:00:43. > :00:48.Secretary has had a busy morning, banging the drum for genetically
:00:48. > :00:52.modified crops. On Paterson things we should take a new look and GM
:00:52. > :01:01.food, which he thinks will free up space for biodiversity, nature and
:01:01. > :01:05.wilderness. Rollup, up, anyone fancy a punt on some bank shares? We will
:01:05. > :01:09.look at the Chancellor's plans for Lloyds and RBS.
:01:09. > :01:16.Prepare to be shocked. We have been dealt the in -- delving into the
:01:16. > :01:23.world of whips. Whipping, like stripping, is best to be done in
:01:23. > :01:28.private. We will be asking, does it matter what a politician wears?
:01:28. > :01:36.London, here is to the suit. London is to the suit as Parma is to
:01:36. > :01:42.Parmesan cheese. After those profound words from the
:01:42. > :01:46.me of London, all that in the next hour. With us for the programme is
:01:46. > :01:49.writer, broadcaster and former Tory MP, Gyles Brandreth. Welcome to the
:01:50. > :01:53.programme. It is good to be with you. I hope you are going to be
:01:53. > :01:59.cheering me up. Have you been following the Apprentice? I have
:01:59. > :02:03.not. You have missed the treat. It is not worth watching now because my
:02:03. > :02:07.love child, who calls themselves Jason, I'm not sure if he is my love
:02:07. > :02:12.child but he is an openly like me, he has been booted off the
:02:12. > :02:16.Apprentice and I am feeling low about this. Well, we will share in
:02:16. > :02:26.your private grief but until then, you will have to do the programme.
:02:26. > :02:28.
:02:28. > :02:31.am ready. I am having GM the here. First of all, let's talk about the
:02:31. > :02:37.care quality commission. A report published yesterday found that the
:02:37. > :02:40.CQC failed to spot problems in the maternity unit at Furness General
:02:40. > :02:43.Hospital three years ago were several babies and mothers had died.
:02:43. > :02:48.It is alleged that the findings of an internal review were later
:02:48. > :02:52.suppressed. The CQC is now reconsidering a decision not to
:02:52. > :02:56.publish the names of former senior managers accused of covering up
:02:56. > :03:01.feelings in the organisation. Do you think we should know who they are? I
:03:01. > :03:07.think we should. The world needs to be accountable and this is serious
:03:07. > :03:10.stuff. What about prosecutions? People are saying that look, in the
:03:10. > :03:16.private world, if this sort of feeling had occurred, the should be
:03:16. > :03:20.private prosecutions. People are put into care and they expect to be
:03:21. > :03:23.looked after properly. Families should feel that this is reliable
:03:23. > :03:28.and if something goes wrong in the name of the state, and public money
:03:28. > :03:31.is involved, public accountability has to be part of the story. And
:03:31. > :03:37.people will gradually wake up. Sometimes these examples have to be
:03:37. > :03:42.made so that down the line people learn the lesson. It is interesting
:03:42. > :03:47.that there is a clamour for some sort of criminal action. But the new
:03:47. > :03:52.Chief Executive is still saying that the care quality commission should
:03:52. > :03:56.stay and be reformed. Should it be scrapped? I don't know. I first
:03:56. > :04:00.learned about this thing a long time ago with the Metropolitan Police
:04:00. > :04:04.when my father was a friend of Sir Robert Mark, who cleaned up the
:04:04. > :04:10.Metropolitan Police. Lots of people were saying, we can manage it
:04:10. > :04:13.internally, you must not ruin morale by naming and shaming. And actually,
:04:14. > :04:18.he said no, we have to go to the root of this and people have to
:04:18. > :04:21.leave. We have two name people and deal with this root and branch.
:04:21. > :04:25.There is something very wrong here and it has to be dealt with once and
:04:25. > :04:30.for all. People have to know that what they do in the fullness of
:04:30. > :04:36.time, they must be ready to be accountable for. They are paid and
:04:36. > :04:40.they must do the job properly or pay the price. It is time for our daily
:04:40. > :04:50.quiz. The question for today, what name did Barack Obama use repeatedly
:04:50. > :04:55.
