:51:06.

to describe all three political leaders, and that none of them are

:51:07.:51:09.

of the calibre of Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, in leadership. Do

:51:09.:51:13.

you agree with that? You have stopped giving financial support to

:51:13.:51:17.

the Labour Party? That is a rather different eschew which has to do

:51:17.:51:21.

with the fact I now have two job, one in the institute of Government

:51:21.:51:27.

and Chancellor of came bridge, and I like to keep them out of the thick

:51:27.:51:31.

and thrust and parry of party political situation. In your book

:51:31.:51:35.

you say you part funded Labour bah because you didn't want it to be

:51:35.:51:38.

solely funded by the trade union, since Ed Miliband has come to power,

:51:38.:51:42.

leading the Labour Party, 80% of the party's money does come from Labour.

:51:42.:51:46.

It sounds like they need you What I also said was I don't like the

:51:46.:51:51.

situation, where 80% of the money for the Conservative Party is coming

:51:51.:51:55.

from financial people, and I think the British public would support

:51:55.:52:00.

what was put forward, as a very sensible thing, on professional,

:52:00.:52:04.

standards in public life, which is we should have state funding of

:52:04.:52:08.

party, so party leaders are not dependent on particular groups of

:52:08.:52:14.

people. And what about the average comment? Do you agree with David

:52:14.:52:18.

that the three current leaders are average compared to Margaret

:52:18.:52:22.

Thatcher and Tony Blair? I think different times call for different

:52:22.:52:26.

types of leadership. At the moment I don't think a Margaret Thatcher

:52:26.:52:32.

would be the right person. I like David Cameron's conciliate tristyle.

:52:32.:52:36.

Like the way he thinks before he acts, I want to believe that there

:52:36.:52:42.

are limits, to how far he will go, and I am still clinging on to that

:52:42.:52:47.

belief, but it has been a difficult few days. You would think it was a

:52:47.:52:54.

good sign to have a situation where ministers are allowed to abstain on

:52:54.:53:00.

the Queen's Speech? It is not satisfactory It cannot be. I agree.

:53:00.:53:04.

Do you feel like being booed today? What a bizarre question! You could

:53:04.:53:09.

do worse than to head down to bourment with the Police

:53:09.:53:12.

Federation's annual conference is kicking off. Theresa May and Jack

:53:12.:53:15.

Straw have been on the receiving end of police heckles in the past but it

:53:15.:53:20.

is not the only bear pit for politician, being booed by hundreds

:53:20.:53:24.

wouldn't be most people's idea of fun so why do they put themselves

:53:24.:53:32.

through it? Fist, do you remember these cringeworthy scenes?

:53:32.:53:38.

Over the last few months I have spent working hard on the National

:53:38.:53:46.

Health Service. Yes, well, you don't remember it, I do, because I spent

:53:46.:53:56.
:53:56.:54:18.

18 years in opposition fighting it. nursing director, and of trust

:54:18.:54:28.
:54:28.:54:43.

boards is to listen to you when you Why do they put themselves through

:54:43.:54:48.

it? Lucy Beresford is here, and of course Matthew Parris is still with

:54:48.:54:54.

us. Why do they do it to themselves? They are partly playing a game and

:54:54.:54:58.

they want to be seen to be humble, reaching out in the current phrase,

:54:58.:55:03.

to people who they know, don't share their belief, but politicians are

:55:03.:55:10.

nothing, if not narcissistic and there is this huge addiction to

:55:10.:55:15.

almost a zeal to try and convert people who, it is one thing to

:55:15.:55:18.

preach to a party conference where you hope at least one or two people

:55:18.:55:22.

will share your views but if you go somewhere where you know they don't

:55:22.:55:26.

approve of you, what could be more glorifying than to walk off that

:55:26.:55:32.

stage to triumphant cheers. Is that the truth? The thrill of trying to

:55:32.:55:39.

get people to come to your point of view? There is an element I I think

:55:39.:55:43.

desire for publicity of showing off, everybody who goes into politics, I

:55:43.:55:48.

was not exempt from that. There is one thing worse than a whole lot of

:55:48.:55:52.

people booing you and that would be an empty hall, people who were not

:55:52.:55:56.

interested in you. I think they like the attention, they prefer it to be

:55:56.:55:59.

favourable, if it is unfavourable, that is better than no attention at

:55:59.:56:04.

all. Ministers are grown up, you don't go into politics if you are a

:56:04.:56:11.

fading flower. Do they feel bad? Psychologically do they feel bad?

:56:11.:56:14.

all want positive affirmation, you would want to receive claps and

:56:14.:56:20.

cheer, but as Matthew said, in a way, to not be talked about,

:56:20.:56:25.

ignored, would make your ego shrivel and these are people who are

:56:25.:56:27.

performer, this the what they want. They want the audience and whether

:56:28.:56:32.

it is the audience in the hall, or the audience subsequently on the

:56:32.:56:35.

news bulletin, it is all the oxygen that fuels their life as a

:56:35.:56:40.

politician. And I think too, if you are a minister, it is a feather in

:56:40.:56:45.

your cap, and it is a sign you are doing something right, if these

:56:45.:56:48.

ghastly professional organisations and trade unions begin to boo you,

:56:48.:56:52.

it is standing up to vested interests like that I think is the

:56:52.:56:56.

mark of a good minister, I think you can console yourself you are doing

:56:56.:57:00.

something right. Thing on thing you can console yourself is the group

:57:00.:57:03.

dynamic, to say, it is one thing to be heckled by a very very brave

:57:03.:57:07.

person, who comes up to you in the street, and really has a go, but if

:57:07.:57:12.

you are standing in a hall, and one or two people start the slow hand

:57:12.:57:17.

clap or booing, then you could probably count that as just group

:57:17.:57:21.

dynamics of a sort of vaguely hysterical kind, if they were on

:57:21.:57:25.

their own, if they met you in a lift they won't be so brave. What is the

:57:25.:57:30.

best way to deal with it? You are trying to say your piece, you are

:57:30.:57:35.

trying to appeal to whoever it is, nurses, police officers, and people

:57:35.:57:38.

just don't want to hear it or think they you are being unfair, what is

:57:38.:57:42.

the best way of dealing with it? have to desigh what proportion of

:57:42.:57:46.

the hall is on your side. If most are on your side and and there is a

:57:46.:57:51.

small group, you can by a clever response to a heck, win people your

:57:51.:57:54.

way, but once you have sensed the mood of the meeting is against you,

:57:54.:57:59.

the best thing to do is to take no notice and plough on, as though it

:57:59.:58:03.

wasn't happening. Is that right? don't know, you have to acknowledge

:58:03.:58:08.

it, you have to respect that to show them you are listening, and that is

:58:08.:58:14.

what politicians are meant to do, but you must never get angry you

:58:14.:58:17.

must never show you are riled. The problem with one that happened with

:58:17.:58:26.

Tony Blair, was he so- didn't expect it He did not see that coming. It

:58:26.:58:28.

was that level of complacency that did for him. A bit quickly, is Lucy

:58:28.:58:32.

the lady, the psychotherapist to come and help the tomorrow over

:58:32.:58:35.

Europe? I wish you would tell me what has gone wrong. They are

:58:35.:58:39.

tearing themselves apart. That is another conversation you can have in

:58:39.:58:45.

the privacy outside the studio. Thanks to our guest guests, the one

:58:45.:58:49.

Jo Coburn is joined by the Times columnist Matthew Parris, to discuss all the main political news, including the latest on an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS