:00:45. > :00:50.Politics. According to this morning's papers, millions of you
:00:50. > :00:55.eat the same dreary sandwich day after day, week after week, lunch
:00:55. > :01:00.after lunch. So let the Daily Politics be your midday diet of
:01:00. > :01:03.infinite variety, as we discuss Ed Miliband and his plan to cap welfare
:01:03. > :01:07.spending if ever he gets to Downing Street. The right doesn't believe
:01:07. > :01:10.him, the left is appalled. What does he hope to achieve with the big
:01:10. > :01:15.announcement today? We'll meet the men with the big long lenses who lie
:01:15. > :01:21.in wait of unwary politicians. The snappers are the latest in our
:01:21. > :01:23.series from the wealth village. Philosopher, TV presenter and
:01:24. > :01:29.Canadian politician, Michael Ignatieff, is here with his thoughts
:01:29. > :01:32.on what to do when people lose trust in politics.
:01:32. > :01:36.We'll ask if Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke and Shirley Williams are
:01:36. > :01:46.heading to Watford this weekend for a conference or as part of a secret
:01:46. > :01:47.
:01:47. > :01:51.plot to run the world. Be very afraid. Run the world!
:01:51. > :01:54.All that coming up in the next hour. With us for the duration, former
:01:54. > :01:57.Labour Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Welcome. Nice to see you in
:01:57. > :02:01.daylight! Let us start with news that a
:02:01. > :02:05.millionaire businessman's given the Labour Party shares worth �1. 65
:02:05. > :02:08.million. It's shares in his own company. John Mills owns a shopping
:02:08. > :02:12.channel and has given Labour's shares in his shopping channel
:02:12. > :02:18.instead of making a cash gift because the Daily Telegraph says it
:02:18. > :02:24.avoids the tax bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds. He tells the
:02:24. > :02:28.paper it was "the most tax efficient way of making the donation" indeed
:02:28. > :02:31.he says the Labour Party advised him to do it that way. All the
:02:31. > :02:35.Conservatives have been quick to accuse Mr Miliband of double
:02:35. > :02:39.standards because he criticised tax avoidance schemes operated by big
:02:39. > :02:44.companies. Mr Miliband told reporters that Labour would pay tax
:02:44. > :02:48.on the income from the shares, of course it will, we all have to pay
:02:48. > :02:52.tax on #234k from shares, so that's nothing. They said it was designed
:02:52. > :02:58.to give the party a steady stream of income. Since it's a private
:02:58. > :03:02.company, they don't have to pay dividends. We tried to get them to
:03:02. > :03:08.tell us what dividend they would pay and they won't tell us. One rule for
:03:08. > :03:14.the Labour Party and one rule for the rest of us? No. Ideally, you
:03:14. > :03:17.don't want a story like this on the frovent newspapers. Party political
:03:17. > :03:21.funding is always full of difficulties. This is a tax
:03:21. > :03:26.avoidance scheme. Well, as Ed has been very clear and you have said,
:03:26. > :03:31.he's been clear this morning that any income from those shares, Labour
:03:31. > :03:35.will pay tax on them. That's like saying the sun rises in the east, of
:03:35. > :03:40.course you will pay. Why would you not? There's no suggestion that the
:03:40. > :03:43.donation is illegal either. What you are challenging, what The Telegraph
:03:43. > :03:49.is challenging is what this looks like. Ed's been totally clear that
:03:50. > :03:54.any tax that needs to be paid will be paid. But it's not...It's not
:03:54. > :03:59.about affording tax. You are raising a complete aunt Sally here, it's not
:03:59. > :04:03.the point that Labour are not paying tax. Wait a minute.This man has
:04:03. > :04:06.chosen to give the Labour Party a donation in a way that avoids about
:04:06. > :04:11.�700,000 in tax. You are now shifting the argument because Ed's
:04:11. > :04:15.said Labour will pay tax. I'm saying there's nothing special about that.
:04:15. > :04:19.George Osborne's written to Labour saying will you pay tax and Ed said
:04:19. > :04:22.yes, we will. Now you are shifting it on to a different area. I've
:04:22. > :04:27.never raised the issue of Labour paying tax, you raised that, it's
:04:27. > :04:30.not an issue at all. You would go to jail if you didn't pay tax on
:04:30. > :04:35.dividend income. That shows to me - secondly, we don't know whether
:04:35. > :04:39.there 'll be any dividend income because, as I say it's not a public
:04:39. > :04:44.company, it's private - they haven't told us whether they've paid any
:04:44. > :04:51.tax. My point is, this man chose to give a donation to the Labour Party,
:04:51. > :04:57.entirely legally, in a way that avoids paying tax. Google avoids
:04:57. > :05:01.that in similar ways. It avoids tax of �700,000. Google doesn't avoid
:05:01. > :05:05.tax by making a contribution to a Democratic Party. It does other
:05:05. > :05:10.things. There is an interesting point about whether or not there is
:05:10. > :05:15.an argument for tax relief on donation to political parties.
:05:15. > :05:20.argument I want you to try to justify is, since your party's
:05:20. > :05:25.criticised Google for using the letter of the law to save a tonne of
:05:25. > :05:30.tax, nothing illegal, and if you have criticised Google, why is it
:05:30. > :05:34.right for this man to use the letter of the law to save a tonne of tax?
:05:34. > :05:37.Ed's been completely clear this morning that he is not going to be
:05:37. > :05:43.saving tax for the Labour Party in the way in which he deals with this
:05:43. > :05:47.because he will be paying tax in full. I'm talking about John Mills.
:05:47. > :05:54.To a certain extent, he'll need to answer for himself. You have taken
:05:54. > :06:00.the money. But this is wholly legal. So is Google's tax return. And we'll
:06:00. > :06:03.be paying all of the tax they should be paying. It's all right for - it's
:06:03. > :06:07.not right in your view, indeed the Leader of the Opposition told us
:06:07. > :06:13.there was a moral imperative not to do it - it's not all right for
:06:13. > :06:18.Google to use the existing tax system to minimise its tax, but it's
:06:18. > :06:23.OK for this guy to minimise his tax if it results in a donation to the
:06:23. > :06:27.Labour Party? The first thing is first thing is, Ed said it wasn't
:06:27. > :06:31.true he'd made this donation to minimise his tax, Ed said he made a
:06:31. > :06:36.donation in this this form in order to ensure a stream of income for the
:06:36. > :06:40.Labour Party, rather than simply a lump sum. Mr Mills told the
:06:40. > :06:44.telephotograph this morning he done it this way because it was advised
:06:44. > :06:48.as the most tax efficient way. told the reporter from the telegraph
:06:49. > :06:53.that he didn't believe that was true. So he knows more about John
:06:53. > :06:57.Mills' tax return than John Mills does? He perhaps isn't reporting it
:06:57. > :07:01.in a distorted way as some newspapers might possibly have a
:07:01. > :07:08.reason for doing. All right. Time for the daily quiz.
:07:08. > :07:13.Who or what has Anne McIntosh blamed for placing a tremendous burden on
:07:13. > :07:18.the NHS? A, immigration, B, the working time directive, C, women
:07:18. > :07:22.doctors or D, sick people? And, in about half an hour, Jacqui, you will
:07:22. > :07:28.be pleased to know, you will give us the correct answer.
:07:28. > :07:33.I know the answer to that. Do you know the answer? Don't say it.
:07:33. > :07:36.So do I. Marvellous. Now, in a much anticipated speech, at least in the
:07:36. > :07:40.wealth village, Ed Miliband has been out and about this morning setting
:07:40. > :07:45.out his party's new stance on benefits. It's an attempt to shake
:07:45. > :07:48.off the soft on welfare tag and had several big policy proses. The
:07:48. > :07:53.headline announcement was Labour's version of a welfare cap.
:07:53. > :07:55.The Next Labour Government will use a three-year cap on structural
:07:55. > :08:00.welfare spending to help control costs.
:08:00. > :08:04.Such a cap will alert the Next Labour Government to problems coming
:08:04. > :08:08.down the track and ensure we make policy to keep social security
:08:08. > :08:13.within limits. It will also mean we can do a better
:08:13. > :08:16.job of protecting our priorities from the NHS to Tax Credits to
:08:16. > :08:20.pensions right across-the-board. It will introduce greater
:08:20. > :08:25.discipline, as ministers from across departments will be led to control
:08:25. > :08:30.the big drivers of spending. Mr Ed Miliband also called for big
:08:30. > :08:34.structural changes to how the UK economy works, more housing to cut
:08:34. > :08:39.the Housing Benefit bill and moves to encourage employers to pay the
:08:39. > :08:42.living wage. If local councils can say that if you want a contract with
:08:42. > :08:47.the council, then you need to pay the living wage, central Government
:08:47. > :08:54.should look at doing that too. And here is why it's about cost
:08:54. > :09:01.control as well. For every pound that employers pay
:09:01. > :09:06.above the minimum wage towards a living wage, Government would save
:09:06. > :09:12.50p in lower Tax Credits and benefits and higher tax revenues.
:09:12. > :09:15.That's why it's a moral issue and a cost issue too.
:09:15. > :09:18.That's why I say we should look at offering some of these savings back
:09:18. > :09:23.to those employers to special suede them to do the right thing and pay
:09:23. > :09:26.the living wage. I'm joined by Paul Johnson, the
:09:26. > :09:29.Director of The Institute for Fiscal Studies. Welcome to the programme.
:09:29. > :09:34.What is your take on what you have heard from Ed Miliband? There are
:09:34. > :09:41.some germs of interesting ideas in there. Right? ! Don't overstate
:09:41. > :09:44.that. Potential cap on total social security spending is a big thing,
:09:44. > :09:49.but exactly how it will be done we don't know. We have experience of
:09:49. > :09:53.all sorts of benefits over the last few years that have gone up much
:09:53. > :09:58.more than expected and planned. Disability Living Allowance over the
:09:58. > :10:02.2000s, Housing Benefit over the same period went up in an unplanned way.
:10:02. > :10:06.The question is, if you cap this, what do you do? The only way of
:10:06. > :10:10.stopping it happening over the three year period is to cut the benefit
:10:10. > :10:15.level or tighten the eligibility. haven't heard what they would do in
:10:15. > :10:19.the case of a cap being breached or getting close to it? I think the key
:10:20. > :10:25.thing here is that one really does need to be active in managing this
:10:25. > :10:32.budget and I think the perception has been that that hasn't always
:10:32. > :10:40.happened. It certainly in one sense didn't happen through the 80s and 9
:10:40. > :10:44.0s when invalidity benefits went up pasts and also in the 2000s when
:10:44. > :10:51.other benefits went up. The money keeps coming from the Treasury and
:10:51. > :10:54.going out from them o to to the claimants. So does this mean you are
:10:54. > :10:59.more convinced about Labour's credibility on the economy? There's
:10:59. > :11:02.a slightly tenuous link between them but they are not specific things
:11:02. > :11:07.that have been said today and credibility on the economy. What I
:11:07. > :11:15.think Ed Miliband is trying to say is, look, we will control the social
:11:15. > :11:18.security budget in a somewhat undefined way. That will determine
:11:18. > :11:23.how much impact that makes on the public finances, the details of
:11:23. > :11:29.that. What about the proposals on a living wage? He said that would
:11:29. > :11:34.actually save the Government 50p in every pound that an employer pays a
:11:34. > :11:39.living wage to an employee? That calculation depends on an
:11:39. > :11:43.assumption that you pay low paid people more, they get less benefits
:11:43. > :11:47.but it doesn't take into account where the money comes from, it's not
:11:47. > :11:51.magiced from somewhere, so it's probably coming from someone else's
:11:51. > :11:56.pay packet or profits on which tax would have been paid or something
:11:56. > :12:04.like that, so it isn't magic money, all of which is extra and provides
:12:04. > :12:08.additional money. Some of it might, but it's not, and one shouldn't kid
:12:08. > :12:11.one's self-that you can bring this money and suddenly we are richer
:12:11. > :12:18.because someone's found money under the sofa. Thank you very much. Let's
:12:18. > :12:21.see if we can get some answers to this from Liam Byrne, the Shadow
:12:21. > :12:24.Work and Pensions Secretary. Can you give us any idea of how the cap on
:12:24. > :12:29.welfare spending will be set and what scale it will be?
:12:29. > :12:33.Well, the Government's said it's thinking about a cap, so we are
:12:33. > :12:38.expecting plans to come forward in the spending review later on in
:12:38. > :12:42.June. We'll study those and obviously the final judgment's got
:12:42. > :12:47.to come when we look at the state of the books in 2015. What Ed Balls
:12:47. > :12:52.said on Monday is that the budgets that we inherit in 2015-16 are the
:12:52. > :13:00.starting point for us and any changes to that baseline have got to
:13:00. > :13:07.be fully funded. So if you win the next election, you inherit a welfare
:13:07. > :13:12.budget in 2015. Will the cap that you intend to impose in real terms
:13:12. > :13:17.be bigger than 2015 by the time you get to 2018, will it be the same?
:13:17. > :13:22.What will be the yard stick by which you will inherit a budget and what
:13:22. > :13:25.will that cap be by 2018? We needs two more things before we can answer
:13:25. > :13:29.that question. One, we need to see if the Government does come forward
:13:29. > :13:34.with a cap in the spending review, need to look at that, need to see
:13:34. > :13:37.what's in it, so for example, one way of doing it is to include
:13:37. > :13:42.pension spending inside the cap. We have got to see what the Government
:13:42. > :13:45.coming up with first, look at the pros and cons for taking their kind
:13:45. > :13:49.of economic approach. The second big bit of information you need before
:13:49. > :13:54.you can answer that question that you rightly pose is, you have got to
:13:54. > :13:57.have a look at what are the state of the books in 2015-16. What we are
:13:57. > :14:03.clear about is, if we want to change that baseline, it's got to be fully
:14:03. > :14:08.funded. Understand that, but will the cap allow for a real growth in
:14:08. > :14:11.welfare spending or not? You can't divorce that judgment from the
:14:11. > :14:15.assessment of the overall finance picture. All right. Since you can't
:14:15. > :14:19.tell us how you will set the cap, can I ask you what would happen if
:14:19. > :14:24.you looked like breaking the cap? What would you do? I think this is
:14:24. > :14:28.the key question because what a long-term cap does is, it forces you
:14:28. > :14:33.to undertake some long-term reform to tackle the kind of cost pressures
:14:33. > :14:39.that Paul tack talked about a second ago. An example of the difference it
:14:39. > :14:43.can make is, at the moment, we are dissatisfied watt the way the work
:14:43. > :14:47.programme is getting people into work. We say it's worse than doing
:14:48. > :14:52.nothing, people go through it and they sit on the dole. That's why we
:14:52. > :14:56.have people on the dole for longer than two years at the highest level.