:04:55. > :05:00.to refer to our beloved the Gyles, despite his private grief,
:05:00. > :05:03.will attempt to give us the correct answer. Not yet. Docking of the
:05:03. > :05:10.Chancellor, last night he delivered his annual speech at the Mansion
:05:10. > :05:13.house in the city of London. To the normal crowd of bankers and city
:05:13. > :05:18.grandees. -- talking of the Chancellor. He used it as a chance
:05:18. > :05:21.to set out his vision of what we should do with the financial system.
:05:21. > :05:29.The government would like to sell its stakes in the banks. Currently,
:05:29. > :05:33.it owes that -- it owns 39% of Lloyds and 81% of RBS as a result of
:05:33. > :05:37.the �65 billion bailout. George Osborne said that the Treasury is
:05:37. > :05:44.actively considering how to sell its holdings. That could start within a
:05:45. > :05:48.matter of months by selling some 20 matter of months by selling some 20
:05:48. > :05:50.-- selling some to investors. What to do with RBS is trickier. Selling
:05:50. > :05:55.now would mean crystallising a multi-billion pound loss for the
:05:55. > :05:59.taxpayer. One option is to split it up into good bank and bad bank. That
:05:59. > :06:04.would mean separating the loans which have suffered big losses and
:06:04. > :06:07.keeping them in state hands. The advantage would be that the
:06:07. > :06:11.remainder would be more attractive and easier to sell. But the bad bits
:06:11. > :06:17.would stay on the Treasury books for years. Last night, the Chancellor
:06:17. > :06:22.suggested he was in no great rush. do not want a quick sale of RBS
:06:22. > :06:26.shares. I want the right sale, the right sale for the British people. I
:06:26. > :06:30.right sale for the British people. I will only sell our state -- our
:06:30. > :06:35.stake in RBS when we feel the bank is able to support our economy and
:06:35. > :06:41.when we get good value for the taxpayer. In our judgement, when it
:06:41. > :06:47.comes to RBS, that moment is some way off. We're joined by the Shadow
:06:47. > :06:55.chair cherie Minister, Chris Leslie. -- Treasury Minister. Do you welcome
:06:55. > :07:02.the announcement? He wants to take his time? He has backed down from
:07:02. > :07:10.his plan. Last year, there was this whole thing about share giveaways.
:07:10. > :07:13.He told the chairman of RBS that he was aiming for a fire sale by 2014.
:07:13. > :07:18.That was mentioned to journalists on the last week. But over the weekend
:07:19. > :07:23.because of the mishandling of the Chief Executive, Stephen Hester,
:07:23. > :07:28.pushed out to prompted this fire sale, that attracted a lot of
:07:28. > :07:32.criticism. He has had to back down. Is that the reason, as you claim,
:07:32. > :07:35.that Stephen Hester was pushed out? Is it not more to do with the
:07:35. > :07:40.splitting of the bank into a good bank and a bad bank. We know that
:07:40. > :07:44.Stephen Hester was not in favour of that. The key thing is that George
:07:44. > :07:48.Osborne was always rushing towards the fire sale. He has had to think
:07:48. > :07:53.again, not least because of the Parliamentary commission, wisely,
:07:53. > :07:58.saying that they had to look at all the options, retail investment
:07:58. > :08:04.banks, regional banking networks, there are a lot of issues to look at
:08:04. > :08:09.with RBS. I think the Chancellor could not get away with his original
:08:09. > :08:12.plan to have a pre-election fire sale. But you have listened to the
:08:12. > :08:15.-- but he has listened to the recommendations and acted upon them?
:08:15. > :08:19.We are all were saying that the taxpayer has to come first as he
:08:19. > :08:26.could not get away with the plan. The chaos now is that he has got rid
:08:26. > :08:30.of the Chief Executive and there is no replacement. What is going on,
:08:31. > :08:34.both with the Treasury and this plan, never mind the stability he
:08:34. > :08:39.was trying to put in place? We are in a more chaotic position today
:08:39. > :08:44.because he is chopping and changing. Gels Brandreth, did you like the
:08:44. > :08:49.idea of selling off the shares? -- Gyles Brandreth. The Lib Dems
:08:49. > :08:56.thought it would be a vote winner. Yes. Well, I'm quite glad.
