06/06/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/06/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Politics. According to this morning's papers, millions of you


eat the same dreary sandwich day after day, week after week, lunch


after lunch. So let the Daily Politics be your midday diet of


infinite variety, as we discuss Ed Miliband and his plan to cap welfare


spending if ever he gets to Downing Street. The right doesn't believe


him, the left is appalled. What does he hope to achieve with the big


announcement today? We'll meet the men with the big long lenses who lie


in wait of unwary politicians. The snappers are the latest in our


series from the wealth village. Philosopher, TV presenter and


Canadian politician, Michael Ignatieff, is here with his thoughts


on what to do when people lose trust in politics.


We'll ask if Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke and Shirley Williams are


heading to Watford this weekend for a conference or as part of a secret


plot to run the world. Be very afraid. Run the world!


All that coming up in the next hour. With us for the duration, former


Labour Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Welcome. Nice to see you in


daylight! Let us start with news that a


millionaire businessman's given the Labour Party shares worth �1. 65


million. It's shares in his own company. John Mills owns a shopping


channel and has given Labour's shares in his shopping channel


instead of making a cash gift because the Daily Telegraph says it


avoids the tax bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds. He tells the


paper it was "the most tax efficient way of making the donation" indeed


he says the Labour Party advised him to do it that way. All the


Conservatives have been quick to accuse Mr Miliband of double


standards because he criticised tax avoidance schemes operated by big


companies. Mr Miliband told reporters that Labour would pay tax


on the income from the shares, of course it will, we all have to pay


tax on #234k from shares, so that's nothing. They said it was designed


to give the party a steady stream of income. Since it's a private


company, they don't have to pay dividends. We tried to get them to


tell us what dividend they would pay and they won't tell us. One rule for


the Labour Party and one rule for the rest of us? No. Ideally, you


don't want a story like this on the frovent newspapers. Party political


funding is always full of difficulties. This is a tax


avoidance scheme. Well, as Ed has been very clear and you have said,


he's been clear this morning that any income from those shares, Labour


will pay tax on them. That's like saying the sun rises in the east, of


course you will pay. Why would you not? There's no suggestion that the


donation is illegal either. What you are challenging, what The Telegraph


is challenging is what this looks like. Ed's been totally clear that


any tax that needs to be paid will be paid. But it's not...It's not


about affording tax. You are raising a complete aunt Sally here, it's not


the point that Labour are not paying tax. Wait a minute.This man has


chosen to give the Labour Party a donation in a way that avoids about


�700,000 in tax. You are now shifting the argument because Ed's


said Labour will pay tax. I'm saying there's nothing special about that.


George Osborne's written to Labour saying will you pay tax and Ed said


yes, we will. Now you are shifting it on to a different area. I've


never raised the issue of Labour paying tax, you raised that, it's


not an issue at all. You would go to jail if you didn't pay tax on


dividend income. That shows to me - secondly, we don't know whether


there 'll be any dividend income because, as I say it's not a public


company, it's private - they haven't told us whether they've paid any


tax. My point is, this man chose to give a donation to the Labour Party,


entirely legally, in a way that avoids paying tax. Google avoids


that in similar ways. It avoids tax of �700,000. Google doesn't avoid


tax by making a contribution to a Democratic Party. It does other


things. There is an interesting point about whether or not there is


an argument for tax relief on donation to political parties.


argument I want you to try to justify is, since your party's


criticised Google for using the letter of the law to save a tonne of


tax, nothing illegal, and if you have criticised Google, why is it


right for this man to use the letter of the law to save a tonne of tax?


Ed's been completely clear this morning that he is not going to be


saving tax for the Labour Party in the way in which he deals with this


because he will be paying tax in full. I'm talking about John Mills.


To a certain extent, he'll need to answer for himself. You have taken


the money. But this is wholly legal. So is Google's tax return. And we'll


be paying all of the tax they should be paying. It's all right for - it's


not right in your view, indeed the Leader of the Opposition told us


there was a moral imperative not to do it - it's not all right for


Google to use the existing tax system to minimise its tax, but it's


OK for this guy to minimise his tax if it results in a donation to the


Labour Party? The first thing is first thing is, Ed said it wasn't


true he'd made this donation to minimise his tax, Ed said he made a


donation in this this form in order to ensure a stream of income for the


Labour Party, rather than simply a lump sum. Mr Mills told the


telephotograph this morning he done it this way because it was advised


as the most tax efficient way. told the reporter from the telegraph


that he didn't believe that was true. So he knows more about John


Mills' tax return than John Mills does? He perhaps isn't reporting it


in a distorted way as some newspapers might possibly have a


reason for doing. All right. Time for the daily quiz.


Who or what has Anne McIntosh blamed for placing a tremendous burden on


the NHS? A, immigration, B, the working time directive, C, women


doctors or D, sick people? And, in about half an hour, Jacqui, you will


be pleased to know, you will give us the correct answer.


I know the answer to that. Do you know the answer? Don't say it.


So do I. Marvellous. Now, in a much anticipated speech, at least in the


wealth village, Ed Miliband has been out and about this morning setting


out his party's new stance on benefits. It's an attempt to shake


off the soft on welfare tag and had several big policy proses. The


headline announcement was Labour's version of a welfare cap.


The Next Labour Government will use a three-year cap on structural


welfare spending to help control costs.


Such a cap will alert the Next Labour Government to problems coming


down the track and ensure we make policy to keep social security


within limits. It will also mean we can do a better


job of protecting our priorities from the NHS to Tax Credits to


pensions right across-the-board. It will introduce greater


discipline, as ministers from across departments will be led to control


the big drivers of spending. Mr Ed Miliband also called for big


structural changes to how the UK economy works, more housing to cut


the Housing Benefit bill and moves to encourage employers to pay the


living wage. If local councils can say that if you want a contract with


the council, then you need to pay the living wage, central Government


should look at doing that too. And here is why it's about cost


control as well. For every pound that employers pay


above the minimum wage towards a living wage, Government would save


50p in lower Tax Credits and benefits and higher tax revenues.


That's why it's a moral issue and a cost issue too.


That's why I say we should look at offering some of these savings back


to those employers to special suede them to do the right thing and pay


the living wage. I'm joined by Paul Johnson, the


Director of The Institute for Fiscal Studies. Welcome to the programme.


What is your take on what you have heard from Ed Miliband? There are


some germs of interesting ideas in there. Right? ! Don't overstate


that. Potential cap on total social security spending is a big thing,


but exactly how it will be done we don't know. We have experience of


all sorts of benefits over the last few years that have gone up much


more than expected and planned. Disability Living Allowance over the


2000s, Housing Benefit over the same period went up in an unplanned way.


The question is, if you cap this, what do you do? The only way of


stopping it happening over the three year period is to cut the benefit


level or tighten the eligibility. haven't heard what they would do in


the case of a cap being breached or getting close to it? I think the key


thing here is that one really does need to be active in managing this


budget and I think the perception has been that that hasn't always


happened. It certainly in one sense didn't happen through the 80s and 9


0s when invalidity benefits went up pasts and also in the 2000s when


other benefits went up. The money keeps coming from the Treasury and


going out from them o to to the claimants. So does this mean you are


more convinced about Labour's credibility on the economy? There's


a slightly tenuous link between them but they are not specific things


that have been said today and credibility on the economy. What I


think Ed Miliband is trying to say is, look, we will control the social


security budget in a somewhat undefined way. That will determine


how much impact that makes on the public finances, the details of


that. What about the proposals on a living wage? He said that would


actually save the Government 50p in every pound that an employer pays a


living wage to an employee? That calculation depends on an


assumption that you pay low paid people more, they get less benefits


but it doesn't take into account where the money comes from, it's not


magiced from somewhere, so it's probably coming from someone else's


pay packet or profits on which tax would have been paid or something


like that, so it isn't magic money, all of which is extra and provides


additional money. Some of it might, but it's not, and one shouldn't kid


one's self-that you can bring this money and suddenly we are richer


because someone's found money under the sofa. Thank you very much. Let's


see if we can get some answers to this from Liam Byrne, the Shadow


Work and Pensions Secretary. Can you give us any idea of how the cap on


welfare spending will be set and what scale it will be?


Well, the Government's said it's thinking about a cap, so we are


expecting plans to come forward in the spending review later on in


June. We'll study those and obviously the final judgment's got


to come when we look at the state of the books in 2015. What Ed Balls


said on Monday is that the budgets that we inherit in 2015-16 are the


starting point for us and any changes to that baseline have got to


be fully funded. So if you win the next election, you inherit a welfare


budget in 2015. Will the cap that you intend to impose in real terms


be bigger than 2015 by the time you get to 2018, will it be the same?


What will be the yard stick by which you will inherit a budget and what


will that cap be by 2018? We needs two more things before we can answer


that question. One, we need to see if the Government does come forward


with a cap in the spending review, need to look at that, need to see


what's in it, so for example, one way of doing it is to include


pension spending inside the cap. We have got to see what the Government


coming up with first, look at the pros and cons for taking their kind


of economic approach. The second big bit of information you need before


you can answer that question that you rightly pose is, you have got to


have a look at what are the state of the books in 2015-16. What we are


clear about is, if we want to change that baseline, it's got to be fully


funded. Understand that, but will the cap allow for a real growth in


welfare spending or not? You can't divorce that judgment from the


assessment of the overall finance picture. All right. Since you can't


tell us how you will set the cap, can I ask you what would happen if


you looked like breaking the cap? What would you do? I think this is


the key question because what a long-term cap does is, it forces you


to undertake some long-term reform to tackle the kind of cost pressures


that Paul tack talked about a second ago. An example of the difference it


can make is, at the moment, we are dissatisfied watt the way the work


programme is getting people into work. We say it's worse than doing


nothing, people go through it and they sit on the dole. That's why we


have people on the dole for longer than two years at the highest level.


There is no incentive for DWP to do anything about that. In fact, what


they are doing at the moment is letting the programme rot, you know.


It's hands off, who cares, the money's flowing, as Paul said. If


you have a long-term cap on social security spending, you can't live in


that world, you know. If you have pressures that will hit you next


year, then you have got to get hands on and sort out things that are


going wrong this year. Another good example... One example is enough, we


don't have time for another. You still haven't answered my question


which is, what will happen if you look like breaking the cap? Are you


prepared to cut people's benefits to stay win the The key argument that


we are making today is that you have got to embark on these long-term


reforms. But I am talking about what happens if you set a cap in 2015,


and in 2017, you look like breaking the, so, in order to keep to that,


are you prepared to cut people 's benefits? This is the key. It forces


you to focus on the long-term. What Ed has said today is, look at the


tax credit Bill, that Bill is going up because of low pay in lots of


companies. People say, why are we subsidising companies which are


making a very nice profit, thank you very much. Lots of people are


saying, why are we subsidising Private landlords who are putting


rent levels up and up? Should we not be doing more to build social


housing? This forces you to engage in long-term reforms, to get ahead


of pressures which are coming down the track, in a way that the


government are not doing. But you cannot tell me how you would set


the, you cannot tell me what the would be, and you cannot me what you


would do if you break the, so what is the point, how can anybody vote


for that children what we are saying is that there is a Labour way to get


this social security system back on an even keel. All opposition say


that. Yoghurt they do not. And what they certainly do not do is to go on


to say what we are saying, which is that there is basically a triple


lock on Social Security, a of two years on the amount of time you can


spend on the dole, there will be a household benefit, and there should


be an overall on welfare spending. So, that kind of triple lock will be


the principles by which we will put the system back on an even keel. The


details we have got to devise over the next year or two. The state of


the public finances will be part of how we do that. People know Labour


is the party of compassion and the party of work. What they want is to


hear our ideas on how to get the system back on an even keel for the


long-term. Why should somebody be allowed to live for two years on


welfare before getting a job should lead because we think there are some


things that you can do through work programmes, like retraining. But if


you are on the dole for two years, you can lose the will to work


altogether. We are not saying do nothing for two years, we are saying


you work with people intensive leave for those two years, but there has


to be a final curtain at which point you say, that is time up. And then


what will happen? Jobseeker's allowance. If you meet people at


food tanks, in the way I do, taking �70 a week away from somebody, it is


not a small thing. So why are you prepared to do it? Because we are


prepared to put in place investments in the future jobs fund, in order to


make sure that there is a job for people to go to. The future jobs


fund was incredibly successful. Labour in Wales is delivering a


modernised version of it. It is incredibly successful. The young


people in Wales, 80% of people that get jobs with the scheme in Wales


stay with that job. The Government abolished that. We think it would


work in the long-term, we will restore it. Come back and tell us


when you have filled in these details, and a few principles as


well. Joining us now, Mark Serwotka, from the PCS union, and the


Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke. You heard him saying there that the


Labour Party was the party of compassion and work - do you believe


that? I would say on the basis of that form is, the Labour Party is


the party of complete confusion. What you got from Liam Byrne, who


was described by somebody as Iain Duncan Smith's mini me, is the can


to new Asian of Labour plumbing the depths of politics, which is to say


that the welfare state is something we cannot afford, to go along with


the stigmatisation, the language of saying that people are skivers and


shirkers... Are you saying there are not people on welfare benefits who


are on something for nothing? 5-1 I have previously challenged Iain


Duncan Smith, for example, to publicly debate with me the myth


that he says people are better off on benefits than in work, which I


say is a complete fallacy. Our spending as a proportion of GDP on


welfare is lower than nearly all of our European competitors. Our


minimum wage is lower than many of them. Our spending on pensions is


lower than it is in Germany and in France. What we should say is,


instead of, there is no money, and we are going to attack the


penniless, we should say, let's do something about rents, for example.


Why cannot Liam Byrne say, we are going to back to rent withdrawals,


which we had in 1989? Let me put it to you that the Labour Party is


thinking about trying to win the next election, and it is thinking


that the only way to do it is to win it from the centre. Many of your


members would prefer a Labour government to a Conservative


government, I hazard, and Labour believe they will not do that unless


they are credible on issues like welfare and spending, which is what


these announcements are about. problem with that approach is that


it just means it reinforces all of the myths. Lets come to the issue


about convincing people that they are credible to run the country - do


you accept that this is what this is about? I think that is what it is


about. I think Labour have decided that there is politics in attacking


people on benefits, which I think is shameful. What I think Labour should


be doing, which would be transformational in politics, is to


offer people a real alternative, rather than just being led by


hostility. To some extent, you could argue that Labour has not fallen


into George Osborne strap, when it comes to talking about a on


structural bits, for example - do you agree with him? I agree with


what Mark has said, they are completely in confusion. We have


just heard that they are talking about the, and they cannot say how


much it will be all what happens if it is broken do you agree with the


idea that they are talking about a on welfare spending, is that a


start? It is not, it is a lot of hot air. They have opposed �83 billion


of welfare savings, �14 billion of which were welfare caps. And they


have opposed those caps. Every single measure of Welfare Reform


Bill have taken, Labour have opposed. To suddenly say, actually,


we are doing a massive U-turn simply is not credible. You have got the


left and the right both attacking Labour. What we have got here is two


sets of conservatives, one set who are failing to bring down the


deficit and failing to control welfare spending, and another


conservative who is interested only in defending the status quo, the


poor housing that causes housing benefit to increase at the same time


as the same number of people are actually getting it, which prevents


people actually from getting back into work. What you have seen today


is that a progressive approach to saying, we need a social security


system which is going to promote work, which is what the Labour Party


was built on, thereby helping to cut benefits, which will enable councils


to build new homes and to get a better deal for people who are


paying rent, thereby helping to reduce housing benefit, and it will


do it in a credible way, by saying, we will focus our efforts by having


a overall structure... What happens if you do get close to breaching


the, though? I think Liam Byrne made the first important point, which


is, the point about having a three-year is, if, after the first


year, it looks as if you might breach the, unlike this government,


which has allowed for example the work programme to drift, you will


have to take action at this particular point. To cut it?To cut


the overall level of spending. But the most effective way of cutting


welfare spending is not to cut individual peoples benefits or


stigmatise individuals, I agree with Mark about that, but the way to do


it is to address the reasons why people are on benefits in the first


place, which is, no work, housing which is too expensive and pay which


is too low. I think Jacqui is simply wrong. The deficit has not failed to


fall, it is down by a third. We have 1.25 million new business jobs. We


have taken 2.2 million people out of tax altogether. We have got the


lowest interest rates on record. The economy is healing, and this is a


good record for a government which was handed a really bad deck of


cards when it came on board do you support the living wage? I do, but I


wish people were serious about it. His party supports a public sector


pay which is now in its third year, which means that in JobCentre plus,


we are talking about 40% of the staff being entitled to universal


credit, the people administering the system. If they were serious about


these platitudes, they would match it with policy. This is true, let's


start with public sector workers... I wish public sector workers were


getting bigger pay increases, but at a time when we will also have to


show iron discipline, as we have said, I think it is right to focus


on jobs rather than increases in pay for public sector workers at the


moment. I hope that Mark and union colleagues will want to join a


campaign with Labour on things like the living wage, on things like


getting rid of zero hours contract 's, on making sure that agency


workers actually have proper rights. Those are the sort of things which


help people get paid more in the first place, rather than having to


depend on benefits. What about the issue of universal to? Is it not


right in these economic times for Labour and the Tories to say,


millionaire pensioners should not get winter fuel payments? . It is


not right, and for this reason - if you look at the principle of


universality, 96% of people get child benefit. 64% of people get


pension credit, 65% of people get working tax credit, which is means


tested. It proves that if you means test a benefit, the people who


really need it do not get it. If there are a handful of people who


are so well off, we should use the tax system to make that we dress,


not attack a fundamental and support on which the welfare state was


based. You will be no doubt pleased that Labour has come on board with


the child benefit cuts - is it the same when it comes to wealthy


pensioners? It is extraordinary that they have opposed these things for


two years and then they say, the Conservatives were right all along.


On pensions, it is slightly different. We gave a specific


pledge, and no doubt we will look at it over time. But given that


interest rates have been so low for so long, there is an issue with


pensions incomes, and it is right to have that universality that we


pledged in the election campaign. Gentlemen, thank you. Now, what is


your favourite little photo? Margaret Thatcher leaving Downing


Street? Gordon Brown sweeping through swing doors with his


assistants? David Miliband clutching a banana at the Labour Party


conference? Political news would be really dull if it was not for the


photographers lurking in the bushes, behind the lamp posts dot. ! Adam


has been meeting some of them for the latest in our series about the


insiders of the Westminster village. It is eight o'clock in the morning


in Downing Street, Cabinet is about to start, and snapper Steve Back is


on the prowl. Good morning, sir, how are you? He never looks at you. So


grumpy. Does not look round. That's Chris Grayling, sorry! Previously a


photographer on the Daily Mail, you went freelance after a helicopter


crash in Iran. Ever since, he has been catching big names in all sorts


of situations - jogging, a particular speciality. I walk around


the park early in the morning and I bump into David Cameron, who does


not job any more, he is injured, so he has a mass are coming to number


ten. George Osborne asked me to job with him the other day. A really


nice guy. And Mervyn King is in it quite a bit as well. He has also


made his name with a series of accidentally revealed document


photographs, one which led to the resignation of a senior commander


from the Met Police, another showed Minister Oliver L dumping papers in


a park bin. I'm a journalist, I just did my job. I didn't know whether it


was my job to tell him. As Cameron's closest aide, he shouldn't do that.


Around the corner, there is a prayer virgin alorganised by opponents of


gay marriage. Working for the UK's biggest news agency, the Press


Association, he's the photographer of racourt. I could go into the


Cabinet room at Number Ten with the Prime Minister sitting there


drinking coffee, ordinarily a very dull picture, but because it's a


Prime Minister, you suddenly think wow. He's been there for other


private moments, like when it dawned on David Cameron that he'd just


become PM. You try to blend into the crowd that


are coming in and hopefully nobody sees you. I switched my flash off


then because I thought if I switch it on, they'll realise I'm in the


here. There's a charity children's party where the Chancellor meets a


boy band. It means photographers are great sources of wealth village


gossip though. They see and hear everything. Pf


And on big news days, you can usually find them here in the Juice


Bar underneath the office where they edit and fail their pictures. Wonder


who's been unflattering unflatteringly perhaps today and


what they've revealed? ! Only 30%! I'm resigning. Steve Back


who you saw in the film there, he's left his long lens in Downing


Street, no heerks got it with him! What have you been up to this


morning? It's been a jolly busy day. The President of Colombia's just


turned up at Downing Street, David Cameron shot off early to go to


Bloomberg in order to pip Ed Miliband who's dog his speech. He


came, there were some children in the street with celebrities, a busy


day. Jo Johnson who complained to me about a picture I took of him on his


bike, because he was wearing jeans and this morning he's wearing cords,


which is quite interesting. I see. We saw one of the photographs in the


film, the one of Bob Quick, if we can get it up on the screen again.


He was then Britain's most senior counter-terrorism officer. He was


clutching sensitive documents. You took the picture. When you took the


picture, did you think that the documents were the story, or did you


take a picture? No, it's a full length picture of him. I had no idea


what were on the documents. In fact, I then didn't do anything with the


pictures for another couple of hours, I came to the gym in this


building, came out and found a colleague of mine from an agency,


saying, oh, my goodness, look it up. So by that time the Government had


already put a D notice on the picture and everyone's screening for


it. I sent the picture out without the content and then later in the


afternoon, the D notice I think was lifted. It wasn't actually sent to


me, I didn't know it was sent to the newspapers, and then the raid was


carried out I believe and the information was then out in the


public domain. You were the Home Secretary. This is one of the things


I'm cross with Steve about. Photos of people Jocking seems to me an


invasion of their privacy but it's less serious. That photo led first


of all to the bringing forward of a terrorist raid and secondly it led o


the resignation of a man who was doing an excellent job. Bob Quick


himself? Yes, in countering terror. I'm sure Steve would say he's just


doing his job, but his job is photographing people, Bob Quick's


job was keeping the country safe. Without being too to faced about it,


I don't believe that was a justified photo. Bob Quick had that stuff


facing out for the length of time it took him to turn it over as he got


out the car, so he's hardly praying up Downing Street showing details of


counterterror operations to people, was he? What do you say to that?


was just taking a picture, simply recording what was going on. But I


wasn't the only one there, there were TV companies, lots of other


photographers. I didn't ask him to share any documents. That's what he


did and it's obviously turned out to be very important. I'm a journalist,


I was covering an event, in fact an event that you were hosting at


Downing Street. Should be in a folder? Obviously they should be,


but that responsibility on the person carrying the documents


doesn't relieve the responsibility on the people taking the photos.


me welcome our viewers from Scotland who've been watching First


Minister's questions, they've joined us now on the Daily Politics. We are


discussing the photographers of the wealth area and the pictures they


get up to. Our guest here, Bob, took the famous picture of, Steve sorry


took the picture of Bob Quick, a senior terrorist officer when Jacqui


Smith was the Home Secretary and he had to resign because he had a


sensitive document that was shown. Another one, Jacqui. You yourself


were hounded, can I use that word, by packs of snappers and cameras. I


think we have some pictures of that as well low. 's see if we can see.


There we are. What was it like to be at the centre of the rugby scrum?


Horrible. Having to look out of your house and see whether or not you can


actually get to your car in the morning is horrible basically.


never go to people's homes. I was there. Jo was there! Unfortunately.


Or fortunately I should say. It was understandable why that was


happening at that time, it doesn't make it any nicer. Incidentally, I


was jogging down that road yesterday and I'm jolly glad you were not


there to take a photograph of me. You have taken lots of photographs


of Jacqui Smith, haven't you? amounts coming in and out of Downing


Street. Always great to photograph, never a problem. There was the teddy


bear. Yes, there was. Public figures though are public figures aren't


they. It's difficult coming out of your house but we are o doing our


jobs in that sense. You were also pictured with your teddy bear there,


Jacqui Smith. How did that they get that one? The inside of the car?


That was a teaedy bear, I forget where I got it from now. Steve, you


took this Very much so. When Home Secretaries turn up, they remain in


the car, the security get out to open it and make sure it's safe and


at that moment you generally get a good leggy picture or a teddy bear


picture. You got a bit of my leg. It's getting tough these days.


the car door was opened and you saw as it swung out? You keep clicking


away until the person goes into the door at Number Ten. Ever asked for a


picture that you have liked that's been taken? No, I haven't.Now's


your chance. It will be a pleasure. I shall hold you to that. When you


are Home Secretary, you need a friendly face, that may well be the


only one you have got. The teddy bear? Yes. In the seat in front of


you, yes. What are you doing this afternoon? Back to Downing Street,


the Prime Minister's got a busy schedule today so I'm off in a


minute, in fact I'm missing something now. We'll let you go.


Steve Back, thank you for being with us today.


Now a bit earlier than usual, the answer to our quiz. Jacqui Smith, I


hope you haven't forgotten. The question was, who or what has


Conservative MP Anne McIntosh blamed for being a huge burden on the NHS?


Immigration, working time directive, women doctors or sick people? What


is the answer? Apparently it's women doctors, although ttion difficult


given the Government is trying to blame almost everything apart from


themselves for pressure on the NHS. That's it! The short answer is women


GPs. This was Anne McIntosh on a debate on the NHS in wealth Hall


yesterday. 70% of medical students currently are women and they're very


well educate and qualified when they go into practice and in the normal


course of events they'll marry and have children and often want to go


part-time. It's obviously a tremendous burden training what


effectively might be two GPs working part-time where they are ladies.


That is something that is going to put a huge burden on the Health


Service. Anne McIntosh is here now. Did you


really mean to say that women GPs would be and are a tremendous burden


on the Health Service? The backdrop to the debate was in the week my


father died, who was a retired GP and devoted his whole life to


working every other night on, every other weekend on, and we couldn't


raise a GP. So I was obviously quite upset at the implications personally


for his passing. I was responding to a question. But to me it's something


we should welcome, whether it's my profession of law. What should be


welcome? That there are more women going into professions. But it


didn't sound like it, did it? responding to an intervention from a


Labour colleague, but I think the key point is, the profession are


aware of that, Dr Claire commented on this herself, as has Professor


Ruben that what they were saying was that the profession should be


allocating more university places to take cogny Sans of this and, at the


moment, that's not happening. Because you feel that with the


increasing number of Wilmslow GPs, many of them going part-time. The


implication is that they are second class workers and won't come back


full-time. We have campaigned so hard to allow women to work


part-time and to take time off to either work part-time or to take


time off to have a family. You need a cross party approach to what is a


growing problem. Apparently, by this year, the Royal College of


Physicians said that two thirds of trainee GPs will be women. If they


choose to work 25% of their career part-time, it has implications for


their own career progression but also there is now a possible


potential... Do you regret using the words "tremendous burden". That was


inappropriate. I was trying to be generous to a colleague and I


detracted it and was talking about making the 111 service better.


is making an important point. There is a problem, first of all in


suggesting, or being allowed to suggest that part-time workers


aren't somehow valuable. In fact, two part-time workers often is more


than a full-time equivalent. Secondly, the equation of, although


it tends to be the reality, the equation of women with having to


take responsibility for children working part-time is unfortunate.


You don't need a medical degree to work out that male doctors will have


children as well. Perhaps the argument we should be making is, you


need more flexibility for everybody to be able to combine a crucial job


like a GP, as well as having a family, rather than seeing it as a


women's problem? There are at least four other countries facing this


problem. I'm half Danish and would be very interested to know if


there's a similar problem in Denmark because there, the fathers tend to


take almost joint responsibility for bringing up the children. . Why is


it specific though to the medical profession? It may not be. In my own


profession of law, at the bar, you could adapt your case load to the


amount of hours you wanted to work, but it does exclude you from the


opportunity to progress your own profession. I think it's literally


something I'm simply aware of because that's what the profession


have said themselves. There is an important point here that in many


other countries you can work part-time in a way that doesn't


impact on your career so it's much more normal for people in senior


positions to work part-time that. Is important because you should be able


to work part-time and hold down the most senior jobs. It's difficult in


a political environment to ever make a mistake if we can call it that, to


use words like that, isn't it? don't think it's for politicians to


sort this, I think it's for the profession to sort it and I'm


delighted the profession are sorting it. Sure. So is it so difficult


politically to try and make a subtle and difficult point in this case?


is quite difficult and, as I say, I don't believe that Anne was really


suggesting that people are a burden. To come back to the point I made at


the beginning, context is everything, and at a time when the


Government is blaming everything apart from themselves for the


shortage of GPs, it plays into the mix, so there is that context as


well that is important here. Demonstrated by a minister who


supported you and has now distanced herself. I understand she put out a


press conference yesterday saying that this is a problem because women


are choosing that and I applaud there are more women going into a


profession like medicine and law and that they are choosing to bring up


their family and work part-time. We should welcome that. What if a


man-made the same point? It would be difficult for him to make that point


because he'd be accused of being sexist. I'm pleased Jacqui's taken


the point that this was taken entirely out of context of the


debate which was ability 111 in a pilot area that I felt failed my


father and I wanted to learn from that peerntion. When it's rolled out


in North Yorkshire, we can address these issues, as I think are being


addressled. Thank you very much.