:14:56. > :15:00.There is no incentive for DWP to do anything about that. In fact, what
:15:00. > :15:05.they are doing at the moment is letting the programme rot, you know.
:15:05. > :15:09.It's hands off, who cares, the money's flowing, as Paul said. If
:15:09. > :15:12.you have a long-term cap on social security spending, you can't live in
:15:12. > :15:16.that world, you know. If you have pressures that will hit you next
:15:16. > :15:21.year, then you have got to get hands on and sort out things that are
:15:21. > :15:25.going wrong this year. Another good example... One example is enough, we
:15:25. > :15:29.don't have time for another. You still haven't answered my question
:15:29. > :15:39.which is, what will happen if you look like breaking the cap? Are you
:15:39. > :15:41.
:15:41. > :15:44.prepared to cut people's benefits to stay win the The key argument that
:15:44. > :15:53.we are making today is that you have got to embark on these long-term
:15:53. > :16:00.reforms. But I am talking about what happens if you set a cap in 2015,
:16:00. > :16:06.and in 2017, you look like breaking the, so, in order to keep to that,
:16:06. > :16:10.are you prepared to cut people 's benefits? This is the key. It forces
:16:10. > :16:15.you to focus on the long-term. What Ed has said today is, look at the
:16:15. > :16:19.tax credit Bill, that Bill is going up because of low pay in lots of
:16:19. > :16:23.companies. People say, why are we subsidising companies which are
:16:23. > :16:29.making a very nice profit, thank you very much. Lots of people are
:16:29. > :16:33.saying, why are we subsidising Private landlords who are putting
:16:33. > :16:39.rent levels up and up? Should we not be doing more to build social
:16:39. > :16:42.housing? This forces you to engage in long-term reforms, to get ahead
:16:42. > :16:46.of pressures which are coming down the track, in a way that the
:16:46. > :16:51.government are not doing. But you cannot tell me how you would set
:16:51. > :16:55.the, you cannot tell me what the would be, and you cannot me what you
:16:55. > :17:03.would do if you break the, so what is the point, how can anybody vote
:17:03. > :17:12.for that children what we are saying is that there is a Labour way to get
:17:12. > :17:16.this social security system back on an even keel. All opposition say
:17:16. > :17:21.that. Yoghurt they do not. And what they certainly do not do is to go on
:17:21. > :17:25.to say what we are saying, which is that there is basically a triple
:17:25. > :17:28.lock on Social Security, a of two years on the amount of time you can
:17:28. > :17:35.spend on the dole, there will be a household benefit, and there should
:17:35. > :17:39.be an overall on welfare spending. So, that kind of triple lock will be
:17:39. > :17:45.the principles by which we will put the system back on an even keel. The
:17:45. > :17:51.details we have got to devise over the next year or two. The state of
:17:51. > :17:55.the public finances will be part of how we do that. People know Labour
:17:55. > :17:59.is the party of compassion and the party of work. What they want is to
:17:59. > :18:06.hear our ideas on how to get the system back on an even keel for the
:18:06. > :18:11.long-term. Why should somebody be allowed to live for two years on
:18:11. > :18:17.welfare before getting a job should lead because we think there are some
:18:18. > :18:21.things that you can do through work programmes, like retraining. But if
:18:21. > :18:29.you are on the dole for two years, you can lose the will to work
:18:29. > :18:32.altogether. We are not saying do nothing for two years, we are saying
:18:32. > :18:40.you work with people intensive leave for those two years, but there has
:18:40. > :18:47.to be a final curtain at which point you say, that is time up. And then
:18:47. > :18:55.what will happen? Jobseeker's allowance. If you meet people at
:18:55. > :19:01.food tanks, in the way I do, taking �70 a week away from somebody, it is
:19:01. > :19:05.not a small thing. So why are you prepared to do it? Because we are
:19:05. > :19:09.prepared to put in place investments in the future jobs fund, in order to
:19:09. > :19:13.make sure that there is a job for people to go to. The future jobs
:19:13. > :19:18.fund was incredibly successful. Labour in Wales is delivering a
:19:18. > :19:23.modernised version of it. It is incredibly successful. The young
:19:23. > :19:27.people in Wales, 80% of people that get jobs with the scheme in Wales
:19:27. > :19:34.stay with that job. The Government abolished that. We think it would
:19:34. > :19:37.work in the long-term, we will restore it. Come back and tell us
:19:37. > :19:44.when you have filled in these details, and a few principles as
:19:44. > :19:49.well. Joining us now, Mark Serwotka, from the PCS union, and the
:19:49. > :19:53.Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke. You heard him saying there that the
:19:53. > :19:57.Labour Party was the party of compassion and work - do you believe
:19:57. > :20:04.that? I would say on the basis of that form is, the Labour Party is
:20:04. > :20:08.the party of complete confusion. What you got from Liam Byrne, who
:20:08. > :20:13.was described by somebody as Iain Duncan Smith's mini me, is the can
:20:13. > :20:17.to new Asian of Labour plumbing the depths of politics, which is to say
:20:17. > :20:21.that the welfare state is something we cannot afford, to go along with
:20:21. > :20:26.the stigmatisation, the language of saying that people are skivers and
:20:26. > :20:31.shirkers... Are you saying there are not people on welfare benefits who
:20:31. > :20:36.are on something for nothing? 5-1 I have previously challenged Iain
:20:36. > :20:41.Duncan Smith, for example, to publicly debate with me the myth
:20:41. > :20:45.that he says people are better off on benefits than in work, which I
:20:45. > :20:50.say is a complete fallacy. Our spending as a proportion of GDP on
:20:50. > :20:54.welfare is lower than nearly all of our European competitors. Our
:20:54. > :20:58.minimum wage is lower than many of them. Our spending on pensions is
:20:58. > :21:01.lower than it is in Germany and in France. What we should say is,
:21:01. > :21:08.instead of, there is no money, and we are going to attack the
:21:08. > :21:12.penniless, we should say, let's do something about rents, for example.