:08:56. > :08:59.Ultimately, the taxpayer wants our money back. What is going to secure
:08:59. > :09:03.that realistically is what we have to go for. I am suspicious of
:09:03. > :09:08.everyone involved here, that no one knows quite as much as they think
:09:08. > :09:12.they do. Slowly, slowly, is the way forward. Caution, rather than
:09:13. > :09:22.rushing into it. It matters a lot to the economy. RBS is a big
:09:23. > :09:23.
:09:23. > :09:27.institution. Of course, we have two focus on kick-starting the economy.
:09:27. > :09:32.Let's look at what is going to bring RBS back to health. Do you like the
:09:32. > :09:37.idea of a good bank and a bad bank? I think it could have its merits.
:09:37. > :09:40.But the key is that we do not leak to what we think -- leap to what we
:09:40. > :09:43.think intuitively will be the best thing. It is dull and boring but
:09:43. > :09:50.evidence -based policy making. The Parliamentary commission does an
:09:50. > :09:54.enquiry, not just on the good bank, bad bank, but what about helping the
:09:54. > :09:59.parts of the country that are struggling to get access to finance?
:09:59. > :10:05.Small firms, distance from banks. you had a good bank, it might be
:10:05. > :10:08.less dynamic but that might improve lending. That could be the case. But
:10:08. > :10:15.what was wrong was George Osborne been so tempered to get rid of the
:10:15. > :10:19.Chief Executive, headstrong rush towards a fire sale. He bungled that
:10:20. > :10:23.plan and now he has to go back to the drawing board. Well, at least he
:10:23. > :10:26.has the sense to listen to the Parliamentary commission. It is a
:10:26. > :10:30.dangerous phrase, good bank, bad bank. We're talking about high and
:10:30. > :10:34.low risk. It is an uncertain world and there is risk involved in
:10:34. > :10:40.everything. The bad bank idea is to put toxic things together. To group
:10:40. > :10:43.them together in order to spend your time water the flower that is
:10:43. > :10:49.actually going to help regenerate the economy by making the money
:10:49. > :10:52.available. We meet bankers all the time now who say it is OK, we are
:10:52. > :10:57.now lending again, but we meet business people who say that they
:10:57. > :11:00.are not. That is the dilemma. is one of the recommendations, on
:11:00. > :11:06.the basis of what you have said, they should be expect in banks to
:11:06. > :11:09.have even higher levels of capital in order to prove that they are in
:11:09. > :11:17.good shape. -- they should be expecting. The Parliamentary
:11:17. > :11:27.commission were interesting in their 560 page report. You have read every
:11:27. > :11:33.word(!) For Cielo -- for steel -- there are ways of making sure that
:11:33. > :11:36.capital is not sitting idly, but it is productively lent out. We have
:11:36. > :11:42.had Project Merlin, where they tried to persuade the banks to do the
:11:42. > :11:50.right thing. There was funding for lending. We are through to version
:11:50. > :11:54.four of the Chancellor's attempts get lending going. Admittedly, with
:11:54. > :11:57.hindsight, was this the wrong plan? It was necessary to make sure that
:11:57. > :12:03.cash machines kept running. Otherwise, Gyles would not have been
:12:04. > :12:08.able to go to the cash machine. It was a difficult decision. But it is
:12:08. > :12:11.only the economy getting that moving again and helping to get confidence
:12:11. > :12:16.going that will make bank shares more valuable and kick-start
:12:16. > :12:24.benefits. You happy for whites shares to be sold off? We need to
:12:24. > :12:27.get our my back. -- Lloyds shares. We need to get the money back. The
:12:27. > :12:30.co-op sale of those branches fell through and we need a better plan to
:12:30. > :12:36.get competition into the High Street. That is what the Treasury
:12:36. > :12:42.has to focus upon. Gerald, I mean Kevin, I mean George Osborne was not
:12:42. > :12:46.the only one speaking at the Mansion house last night. Mervyn King gave
:12:46. > :12:51.his 10th and final speech to the city audience before he steps down
:12:51. > :12:57.as the Governor of the bank of in blood. The central banker, set to
:12:57. > :13:01.become a peer, has run the organisation since 2003 and his time
:13:01. > :13:06.in office has been defined by the financial crash. He is planning an
:13:06. > :13:16.extended holiday, a great gap year. Before he goes, here are some of his
:13:16. > :13:17.