Is there a growing gap between the political elite and the people who


elect them? That is a question the academic broadcaster and former


politician, Michael Ignatieff, has been pondering in lecture given to


the appropriately named think-tank Demos. Good evening.


Michael Ignatieff is a man of many parts. In the UK, he's best known as


a newspaper columnist, radio and TV presenter, the face of BBC's


cultural review, the Late Show and for an acclaimed documentary series


on nationalism. His career's included stints at the universities


of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as Toronto and Harvard. The novel was


short listed for the Booker Prize and in politics, he made a bid to


party to a catastrophic defeat in the 2011 federal election, losing


his own seat in the process. Michael Ignatieff is with us now. You are


back in the UK because you have just given a lecture about the current


problems for progressive politics - in a nutshell, what are they?


think politics has been drained by a sense of powerlessness among people,


a sense that the big issues are not being dealt with in the political


system. I am an optimist about politics, I would not have gone into


it unless I was a passionate, Democratic politician. But when you


have a sense that we could be heading for another global financial


crisis, and we have not fixed the last one, when you have a sense that


big corporations are not paying their fair share of tax, when you


are in northern England, and you think basically the unemployed would


break is never going to change, no matter what I do, those are worrying


things. Politics and the political system has to deliver for the people


who vote, and that is the worry. It is a worry for politics as a whole.


Can politics deliver any more, or is it really in the domain of big


business, for example, that is where the power is? I just think democracy


matters, because ultimately, the people have to be the sovereign.


That is why you turn up to vote, because you think that a politician


can, for example, make sure that everybody pairs of a rate of tax,


make sure that everybody pays their fair share. And the point I am


making is that politicians do not just fight for their party, they


also fight every day to sustain belief in the democratic system. And


actually, we have got some pretty good political systems out there,


and that is what I care about preserving. What do you put the rise


of UKIP down to? Frustration, a sense that sovereignty has been


lost, sovereignty needs to be regained. I actually think that you


cannot run a democratic system and less people feel they are sovereign,


I which I mean, they are masters in their own House. In my country,


Canada, we have got a bunch of problems, but the political system


does reproduce the belief that we are masters in our own House, next


door to the United States, and Britain needs to feel the same.


do you think Ed Miliband is doing? would not want to give anybody


advise, my political career was not the biggest success you ever saw.


But bearing in mind what you just said, and the state of the economy,


with the coalition government having been in power for three years, do


you think he should be doing better? I think he will be doing


better, that is, as we get closer to an election, people will be


thinking, do we want five more years of this? People make big, big


political decisions, they give someone about 90 seconds of their


and they decide, if this is my alternative, that's not so bad. I


feel what optimistic. I do not know, I am the visitor. It is your system,


not mine. It is interesting, from the point of view of an observer, to


view what is going on here. If you feel there is a divide between the


political elite and the people, is that not why UKIP is doing so well


and leaders like Ed Miliband are not hitting above their weight? I think


the real issue is austerity. The real issue is the economic policy of


the government. I just think people think this stuff is not working. Or,


it is working for somebody. I walk around London and I cannot see any


sign of a recession, but I know that the minute I step outside of the


zones of safety, this economy is having a tough old time. Use


unemployment is high, all of that kind of stuff. If austerity is not


working, they are going to vote for the other guy, that's just what is


going to happen. They are not going to vote for UKIP in large enough


numbers to do anything other than damage Mr Cameron. I am not


advertising for the Labour Party, I just think that is what is going to


happen. So, could there be some complacency setting in? But I do not


believe so. Ed has also talked about the fact that we are living at a


time when, patented, the international financial system has


failed, and the international and national political system has failed


to prevent it from failing. Unless we can find answers to that, it will


be difficult. Alex Salmond thinks he has got the answer, having managed


to get a referendum on independence for Scotland. You think that that


will gather pace? Again, I was in Edinburgh a week ago. I have people


who say, it is over, he is going to lose, and I get people saying, do


not count him out. My sense is that it will actually be a close run


thing. Scotland is confident, it has a strong national identity. But


again, there is deep alienation for the politics of austerity. It has


not worked for Scotland or for the North of England. That is the


political fact. If the coalition had moved the dials, some growth, got


some jobs, we would not be having this discussion. If you are right


about that alienation, it would follow that the turnout at the next


election should be high, they should be out to protest, to vote Labour


back in, and I suggest to you, we will be lucky if the turnout is as


high as it was at the last election. Look, that is why politicians have


to defend the democratic system itself. The competition we face is,


none of the above. I have been in politics and spent my whole time


trying to get people to come out. The problem is, people cannot tell


the difference. For most people, it is dancing on the head of a pin. We


just had Liam Byrne on today, the government is in favour of a


welfare, he is in favour of a welfare. The Government wants to


force people back to work, he wants to force people back to work. There


is no real difference. But you cannot have it both ways you know


that, you used to be a presenter! At least Alex Salmond, and I disagree


with and branch with Scottish independence, but at least he is


offering the Scottish people a real alternative. That is true, the


turnout in the referendum will be high, unless the result is so


clearly a foregone conclusion. What we want to know in this country is,


tell us about Mark Carney, the new Governor of the Bank of England. I


should just let our viewers know that the Bank of England met this


morning, and it is keeping interests rates again at 0.5%, the lowest


since 1695, and quantitive easing stays at 375 billion. Tell us.