:21:12. > :21:18.Why cannot Liam Byrne say, we are going to back to rent withdrawals,
:21:18. > :21:22.which we had in 1989? Let me put it to you that the Labour Party is
:21:22. > :21:26.thinking about trying to win the next election, and it is thinking
:21:26. > :21:29.that the only way to do it is to win it from the centre. Many of your
:21:29. > :21:33.members would prefer a Labour government to a Conservative
:21:33. > :21:36.government, I hazard, and Labour believe they will not do that unless
:21:36. > :21:41.they are credible on issues like welfare and spending, which is what
:21:41. > :21:46.these announcements are about. problem with that approach is that
:21:46. > :21:49.it just means it reinforces all of the myths. Lets come to the issue
:21:49. > :21:54.about convincing people that they are credible to run the country - do
:21:54. > :22:00.you accept that this is what this is about? I think that is what it is
:22:00. > :22:04.about. I think Labour have decided that there is politics in attacking
:22:04. > :22:07.people on benefits, which I think is shameful. What I think Labour should
:22:07. > :22:11.be doing, which would be transformational in politics, is to
:22:12. > :22:15.offer people a real alternative, rather than just being led by
:22:15. > :22:21.hostility. To some extent, you could argue that Labour has not fallen
:22:21. > :22:25.into George Osborne strap, when it comes to talking about a on
:22:25. > :22:30.structural bits, for example - do you agree with him? I agree with
:22:30. > :22:34.what Mark has said, they are completely in confusion. We have
:22:34. > :22:39.just heard that they are talking about the, and they cannot say how
:22:39. > :22:42.much it will be all what happens if it is broken do you agree with the
:22:43. > :22:50.idea that they are talking about a on welfare spending, is that a
:22:50. > :22:53.start? It is not, it is a lot of hot air. They have opposed �83 billion
:22:53. > :23:00.of welfare savings, �14 billion of which were welfare caps. And they
:23:00. > :23:04.have opposed those caps. Every single measure of Welfare Reform
:23:04. > :23:08.Bill have taken, Labour have opposed. To suddenly say, actually,
:23:08. > :23:18.we are doing a massive U-turn simply is not credible. You have got the
:23:18. > :23:21.left and the right both attacking Labour. What we have got here is two
:23:21. > :23:25.sets of conservatives, one set who are failing to bring down the
:23:25. > :23:29.deficit and failing to control welfare spending, and another
:23:29. > :23:34.conservative who is interested only in defending the status quo, the
:23:34. > :23:38.poor housing that causes housing benefit to increase at the same time
:23:38. > :23:42.as the same number of people are actually getting it, which prevents
:23:42. > :23:46.people actually from getting back into work. What you have seen today
:23:46. > :23:50.is that a progressive approach to saying, we need a social security
:23:50. > :23:55.system which is going to promote work, which is what the Labour Party
:23:55. > :23:58.was built on, thereby helping to cut benefits, which will enable councils
:23:58. > :24:03.to build new homes and to get a better deal for people who are
:24:03. > :24:07.paying rent, thereby helping to reduce housing benefit, and it will
:24:07. > :24:12.do it in a credible way, by saying, we will focus our efforts by having
:24:12. > :24:17.a overall structure... What happens if you do get close to breaching
:24:18. > :24:22.the, though? I think Liam Byrne made the first important point, which
:24:22. > :24:26.is, the point about having a three-year is, if, after the first
:24:26. > :24:29.year, it looks as if you might breach the, unlike this government,
:24:29. > :24:34.which has allowed for example the work programme to drift, you will
:24:34. > :24:38.have to take action at this particular point. To cut it?To cut
:24:38. > :24:41.the overall level of spending. But the most effective way of cutting
:24:42. > :24:49.welfare spending is not to cut individual peoples benefits or
:24:50. > :24:53.stigmatise individuals, I agree with Mark about that, but the way to do
:24:53. > :24:57.it is to address the reasons why people are on benefits in the first
:24:57. > :25:06.place, which is, no work, housing which is too expensive and pay which
:25:06. > :25:11.is too low. I think Jacqui is simply wrong. The deficit has not failed to
:25:11. > :25:16.fall, it is down by a third. We have 1.25 million new business jobs. We
:25:16. > :25:19.have taken 2.2 million people out of tax altogether. We have got the
:25:19. > :25:22.lowest interest rates on record. The economy is healing, and this is a
:25:22. > :25:28.good record for a government which was handed a really bad deck of
:25:28. > :25:35.cards when it came on board do you support the living wage? I do, but I
:25:35. > :25:41.wish people were serious about it. His party supports a public sector
:25:41. > :25:45.pay which is now in its third year, which means that in JobCentre plus,
:25:45. > :25:49.we are talking about 40% of the staff being entitled to universal
:25:49. > :25:54.credit, the people administering the system. If they were serious about
:25:54. > :25:58.these platitudes, they would match it with policy. This is true, let's
:25:58. > :26:03.start with public sector workers... I wish public sector workers were
:26:03. > :26:06.getting bigger pay increases, but at a time when we will also have to
:26:07. > :26:10.show iron discipline, as we have said, I think it is right to focus
:26:10. > :26:15.on jobs rather than increases in pay for public sector workers at the
:26:15. > :26:19.moment. I hope that Mark and union colleagues will want to join a
:26:19. > :26:23.campaign with Labour on things like the living wage, on things like
:26:23. > :26:27.getting rid of zero hours contract 's, on making sure that agency
:26:27. > :26:30.workers actually have proper rights. Those are the sort of things which
:26:30. > :26:35.help people get paid more in the first place, rather than having to
:26:35. > :26:43.depend on benefits. What about the issue of universal to? Is it not
:26:43. > :26:46.right in these economic times for Labour and the Tories to say,
:26:46. > :26:49.millionaire pensioners should not get winter fuel payments? . It is
:26:49. > :26:55.not right, and for this reason - if you look at the principle of
:26:55. > :26:59.universality, 96% of people get child benefit. 64% of people get
:27:00. > :27:04.pension credit, 65% of people get working tax credit, which is means
:27:04. > :27:08.tested. It proves that if you means test a benefit, the people who
:27:08. > :27:11.really need it do not get it. If there are a handful of people who
:27:11. > :27:15.are so well off, we should use the tax system to make that we dress,
:27:15. > :27:21.not attack a fundamental and support on which the welfare state was
:27:21. > :27:25.based. You will be no doubt pleased that Labour has come on board with
:27:25. > :27:29.the child benefit cuts - is it the same when it comes to wealthy
:27:29. > :27:35.pensioners? It is extraordinary that they have opposed these things for
:27:35. > :27:43.two years and then they say, the Conservatives were right all along.
:27:43. > :27:49.On pensions, it is slightly different. We gave a specific
:27:49. > :27:52.pledge, and no doubt we will look at it over time. But given that
:27:52. > :27:56.interest rates have been so low for so long, there is an issue with
:27:56. > :28:00.pensions incomes, and it is right to have that universality that we
:28:00. > :28:04.pledged in the election campaign. Gentlemen, thank you. Now, what is
:28:04. > :28:09.your favourite little photo? Margaret Thatcher leaving Downing
:28:09. > :28:16.Street? Gordon Brown sweeping through swing doors with his
:28:16. > :28:23.assistants? David Miliband clutching a banana at the Labour Party
:28:23. > :28:27.conference? Political news would be really dull if it was not for the
:28:27. > :28:31.photographers lurking in the bushes, behind the lamp posts dot. ! Adam
:28:31. > :28:41.has been meeting some of them for the latest in our series about the
:28:41. > :28:42.
:28:42. > :28:46.insiders of the Westminster village. It is eight o'clock in the morning
:28:46. > :28:50.in Downing Street, Cabinet is about to start, and snapper Steve Back is
:28:50. > :28:59.on the prowl. Good morning, sir, how are you? He never looks at you. So
:28:59. > :29:03.grumpy. Does not look round. That's Chris Grayling, sorry! Previously a
:29:03. > :29:07.photographer on the Daily Mail, you went freelance after a helicopter
:29:07. > :29:14.crash in Iran. Ever since, he has been catching big names in all sorts
:29:14. > :29:19.of situations - jogging, a particular speciality. I walk around
:29:19. > :29:23.the park early in the morning and I bump into David Cameron, who does
:29:23. > :29:27.not job any more, he is injured, so he has a mass are coming to number
:29:27. > :29:33.ten. George Osborne asked me to job with him the other day. A really
:29:33. > :29:36.nice guy. And Mervyn King is in it quite a bit as well. He has also
:29:36. > :29:40.made his name with a series of accidentally revealed document
:29:40. > :29:44.photographs, one which led to the resignation of a senior commander
:29:44. > :29:54.from the Met Police, another showed Minister Oliver L dumping papers in
:29:54. > :30:04.
:30:04. > :30:09.a park bin. I'm a journalist, I just did my job. I didn't know whether it
:30:09. > :30:12.was my job to tell him. As Cameron's closest aide, he shouldn't do that.