:13:17. > :13:27.more memorable moments. -- gery gap year. For the time being at least,
:13:27. > :13:43.
:13:43. > :13:47.UK economy is entering a recession. # A little bit of Mardi Gras in my
:13:47. > :13:51.life. A little bit of Erica by my side.
:13:51. > :13:57.The uncertainty faced by the committee, this assessment of the
:13:57. > :14:06.uncertainties, we cannot be unsure which of the big risks to the
:14:06. > :14:09.outlook will materialise. # A little bit of you makes me your man.
:14:09. > :14:19.89 press conferences, 82 under the banner of the inflation report, I
:14:19. > :14:20.
:14:20. > :14:28.have had my say. Now it is over to the next generation to have heirs.
:14:28. > :14:31.# Mambo Number five. # Nobody was bullying in the studio. That was
:14:31. > :14:37.Mervyn King and Mambo Number five, one of his Desert Island discs. Was
:14:37. > :14:43.the effective? Missed his inflation target. Yes, but he had a difficult
:14:43. > :14:46.job while he was in office. The key thing for his legacy, the bank of
:14:46. > :14:50.England were trying to stimulant the economy, but at the same time,
:14:50. > :14:54.particularly over the last three years, George Osborne was pulling in
:14:54. > :14:58.the opposite direction. Of course, we had one brand of government --
:14:58. > :15:01.branch of government doing one thing and the other doing another. That is
:15:01. > :15:05.the unfortunate nature of the wiki has had to operate with a Chancellor
:15:05. > :15:09.who has done anything he can to pull confidence away. Alistair Darling,
:15:09. > :15:16.when he was Chancellor, in his book there were hints that he found
:15:16. > :15:22.Mervyn King intransigence. There is not a lot of history. --
:15:22. > :15:29.intransigence. Do you recall him? Neatly deflected! I recall a
:15:29. > :15:35.priceless exchange between him and the Queen, just after the last last
:15:35. > :15:41.crash. The Queen said, remind me how many people work there? He said
:15:41. > :15:46.1413. The Queen said, 1413 and none of them saw this coming? The truth
:15:46. > :15:50.is... She raises a good point.She did. And he has kept the thing
:15:50. > :15:54.moving. Vaguely in the right direction. They sometimes do things
:15:54. > :16:00.they do not know of. Nobody knows what is involved in quantitative
:16:00. > :16:03.easing. What it involves, what is achieved. It has been an amazing
:16:03. > :16:13.thing, huge element of this policy and I have not found anyone who has
:16:13. > :16:25.
:16:25. > :16:31.You cannot just leave it to the Bank of England to sort out the
:16:31. > :16:36.economy. The new chief executive is running the Bank of England. The
:16:36. > :16:42.daughter of Douglas Hogg, our former minister of agriculture and
:16:42. > :16:48.the granddaughter of Lord Hailsham. A woman at the helm will be better.
:16:48. > :16:51.It is a very good idea to have women at the helm. Thank you.
:16:51. > :16:54.Politicians love to talk about the importance of education, education,
:16:54. > :16:56.education. Just last week we had Labour's offering on the direction
:16:57. > :17:06.of schools as well as the government's appraisal of what
:17:07. > :17:08.