smartest central banker in the world. Says a fellow Canadian.The


Canadian freemasonry sticks together. I happen to know him


personally. A wonderful guy, devoted public servant, could be making


millions being a private sector banker. As always been in the public


sector. Do you think he will be a good thing here? Yes, he will be a


very good thing. Is he going to go back and run for Prime Minister of


Canada? You will have to ask him that. But he will not come on! 5-1 I


do not think so. He has political ambitions because he has public


service ambitions, and I am privy to nothing on this one, but I think he


would not do that. The British economy will probably screw him up,


anyway. I hope not. Did Keck that's part of the negativity which way you


were criticising a moment or two ago, Andrew. The annual conference


of the secretive Bilderberg Group is starting today, in a hotel, in that


well-known revolutionary centre of the world, Watford. Yes, it is


meeting just outside Watford. The group was founded in 1954 to


strengthen relations between political and business leaders in


the US and Europe. Critics say it wields far, far, far more power than


that. Participants at this year 's meeting include the chancellor,


George Osborne, and the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, along with the


Prince of darkness, Peter Mandelson, conclude, -- Ken Clarke, who is on


the steering committee come and that well-known Trotskyite


revolutionary, Shirley Williams. Also attending other chief


executives of Google and Amazon, as well as the shadow figure of shadow


figures, Henry Kissinger. Also, the former Queen of the Netherlands,


too. They say they hold informal, private discussions about major


world issues. Critics say they operate as a super elite, intent on


world domination. I knew it all along. Or, at the very least, they


are an undemocratic and OPEC cabal of the rich and powerful. So, should


we be worried? What are they trying to hide? Why are they meeting in, of


all places, Watford? Tony Gosling is a journalist who has spent years


investigating the group. So, Shirley Williams at the centre of a cabal


for world domination. Actually, Shirley Williams is one of the


people which they are agreeing to schmooze. Ken Clarke is on the


steering committee, which really runs things. The idea is to be able


to wine and dine people with royalty, and powerful people, and


say, we are the guys you have got to think about. But the problem is, you


have got both journalists and will additions walking in there, and as


soon as they do, they asked want to secrecy. That is the problem. --


politicians. Nobody can stop businesspeople meeting, nobody


really wants to. Also, you have got some people who many people would


say are criminals in there, like HSBC bank, which has been doing


money-laundering in the United States. It has paid the penalty for


that. But has anybody got a jail. This is the point. Also, Barclays


bank, LIBOR fraud, billions taken from peoples mortgages, why are they


not in jail? Hold on, are you saying they are not in jail because they


are members of the Bilderberg Group? I am not saying that.


Kissinger started in 1969, if you remember, with the bombing of


Cambodia. A military coup, in Chile, the murder of a president,


and thousands of... Are you saying this is all planned at these


Bilderberg groups? No, but I am saying that there are criminals


inside, and police on the outside, guarding them, and some of those


police might be saying, maybe we are facing in the wrong direction,


Andrew, maybe we should be arresting some of the people on the inside.


You have been studying these people for years, what have you ever found


out about them? What first got me interested in the first instance was


when I discovered that the chairman of the Bilderberg for the first 20


years, was annexed SS officer, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands,


who was in the SS before World War II. If you are going to be chaired


by someone for 20 years by someone who is a Nazi, do you not think


there is an issue there, and we should have some investigative


journalism on it? I am all in favour of investigative journalism...


Lockheed scandal. That was then, way back in the 1950s and 60s, when we


discovered that there were ex-Nazis in all sorts of things, not just the


Bilderberg Group - what have you found out about it since?


tremendous amount. So much of the criminality, alleged grimmer


nullity, at least, of the people inside. How is it that when we steal


a bottle of water jarring a riot we go to jail for however many months


it is, and yet, if someone is doing one of these... ? I realised that


the real seat of power is here with you and Jo. To not say that, you


will start investigating as! 5-1 but I have not been invited, no. You


see, they cannot be a real power. Well, they do invite a lot of media


people. In fact, the Chief Executive of News International went. The BBC,


one of the executive board members was in there and sworn to secrecy.


Marcus AGS - is he going to be making programmes about LIBOR


fraud? He a disgraced banker.He has now had to leave the BBC over the


LIBOR issue. If you find anything out, come and tell us. Are you


heading off to Watford? Thank you to all of our guests. The one o'clock


News is starting over on BBC One. I will be on BBC One tonight with Alan


Download Subtitles