:30:12. > :30:16.Around the corner, there is a prayer virgin alorganised by opponents of
:30:16. > :30:26.gay marriage. Working for the UK's biggest news agency, the Press
:30:26. > :30:26.
:30:27. > :30:30.Association, he's the photographer of racourt. I could go into the
:30:30. > :30:34.Cabinet room at Number Ten with the Prime Minister sitting there
:30:34. > :30:38.drinking coffee, ordinarily a very dull picture, but because it's a
:30:38. > :30:42.Prime Minister, you suddenly think wow. He's been there for other
:30:42. > :30:46.private moments, like when it dawned on David Cameron that he'd just
:30:46. > :30:51.become PM. You try to blend into the crowd that
:30:51. > :30:57.are coming in and hopefully nobody sees you. I switched my flash off
:30:57. > :31:01.then because I thought if I switch it on, they'll realise I'm in the
:31:01. > :31:05.here. There's a charity children's party where the Chancellor meets a
:31:05. > :31:10.boy band. It means photographers are great sources of wealth village
:31:10. > :31:15.gossip though. They see and hear everything. Pf
:31:15. > :31:21.And on big news days, you can usually find them here in the Juice
:31:21. > :31:25.Bar underneath the office where they edit and fail their pictures. Wonder
:31:25. > :31:31.who's been unflattering unflatteringly perhaps today and
:31:31. > :31:35.what they've revealed? ! Only 30%! I'm resigning. Steve Back
:31:35. > :31:40.who you saw in the film there, he's left his long lens in Downing
:31:40. > :31:44.Street, no heerks got it with him! What have you been up to this
:31:44. > :31:50.morning? It's been a jolly busy day. The President of Colombia's just
:31:50. > :31:53.turned up at Downing Street, David Cameron shot off early to go to
:31:53. > :31:57.Bloomberg in order to pip Ed Miliband who's dog his speech. He
:31:57. > :32:03.came, there were some children in the street with celebrities, a busy
:32:03. > :32:06.day. Jo Johnson who complained to me about a picture I took of him on his
:32:06. > :32:12.bike, because he was wearing jeans and this morning he's wearing cords,
:32:12. > :32:17.which is quite interesting. I see. We saw one of the photographs in the
:32:17. > :32:23.film, the one of Bob Quick, if we can get it up on the screen again.
:32:23. > :32:27.He was then Britain's most senior counter-terrorism officer. He was
:32:27. > :32:30.clutching sensitive documents. You took the picture. When you took the
:32:30. > :32:37.picture, did you think that the documents were the story, or did you
:32:37. > :32:42.take a picture? No, it's a full length picture of him. I had no idea
:32:42. > :32:45.what were on the documents. In fact, I then didn't do anything with the
:32:45. > :32:49.pictures for another couple of hours, I came to the gym in this
:32:49. > :32:53.building, came out and found a colleague of mine from an agency,
:32:53. > :32:56.saying, oh, my goodness, look it up. So by that time the Government had
:32:56. > :32:59.already put a D notice on the picture and everyone's screening for
:32:59. > :33:03.it. I sent the picture out without the content and then later in the
:33:04. > :33:08.afternoon, the D notice I think was lifted. It wasn't actually sent to
:33:08. > :33:11.me, I didn't know it was sent to the newspapers, and then the raid was
:33:11. > :33:18.carried out I believe and the information was then out in the
:33:18. > :33:21.public domain. You were the Home Secretary. This is one of the things
:33:21. > :33:25.I'm cross with Steve about. Photos of people Jocking seems to me an
:33:25. > :33:29.invasion of their privacy but it's less serious. That photo led first
:33:29. > :33:34.of all to the bringing forward of a terrorist raid and secondly it led o
:33:34. > :33:38.the resignation of a man who was doing an excellent job. Bob Quick
:33:38. > :33:42.himself? Yes, in countering terror. I'm sure Steve would say he's just
:33:42. > :33:46.doing his job, but his job is photographing people, Bob Quick's
:33:46. > :33:51.job was keeping the country safe. Without being too to faced about it,
:33:51. > :33:55.I don't believe that was a justified photo. Bob Quick had that stuff
:33:55. > :34:00.facing out for the length of time it took him to turn it over as he got
:34:00. > :34:04.out the car, so he's hardly praying up Downing Street showing details of
:34:04. > :34:09.counterterror operations to people, was he? What do you say to that?
:34:09. > :34:13.was just taking a picture, simply recording what was going on. But I
:34:13. > :34:17.wasn't the only one there, there were TV companies, lots of other
:34:17. > :34:20.photographers. I didn't ask him to share any documents. That's what he
:34:20. > :34:24.did and it's obviously turned out to be very important. I'm a journalist,
:34:24. > :34:31.I was covering an event, in fact an event that you were hosting at
:34:31. > :34:34.Downing Street. Should be in a folder? Obviously they should be,
:34:34. > :34:38.but that responsibility on the person carrying the documents
:34:38. > :34:42.doesn't relieve the responsibility on the people taking the photos.
:34:42. > :34:46.me welcome our viewers from Scotland who've been watching First
:34:47. > :34:50.Minister's questions, they've joined us now on the Daily Politics. We are
:34:50. > :34:58.discussing the photographers of the wealth area and the pictures they
:34:58. > :35:02.get up to. Our guest here, Bob, took the famous picture of, Steve sorry
:35:02. > :35:05.took the picture of Bob Quick, a senior terrorist officer when Jacqui
:35:06. > :35:09.Smith was the Home Secretary and he had to resign because he had a
:35:09. > :35:14.sensitive document that was shown. Another one, Jacqui. You yourself
:35:14. > :35:19.were hounded, can I use that word, by packs of snappers and cameras. I
:35:19. > :35:24.think we have some pictures of that as well low. 's see if we can see.
:35:24. > :35:29.There we are. What was it like to be at the centre of the rugby scrum?
:35:29. > :35:33.Horrible. Having to look out of your house and see whether or not you can
:35:33. > :35:43.actually get to your car in the morning is horrible basically.
:35:43. > :35:46.never go to people's homes. I was there. Jo was there! Unfortunately.
:35:46. > :35:51.Or fortunately I should say. It was understandable why that was
:35:52. > :35:56.happening at that time, it doesn't make it any nicer. Incidentally, I
:35:56. > :35:59.was jogging down that road yesterday and I'm jolly glad you were not
:35:59. > :36:04.there to take a photograph of me. You have taken lots of photographs
:36:04. > :36:09.of Jacqui Smith, haven't you? amounts coming in and out of Downing
:36:09. > :36:14.Street. Always great to photograph, never a problem. There was the teddy
:36:14. > :36:18.bear. Yes, there was. Public figures though are public figures aren't
:36:18. > :36:23.they. It's difficult coming out of your house but we are o doing our
:36:23. > :36:27.jobs in that sense. You were also pictured with your teddy bear there,
:36:27. > :36:32.Jacqui Smith. How did that they get that one? The inside of the car?
:36:32. > :36:38.That was a teaedy bear, I forget where I got it from now. Steve, you
:36:38. > :36:41.took this Very much so. When Home Secretaries turn up, they remain in
:36:41. > :36:45.the car, the security get out to open it and make sure it's safe and
:36:45. > :36:50.at that moment you generally get a good leggy picture or a teddy bear
:36:50. > :36:55.picture. You got a bit of my leg. It's getting tough these days.