:17:08. > :17:16.GCSE's should look like in the future. This morning it was the
:17:16. > :17:19.turn of Michael Wilshaw. He has already discussed comprehensives
:17:19. > :17:22.failing bright pupils and now he's worried about white working class
:17:22. > :17:25.children falling behind. Here he is in an Ofsted advertisement talking
:17:25. > :17:32.about what he calls the unseen children. This is a very nostalgic
:17:32. > :17:38.experience for me. I am standing in St Michael's School in Bermondsey
:17:38. > :17:43.in South East London, where I started teaching 46 years ago. I
:17:43. > :17:50.taught the sons and daughters of mainly dockers. It laid the
:17:50. > :17:56.foundation of what I did thereafter. There is absolutely nothing
:17:56. > :18:01.predictable or predestined about poverty leading to failure. I have
:18:01. > :18:08.always believed that. I have always believed that poor children can do
:18:08. > :18:16.well. That is why I came to Hackney. There was pessimism in the area. It
:18:16. > :18:22.cannot be done. You are talking about inner-city children and
:18:22. > :18:26.deprivation. Our guest is here. Welcome to the programme. The
:18:26. > :18:31.schools but you say are failing poor children have, in some cases,
:18:31. > :18:37.been labelled as outstanding. said in the report were published
:18:37. > :18:42.today that the focus is shifting. Failure often resided in the inner
:18:42. > :18:48.city, in places like Hackney. What we have seen over the last five, 10
:18:48. > :18:52.years, there is better performance in London. Even poorer children in
:18:52. > :18:58.Birmingham, Manchester and city areas. Where problems now reside
:18:58. > :19:03.are in areas where the spotlight has not shone. That is why we call
:19:03. > :19:08.this report unseen children. In places we would assume they are
:19:08. > :19:13.doing OK in rural areas, coastal areas, county areas where the
:19:13. > :19:17.headlines are very glint. Actually, when you dig below the surface, it
:19:17. > :19:27.is the poorest children in those schools that are doing the worst of
:19:27. > :19:27.
:19:27. > :19:32.all. we mentioned one example, West Berkshire. When you look at the
:19:32. > :19:36.performance of poor kids, they're doing really badly. That is very
:19:36. > :19:42.difficult to delve into. While they are being given an outstanding
:19:42. > :19:47.status if they are failing their poorest children catastrophically?
:19:47. > :19:52.We need to look at this again. They should not be given an outstanding
:19:52. > :19:56.grading, especially now they're getting additional funding through
:19:56. > :20:00.the pupil premium. We can point the two schools where they're using it
:20:01. > :20:06.really well - where there are high numbers of free school milk pupils
:20:06. > :20:11.was up here, they are often ignored. That is why we have called it an
:20:11. > :20:16.unseen problem. Why are those schools failing the poorest - the
:20:16. > :20:23.least well-off? You also said it was white, working-class children.
:20:23. > :20:29.Why is that if the vast majority of those children are doing so well?
:20:29. > :20:34.It is about limited expectations at home and predominating in schools
:20:34. > :20:38.in these areas where expectations are far too low. What we suggested
:20:38. > :20:42.in this report, to rid the lift things quickly, we need the best
:20:42. > :20:48.leaders of our schools up and down the country to go into these areas
:20:48. > :20:53.under what is called a national leader of education scheme. We need
:20:53. > :20:58.really good teachers. We suggested a tranche of teachers every year,
:20:58. > :21:03.who prove themselves and the classroom and had done really well
:21:03. > :21:08.are given a Centro contract by government. They become national
:21:08. > :21:12.service teachers. They lift standards and disseminate good
:21:12. > :21:17.practice and progress after a period of time to leadership
:21:17. > :21:21.positions. You are going to take really good teachers out of other
:21:21. > :21:25.schools. Parents in those schools were not be pleased to know you're
:21:25. > :21:30.going to take them and put them somewhere else. All my experience
:21:30. > :21:35.is where you have a teaching School Alliance. A lot of that teaching
:21:35. > :21:39.goes on in schools. A lot of teachers go into those schools and
:21:39. > :21:43.carry on their good work. There will always be a tranche were
:21:43. > :21:49.teachers who want to go elsewhere. We are saying, give them a
:21:49. > :21:57.government contract and son and two areas where they need teaching.