:36:55. > :36:59.the car door was opened and you saw as it swung out? You keep clicking
:36:59. > :37:03.away until the person goes into the door at Number Ten. Ever asked for a
:37:03. > :37:07.picture that you have liked that's been taken? No, I haven't.Now's
:37:07. > :37:10.your chance. It will be a pleasure. I shall hold you to that. When you
:37:10. > :37:14.are Home Secretary, you need a friendly face, that may well be the
:37:14. > :37:19.only one you have got. The teddy bear? Yes. In the seat in front of
:37:19. > :37:22.you, yes. What are you doing this afternoon? Back to Downing Street,
:37:22. > :37:26.the Prime Minister's got a busy schedule today so I'm off in a
:37:26. > :37:28.minute, in fact I'm missing something now. We'll let you go.
:37:28. > :37:33.Steve Back, thank you for being with us today.
:37:33. > :37:38.Now a bit earlier than usual, the answer to our quiz. Jacqui Smith, I
:37:38. > :37:44.hope you haven't forgotten. The question was, who or what has
:37:44. > :37:48.Conservative MP Anne McIntosh blamed for being a huge burden on the NHS?
:37:48. > :37:52.Immigration, working time directive, women doctors or sick people? What
:37:52. > :37:56.is the answer? Apparently it's women doctors, although ttion difficult
:37:56. > :37:59.given the Government is trying to blame almost everything apart from
:38:00. > :38:05.themselves for pressure on the NHS. That's it! The short answer is women
:38:05. > :38:13.GPs. This was Anne McIntosh on a debate on the NHS in wealth Hall
:38:13. > :38:19.yesterday. 70% of medical students currently are women and they're very
:38:19. > :38:22.well educate and qualified when they go into practice and in the normal
:38:22. > :38:26.course of events they'll marry and have children and often want to go
:38:26. > :38:30.part-time. It's obviously a tremendous burden training what
:38:30. > :38:33.effectively might be two GPs working part-time where they are ladies.
:38:33. > :38:37.That is something that is going to put a huge burden on the Health
:38:37. > :38:41.Service. Anne McIntosh is here now. Did you
:38:41. > :38:47.really mean to say that women GPs would be and are a tremendous burden
:38:47. > :38:51.on the Health Service? The backdrop to the debate was in the week my
:38:51. > :38:55.father died, who was a retired GP and devoted his whole life to
:38:56. > :39:01.working every other night on, every other weekend on, and we couldn't
:39:01. > :39:06.raise a GP. So I was obviously quite upset at the implications personally
:39:06. > :39:09.for his passing. I was responding to a question. But to me it's something
:39:09. > :39:14.we should welcome, whether it's my profession of law. What should be
:39:14. > :39:18.welcome? That there are more women going into professions. But it
:39:18. > :39:22.didn't sound like it, did it? responding to an intervention from a
:39:22. > :39:30.Labour colleague, but I think the key point is, the profession are
:39:30. > :39:35.aware of that, Dr Claire commented on this herself, as has Professor
:39:35. > :39:38.Ruben that what they were saying was that the profession should be
:39:38. > :39:42.allocating more university places to take cogny Sans of this and, at the
:39:42. > :39:48.moment, that's not happening. Because you feel that with the
:39:48. > :39:52.increasing number of Wilmslow GPs, many of them going part-time. The
:39:52. > :39:56.implication is that they are second class workers and won't come back
:39:56. > :40:02.full-time. We have campaigned so hard to allow women to work
:40:02. > :40:06.part-time and to take time off to either work part-time or to take
:40:06. > :40:10.time off to have a family. You need a cross party approach to what is a
:40:10. > :40:14.growing problem. Apparently, by this year, the Royal College of
:40:14. > :40:20.Physicians said that two thirds of trainee GPs will be women. If they
:40:20. > :40:26.choose to work 25% of their career part-time, it has implications for
:40:26. > :40:31.their own career progression but also there is now a possible
:40:31. > :40:39.potential... Do you regret using the words "tremendous burden". That was
:40:39. > :40:44.inappropriate. I was trying to be generous to a colleague and I
:40:44. > :40:47.detracted it and was talking about making the 111 service better.
:40:47. > :40:52.is making an important point. There is a problem, first of all in
:40:52. > :40:57.suggesting, or being allowed to suggest that part-time workers
:40:57. > :41:01.aren't somehow valuable. In fact, two part-time workers often is more
:41:01. > :41:05.than a full-time equivalent. Secondly, the equation of, although
:41:06. > :41:10.it tends to be the reality, the equation of women with having to
:41:10. > :41:15.take responsibility for children working part-time is unfortunate.
:41:15. > :41:19.You don't need a medical degree to work out that male doctors will have
:41:19. > :41:24.children as well. Perhaps the argument we should be making is, you
:41:24. > :41:28.need more flexibility for everybody to be able to combine a crucial job
:41:28. > :41:31.like a GP, as well as having a family, rather than seeing it as a
:41:31. > :41:34.women's problem? There are at least four other countries facing this
:41:34. > :41:38.problem. I'm half Danish and would be very interested to know if
:41:38. > :41:42.there's a similar problem in Denmark because there, the fathers tend to
:41:42. > :41:47.take almost joint responsibility for bringing up the children. . Why is
:41:47. > :41:53.it specific though to the medical profession? It may not be. In my own
:41:53. > :41:57.profession of law, at the bar, you could adapt your case load to the
:41:57. > :42:01.amount of hours you wanted to work, but it does exclude you from the
:42:01. > :42:05.opportunity to progress your own profession. I think it's literally
:42:05. > :42:09.something I'm simply aware of because that's what the profession
:42:09. > :42:12.have said themselves. There is an important point here that in many
:42:12. > :42:15.other countries you can work part-time in a way that doesn't
:42:15. > :42:19.impact on your career so it's much more normal for people in senior
:42:19. > :42:23.positions to work part-time that. Is important because you should be able
:42:23. > :42:26.to work part-time and hold down the most senior jobs. It's difficult in
:42:27. > :42:30.a political environment to ever make a mistake if we can call it that, to
:42:30. > :42:34.use words like that, isn't it? don't think it's for politicians to
:42:34. > :42:39.sort this, I think it's for the profession to sort it and I'm
:42:39. > :42:46.delighted the profession are sorting it. Sure. So is it so difficult
:42:46. > :42:51.politically to try and make a subtle and difficult point in this case?
:42:51. > :42:55.is quite difficult and, as I say, I don't believe that Anne was really
:42:55. > :42:57.suggesting that people are a burden. To come back to the point I made at
:42:57. > :43:00.the beginning, context is everything, and at a time when the
:43:00. > :43:04.Government is blaming everything apart from themselves for the
:43:04. > :43:11.shortage of GPs, it plays into the mix, so there is that context as
:43:11. > :43:17.well that is important here. Demonstrated by a minister who
:43:17. > :43:19.supported you and has now distanced herself. I understand she put out a
:43:19. > :43:24.press conference yesterday saying that this is a problem because women
:43:24. > :43:27.are choosing that and I applaud there are more women going into a
:43:27. > :43:32.profession like medicine and law and that they are choosing to bring up
:43:32. > :43:36.their family and work part-time. We should welcome that. What if a
:43:36. > :43:41.man-made the same point? It would be difficult for him to make that point
:43:41. > :43:45.because he'd be accused of being sexist. I'm pleased Jacqui's taken
:43:45. > :43:49.the point that this was taken entirely out of context of the
:43:49. > :43:53.debate which was ability 111 in a pilot area that I felt failed my
:43:53. > :43:57.father and I wanted to learn from that peerntion. When it's rolled out
:43:57. > :43:59.in North Yorkshire, we can address these issues, as I think are being
:43:59. > :44:03.addressled. Thank you very much.