:21:57. > :22:03.you surprised Ind terms of highlighting poor working-class
:22:03. > :22:08.school children in these areas? problem areas commit you go to
:22:08. > :22:15.schools where they are able because of the size and resources to give
:22:15. > :22:21.breakfast clubs, so kids start with a good meal. They are after-school
:22:21. > :22:25.clubs, activities. Their quality life is at school and the problem
:22:25. > :22:30.is the home life. In more rural places, there is not that same
:22:30. > :22:36.facility. It is not so surprising to me that action cannot be taken
:22:36. > :22:41.so easily in rural communities. Isn't the problem also lack of
:22:41. > :22:46.expectation? Teachers cannot be social workers. They cannot bring
:22:46. > :22:51.up children like that. You are asking them to replace the failings
:22:51. > :22:55.and shortcomings. I disagree. I ran the school where we knew youngsters
:22:56. > :23:01.would come to school with a deficit that you and I would know about. We
:23:01. > :23:06.became surrogate parents will those youngsters. We ran extension
:23:06. > :23:11.classes and a rich and programmes. Retract their performances to
:23:11. > :23:16.ensure we succeeded. The best teachers knew what to do. The other
:23:16. > :23:21.important thing is that it worked in London because of something
:23:21. > :23:25.called London challenge. It is led by head teachers. Good head
:23:25. > :23:31.teachers and outstanding head teachers who gave tough messages to
:23:31. > :23:35.underperforming schools. We are suggesting they support something
:23:35. > :23:40.similar. Some regional challenges in places like Hastings, Norfolk
:23:40. > :23:45.and North East Lincolnshire, who can do things we are suggesting -
:23:45. > :23:52.co-ordinated well and get local performance to improve. I want this
:23:52. > :23:58.to work. Good man. How long are you going to give your national service
:23:58. > :24:05.for teachers? How long to raise the standards? It is an issue for
:24:05. > :24:14.government. I suspect a few years. Show what can be done. Remain there
:24:14. > :24:22.if you can. Become a leader of the schools in those communities and
:24:22. > :24:25.showed good practice. That is what happened in London. State schools
:24:25. > :24:28.in London are outstripping the national average partner because of
:24:28. > :24:35.the high levels of immigrant children with very high
:24:35. > :24:39.expectations who are driven to exceed. Absolutely. We need to make
:24:39. > :24:44.sure our poor, white, British children do as well. We should
:24:44. > :24:53.never give up. I was a London teacher. People were saying, what
:24:53. > :24:56.could you do in London? London is a basket case. Look at it now! Thank
:24:56. > :24:59.you. They used to call it franken- food. Genetically modified crops
:24:59. > :25:02.have long been the bete noir of the tabloids - guaranteed to instil
:25:02. > :25:12.fear over the breakfast table. Now the Environment Secretary wants us
:25:12. > :25:17.to learn to love GM. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Have I missed you
:25:17. > :25:24.campaign to bring GM foods to the UK? Where was your big
:25:24. > :25:32.consultation? Good morning. What I'm trying to do is to get people
:25:32. > :25:36.to realise this is not any strange new spooky innovation led by 20
:25:36. > :25:43.professors with spiky hair and flapping Coates. This is well
:25:43. > :25:48.established in many countries. There are 17 million farmers who
:25:49. > :25:58.cultivate about 170 million hectares across 28 countries. That
:25:59. > :26:01.
:26:01. > :26:11.This technology is now established agricultural production. Those
:26:11. > :26:25.
:26:25. > :26:33.products are going into the food chain. They could no longer
:26:33. > :26:36.guarantee there when non GM foods. My point today is to bring
:26:36. > :26:42.attention to the fact that this technology is now well established
:26:42. > :26:46.in many major agricultural countries. That we are importing
:26:46. > :26:51.significant amounts for animal feed and the longer that we have
:26:51. > :26:56.political decisions overriding the regulatory process at European
:26:56. > :27:00.level, time and again products are approved by scientists and
:27:00. > :27:05.overruled at political level. What I am asking is that everyone reads
:27:05. > :27:11.my speech in some depth and sees that this is a well-established
:27:11. > :27:15.technology. Not the only one. If we do not begin to use this technology,
:27:15. > :27:19.Europe will slip further behind. What is also very important, it
:27:19. > :27:24.will not just affect our farmers and food producers, it will have to
:27:24. > :27:30.really damaging impact on our environment. There are
:27:30. > :27:39.environmental gains on using GM, less spraying, less compaction of
:27:39. > :27:42.soil. If I can just finish - another very important point. I am
:27:42. > :27:48.at this World leading research centre for agree sides committed we
:27:48. > :27:53.do not allow more progress on this one technology, research will go to
:27:53. > :27:56.other countries. That is not the only shot in the locker. That is an
:27:57. > :28:01.important innovation, along with other innovations. As the world
:28:01. > :28:07.population grows, we should remember there are 1 billion people
:28:07. > :28:14.hungry today, we have to embrace all the new technologies. I have to
:28:14. > :28:20.come in with a question. Can I just put to you, the public do not like
:28:20. > :28:24.it? There is no public clamour for it. They are suspicious of it. They
:28:24. > :28:28.do not like the idea of jeans been taken from other organisms and
:28:28. > :28:34.being injected into other plants. They think it is strange and
:28:34. > :28:38.nothing has dissuaded them. However convincing and powerful you make it
:28:38. > :28:44.across your point, at the moment, the public is not with you. I think
:28:44. > :28:50.I would like to ask what what evidence is all that. I have a
:28:50. > :28:55.survey. Can I just say? A survey here says 21% of the population
:28:55. > :29:00.supports the technology. All right, 35% opposed but that leaves a lot
:29:00. > :29:06.of people undecided. Friends of the Earth has described your support
:29:06. > :29:11.for GM crops as flogging a dead horse. I think they are ignoring
:29:11. > :29:15.the facts that today very large numbers of UK citizens will make a
:29:15. > :29:19.choice and they will go into a supermarket and they will buy a
:29:19. > :29:23.product where they know perfectly well from the announcement of the
:29:23. > :29:29.main supermarket that the animal from which the meat product was to
:29:29. > :29:35.ride, or the egg was derived, was fed on GM. There was no major
:29:35. > :29:44.public reaction at Woolworth. I think your opinion is rather dated.