:44:03. > :44:06.Is there a growing gap between the political elite and the people who
:44:06. > :44:11.elect them? That is a question the academic broadcaster and former
:44:11. > :44:20.politician, Michael Ignatieff, has been pondering in lecture given to
:44:20. > :44:24.the appropriately named think-tank Demos. Good evening.
:44:24. > :44:29.Michael Ignatieff is a man of many parts. In the UK, he's best known as
:44:29. > :44:33.a newspaper columnist, radio and TV presenter, the face of BBC's
:44:33. > :44:37.cultural review, the Late Show and for an acclaimed documentary series
:44:38. > :44:42.on nationalism. His career's included stints at the universities
:44:42. > :44:46.of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as Toronto and Harvard. The novel was
:44:46. > :44:56.short listed for the Booker Prize and in politics, he made a bid to
:44:56. > :45:00.
:45:00. > :45:05.party to a catastrophic defeat in the 2011 federal election, losing
:45:05. > :45:08.his own seat in the process. Michael Ignatieff is with us now. You are
:45:09. > :45:14.back in the UK because you have just given a lecture about the current
:45:14. > :45:18.problems for progressive politics - in a nutshell, what are they?
:45:18. > :45:21.think politics has been drained by a sense of powerlessness among people,
:45:21. > :45:26.a sense that the big issues are not being dealt with in the political
:45:26. > :45:30.system. I am an optimist about politics, I would not have gone into
:45:30. > :45:33.it unless I was a passionate, Democratic politician. But when you
:45:33. > :45:40.have a sense that we could be heading for another global financial
:45:40. > :45:43.crisis, and we have not fixed the last one, when you have a sense that
:45:43. > :45:46.big corporations are not paying their fair share of tax, when you
:45:46. > :45:49.are in northern England, and you think basically the unemployed would
:45:49. > :45:54.break is never going to change, no matter what I do, those are worrying
:45:54. > :46:01.things. Politics and the political system has to deliver for the people
:46:01. > :46:04.who vote, and that is the worry. It is a worry for politics as a whole.
:46:04. > :46:09.Can politics deliver any more, or is it really in the domain of big
:46:09. > :46:15.business, for example, that is where the power is? I just think democracy
:46:15. > :46:20.matters, because ultimately, the people have to be the sovereign.
:46:20. > :46:25.That is why you turn up to vote, because you think that a politician
:46:25. > :46:30.can, for example, make sure that everybody pairs of a rate of tax,
:46:30. > :46:37.make sure that everybody pays their fair share. And the point I am
:46:37. > :46:41.making is that politicians do not just fight for their party, they
:46:41. > :46:45.also fight every day to sustain belief in the democratic system. And
:46:45. > :46:50.actually, we have got some pretty good political systems out there,
:46:50. > :46:57.and that is what I care about preserving. What do you put the rise
:46:57. > :47:02.of UKIP down to? Frustration, a sense that sovereignty has been
:47:02. > :47:05.lost, sovereignty needs to be regained. I actually think that you
:47:05. > :47:10.cannot run a democratic system and less people feel they are sovereign,
:47:10. > :47:14.I which I mean, they are masters in their own House. In my country,
:47:14. > :47:18.Canada, we have got a bunch of problems, but the political system
:47:18. > :47:23.does reproduce the belief that we are masters in our own House, next
:47:23. > :47:28.door to the United States, and Britain needs to feel the same.
:47:28. > :47:34.do you think Ed Miliband is doing? would not want to give anybody
:47:34. > :47:38.advise, my political career was not the biggest success you ever saw.
:47:38. > :47:41.But bearing in mind what you just said, and the state of the economy,
:47:41. > :47:45.with the coalition government having been in power for three years, do
:47:45. > :47:49.you think he should be doing better? I think he will be doing
:47:49. > :47:53.better, that is, as we get closer to an election, people will be
:47:53. > :47:58.thinking, do we want five more years of this? People make big, big
:47:58. > :48:03.political decisions, they give someone about 90 seconds of their
:48:03. > :48:08.and they decide, if this is my alternative, that's not so bad. I
:48:08. > :48:14.feel what optimistic. I do not know, I am the visitor. It is your system,
:48:14. > :48:18.not mine. It is interesting, from the point of view of an observer, to
:48:18. > :48:23.view what is going on here. If you feel there is a divide between the
:48:23. > :48:29.political elite and the people, is that not why UKIP is doing so well
:48:29. > :48:33.and leaders like Ed Miliband are not hitting above their weight? I think
:48:33. > :48:38.the real issue is austerity. The real issue is the economic policy of
:48:38. > :48:43.the government. I just think people think this stuff is not working. Or,
:48:43. > :48:47.it is working for somebody. I walk around London and I cannot see any
:48:47. > :48:52.sign of a recession, but I know that the minute I step outside of the
:48:52. > :48:55.zones of safety, this economy is having a tough old time. Use
:48:55. > :48:59.unemployment is high, all of that kind of stuff. If austerity is not
:48:59. > :49:02.working, they are going to vote for the other guy, that's just what is
:49:02. > :49:07.going to happen. They are not going to vote for UKIP in large enough
:49:07. > :49:10.numbers to do anything other than damage Mr Cameron. I am not
:49:10. > :49:20.advertising for the Labour Party, I just think that is what is going to
:49:20. > :49:24.happen. So, could there be some complacency setting in? But I do not
:49:24. > :49:27.believe so. Ed has also talked about the fact that we are living at a
:49:27. > :49:31.time when, patented, the international financial system has
:49:31. > :49:36.failed, and the international and national political system has failed
:49:36. > :49:44.to prevent it from failing. Unless we can find answers to that, it will
:49:44. > :49:47.be difficult. Alex Salmond thinks he has got the answer, having managed
:49:47. > :49:53.to get a referendum on independence for Scotland. You think that that
:49:53. > :49:58.will gather pace? Again, I was in Edinburgh a week ago. I have people
:49:58. > :50:02.who say, it is over, he is going to lose, and I get people saying, do
:50:03. > :50:07.not count him out. My sense is that it will actually be a close run
:50:07. > :50:14.thing. Scotland is confident, it has a strong national identity. But
:50:14. > :50:16.again, there is deep alienation for the politics of austerity. It has
:50:16. > :50:20.not worked for Scotland or for the North of England. That is the
:50:20. > :50:27.political fact. If the coalition had moved the dials, some growth, got
:50:27. > :50:30.some jobs, we would not be having this discussion. If you are right
:50:30. > :50:32.about that alienation, it would follow that the turnout at the next
:50:33. > :50:38.election should be high, they should be out to protest, to vote Labour
:50:38. > :50:47.back in, and I suggest to you, we will be lucky if the turnout is as
:50:47. > :50:51.high as it was at the last election. Look, that is why politicians have
:50:51. > :50:55.to defend the democratic system itself. The competition we face is,
:50:55. > :51:03.none of the above. I have been in politics and spent my whole time
:51:03. > :51:07.trying to get people to come out. The problem is, people cannot tell
:51:07. > :51:11.the difference. For most people, it is dancing on the head of a pin. We
:51:11. > :51:15.just had Liam Byrne on today, the government is in favour of a
:51:15. > :51:19.welfare, he is in favour of a welfare. The Government wants to
:51:19. > :51:28.force people back to work, he wants to force people back to work. There
:51:28. > :51:34.is no real difference. But you cannot have it both ways you know
:51:35. > :51:38.that, you used to be a presenter! At least Alex Salmond, and I disagree
:51:38. > :51:41.with and branch with Scottish independence, but at least he is
:51:41. > :51:45.offering the Scottish people a real alternative. That is true, the
:51:45. > :51:50.turnout in the referendum will be high, unless the result is so
:51:50. > :51:56.clearly a foregone conclusion. What we want to know in this country is,
:51:56. > :52:00.tell us about Mark Carney, the new Governor of the Bank of England. I
:52:00. > :52:05.should just let our viewers know that the Bank of England met this
:52:05. > :52:15.morning, and it is keeping interests rates again at 0.5%, the lowest
:52:15. > :52:22.since 1695, and quantitive easing stays at 375 billion. Tell us.