:29:44. > :29:50.-- atoll. There was real concern a few days ago. -- a few years ago.
:29:50. > :29:58.The whole point of today is to get a raft of facts to show this is
:29:58. > :30:07.established. It is an accepted part of practice. Does it work? Can you
:30:07. > :30:12.produce drowned resistant GM crops? It may be there has not been a
:30:12. > :30:18.public reaction. Maybe it has seeped into the food chain. Do they
:30:18. > :30:28.actually work? If you had time to plough through my speech, you would
:30:28. > :30:40.
:30:40. > :30:46.minister in Berlin. Brazil is about The next generation is what is
:30:46. > :30:52.really interesting. You mentioned saline resistant. That could bring
:30:52. > :30:55.in marginal land, which is of enormous importance. My last
:30:55. > :31:01.thought, 1 billion people got up this morning hungry and they will
:31:01. > :31:05.go to bed really hungry. We owe it to them to use wonderful research
:31:05. > :31:15.centres to use at innovation and developed technologies to help to
:31:15. > :31:18.
:31:18. > :31:24.agreement about adopting GM foods? The coalition agreement is very
:31:24. > :31:30.clear. The agreement was that there will be a government led discussion
:31:30. > :31:34.which will highlight the potential benefits of GM foods, and also the
:31:34. > :31:37.potential risks, and that no decisions will be made before we
:31:37. > :31:42.have had that debate with the public. What we have had today from
:31:42. > :31:46.Owen Paterson in his speech is cheerleading on behalf of the GM
:31:46. > :31:51.industry. You say he is cheerleading on behalf of the industry but he
:31:51. > :31:57.says that we could help the starving people across the world. It is an
:31:57. > :32:06.emotional argument. Indeed. The Lib Dems are not in principle opposed to
:32:06. > :32:09.the potential of looking at GM crops. What we need is the evidence.
:32:09. > :32:14.In terms of the health opportunities and risks and, crucially, what is
:32:14. > :32:19.not covered very much, the environmental risks and the economic
:32:19. > :32:25.risks. I sit on the House of Lords agricultural committee. We were
:32:25. > :32:30.promised a review from Owen Paterson's department about the
:32:30. > :32:34.economic and environmental effects of GM crops. That was promised but
:32:35. > :32:37.it had not arrived in March. Why are we not getting the facts from the
:32:37. > :32:42.Department before we make the decisions about the use of these
:32:42. > :32:46.crops? There have been hundreds of scientific surveys carried out and
:32:46. > :32:53.there is a whole pile of evidence listening to people who are involved
:32:53. > :32:56.in the GM industry, who say that it is safe. They say it is safe and it
:32:57. > :33:01.is used across Canada, America, Brazil, and it is already in the
:33:01. > :33:07.food chain. What are we frightened off? There is a lot of evidence that
:33:07. > :33:10.we have not got definitive answers on the environmental impacts. In
:33:10. > :33:15.China, Argentina, Brazil, they are using more synthetic chemicals to
:33:15. > :33:20.control pests, despite the claims from the GM industry that the use of
:33:20. > :33:25.these crops would bring down the use of insecticides. Is it spooky?