:52:22. > :52:24.smartest central banker in the world. Says a fellow Canadian.The
:52:25. > :52:30.Canadian freemasonry sticks together. I happen to know him
:52:30. > :52:33.personally. A wonderful guy, devoted public servant, could be making
:52:33. > :52:39.millions being a private sector banker. As always been in the public
:52:39. > :52:43.sector. Do you think he will be a good thing here? Yes, he will be a
:52:43. > :52:49.very good thing. Is he going to go back and run for Prime Minister of
:52:49. > :52:57.Canada? You will have to ask him that. But he will not come on! 5-1 I
:52:57. > :53:00.do not think so. He has political ambitions because he has public
:53:00. > :53:05.service ambitions, and I am privy to nothing on this one, but I think he
:53:05. > :53:14.would not do that. The British economy will probably screw him up,
:53:14. > :53:19.anyway. I hope not. Did Keck that's part of the negativity which way you
:53:19. > :53:28.were criticising a moment or two ago, Andrew. The annual conference
:53:28. > :53:31.of the secretive Bilderberg Group is starting today, in a hotel, in that
:53:31. > :53:40.well-known revolutionary centre of the world, Watford. Yes, it is
:53:41. > :53:42.meeting just outside Watford. The group was founded in 1954 to
:53:42. > :53:47.strengthen relations between political and business leaders in
:53:48. > :53:52.the US and Europe. Critics say it wields far, far, far more power than
:53:52. > :53:56.that. Participants at this year 's meeting include the chancellor,
:53:56. > :54:02.George Osborne, and the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, along with the
:54:02. > :54:05.Prince of darkness, Peter Mandelson, conclude, -- Ken Clarke, who is on
:54:05. > :54:09.the steering committee come and that well-known Trotskyite
:54:09. > :54:14.revolutionary, Shirley Williams. Also attending other chief
:54:14. > :54:17.executives of Google and Amazon, as well as the shadow figure of shadow
:54:17. > :54:25.figures, Henry Kissinger. Also, the former Queen of the Netherlands,
:54:25. > :54:31.too. They say they hold informal, private discussions about major
:54:31. > :54:36.world issues. Critics say they operate as a super elite, intent on
:54:36. > :54:41.world domination. I knew it all along. Or, at the very least, they
:54:41. > :54:45.are an undemocratic and OPEC cabal of the rich and powerful. So, should
:54:45. > :54:51.we be worried? What are they trying to hide? Why are they meeting in, of
:54:51. > :54:57.all places, Watford? Tony Gosling is a journalist who has spent years
:54:57. > :55:04.investigating the group. So, Shirley Williams at the centre of a cabal
:55:04. > :55:07.for world domination. Actually, Shirley Williams is one of the
:55:07. > :55:12.people which they are agreeing to schmooze. Ken Clarke is on the
:55:12. > :55:16.steering committee, which really runs things. The idea is to be able
:55:16. > :55:21.to wine and dine people with royalty, and powerful people, and
:55:21. > :55:25.say, we are the guys you have got to think about. But the problem is, you
:55:25. > :55:30.have got both journalists and will additions walking in there, and as
:55:30. > :55:33.soon as they do, they asked want to secrecy. That is the problem. --
:55:33. > :55:37.politicians. Nobody can stop businesspeople meeting, nobody
:55:37. > :55:41.really wants to. Also, you have got some people who many people would
:55:41. > :55:45.say are criminals in there, like HSBC bank, which has been doing
:55:45. > :55:54.money-laundering in the United States. It has paid the penalty for
:55:54. > :55:59.that. But has anybody got a jail. This is the point. Also, Barclays
:55:59. > :56:03.bank, LIBOR fraud, billions taken from peoples mortgages, why are they
:56:03. > :56:09.not in jail? Hold on, are you saying they are not in jail because they
:56:09. > :56:13.are members of the Bilderberg Group? I am not saying that.
:56:13. > :56:17.Kissinger started in 1969, if you remember, with the bombing of
:56:17. > :56:22.Cambodia. A military coup, in Chile, the murder of a president,
:56:22. > :56:27.and thousands of... Are you saying this is all planned at these
:56:27. > :56:32.Bilderberg groups? No, but I am saying that there are criminals
:56:32. > :56:35.inside, and police on the outside, guarding them, and some of those
:56:35. > :56:39.police might be saying, maybe we are facing in the wrong direction,
:56:39. > :56:42.Andrew, maybe we should be arresting some of the people on the inside.
:56:42. > :56:48.You have been studying these people for years, what have you ever found
:56:48. > :56:51.out about them? What first got me interested in the first instance was
:56:51. > :56:56.when I discovered that the chairman of the Bilderberg for the first 20
:56:56. > :57:00.years, was annexed SS officer, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands,
:57:00. > :57:04.who was in the SS before World War II. If you are going to be chaired
:57:04. > :57:06.by someone for 20 years by someone who is a Nazi, do you not think
:57:06. > :57:12.there is an issue there, and we should have some investigative
:57:12. > :57:19.journalism on it? I am all in favour of investigative journalism...
:57:19. > :57:22.Lockheed scandal. That was then, way back in the 1950s and 60s, when we
:57:22. > :57:27.discovered that there were ex-Nazis in all sorts of things, not just the
:57:27. > :57:31.Bilderberg Group - what have you found out about it since?
:57:31. > :57:35.tremendous amount. So much of the criminality, alleged grimmer
:57:35. > :57:38.nullity, at least, of the people inside. How is it that when we steal
:57:38. > :57:48.a bottle of water jarring a riot we go to jail for however many months
:57:48. > :57:49.
:57:49. > :57:55.it is, and yet, if someone is doing one of these... ? I realised that
:57:55. > :58:00.the real seat of power is here with you and Jo. To not say that, you
:58:00. > :58:06.will start investigating as! 5-1 but I have not been invited, no. You
:58:06. > :58:11.see, they cannot be a real power. Well, they do invite a lot of media
:58:11. > :58:15.people. In fact, the Chief Executive of News International went. The BBC,
:58:15. > :58:20.one of the executive board members was in there and sworn to secrecy.
:58:20. > :58:26.Marcus AGS - is he going to be making programmes about LIBOR
:58:26. > :58:30.fraud? He a disgraced banker.He has now had to leave the BBC over the
:58:30. > :58:37.LIBOR issue. If you find anything out, come and tell us. Are you
:58:37. > :58:42.heading off to Watford? Thank you to all of our guests. The one o'clock
:58:42. > :58:48.News is starting over on BBC One. I will be on BBC One tonight with Alan