:33:25. > :33:28.not think so. It is exciting, new Dom and I tend to agree with the
:33:28. > :33:35.last person I heard. Owen Paterson was very impressive but when this
:33:35. > :33:39.debate began my thought, what will I decide? When I discovered that the
:33:39. > :33:42.Duke of Edinburgh was in favour of GM crops I thought, well, if he is
:33:42. > :33:47.in favour, I will be too. The truth is, there is no evidence of it
:33:47. > :33:50.having any damaging affect on health. There is no evidence of that
:33:50. > :33:54.and the rest of it seems to be moving, scientifically, into
:33:54. > :33:59.exciting new directions. Debate has been going on for several years and
:33:59. > :34:04.we need action from government. He made a convincing adamant. It is
:34:04. > :34:07.taking the debate further. We have had GM crops for 20 years and a lot
:34:07. > :34:10.of the claims we had initially have still not been substantiated. You
:34:11. > :34:15.say that you can then be is in favour full stop I am sure you might
:34:15. > :34:20.get a different answer from the Prince of Wales. We have a lot of
:34:21. > :34:24.organic farmers in the UK and in the states, that has -- there have been
:34:24. > :34:27.thousands of lawsuits from organic farmers who cannot undertake their
:34:27. > :34:33.business because of cross contamination. We have to take that
:34:33. > :34:37.seriously. This is my view on most things. Whatever the argument, I set
:34:37. > :34:40.the Prince of Wales in front of me, who is wonderful, and I follow
:34:40. > :34:45.whatever the Duke of Edinburgh says, regardless of the issue. It
:34:45. > :34:49.does save time in the long run. You do not need to read the report.
:34:49. > :34:54.little simplistic, if you don't mind me saying. Is that how you view the
:34:54. > :34:58.Duke of Edinburgh? Your argument. You're putting words into my mouth!
:34:58. > :35:01.Vetiver joining us. And welcome to our viewers in Scotland who have
:35:01. > :35:09.been watching first ministers questions. Last month, a strange
:35:09. > :35:13.form of Ingo took place in the House of Commons. It looked like this.
:35:13. > :35:15.asked the assistant to drop in numbers. As each number is strong, I
:35:15. > :35:24.will read out the place in the ballot list and the corresponding
:35:24. > :35:34.name of the member in the ballot rocks. -- ballot box.Number 20 will
:35:34. > :35:49.
:35:49. > :35:54.be? 214.Doctor Matthew offer. And number 19 will be? 212.I think we
:35:54. > :36:04.have to shake them up! Mr Michael Meacher. As we say in the North
:36:04. > :36:09.
:36:09. > :36:13.West, shake them up. And we now want number 18. 485.Mr William Cash.
:36:13. > :36:17.It is like winning the lottery. That was the Deputy Speaker, Lindsay
:36:17. > :36:22.Hoyle, and two of those lucky winners are in our studio now.
:36:22. > :36:29.Caroline Spelman, and William Cash. We only ever hear you being called
:36:29. > :36:36.Bill Cash. I am Bill, 100%. I have a son called William so I call myself
:36:36. > :36:42.William. -- old Bill. What is the bill about? It is about compensation
:36:42. > :36:45.for blight. If there is an infrastructure built -- if there is
:36:45. > :36:49.infrastructure near where you are, it is difficult to find
:36:49. > :36:54.compensation. I am trying to improve compensation for blight. What a
:36:54. > :36:59.durable or more you lobbied to put it forward? This is my bill. High
:36:59. > :37:07.Speed two is going through my constituency. I am at the Midlands
:37:07. > :37:10.motorway crosswords so a lot happens at my constituency. -- crossroads.
:37:10. > :37:14.What is the chances of it happening? I think it is quite good because if
:37:14. > :37:18.you listened to PMQs yesterday, there was a clue. Asked about a
:37:18. > :37:22.property bonds, the Prime Minister was quite warm about that. He did
:37:22. > :37:27.not reject it. What is your bill about? To enhance the role of women
:37:27. > :37:31.in relation to the third World and developing countries. I have done a
:37:31. > :37:35.lot of work in Africa and in India, and I have worked with the women who
:37:35. > :37:41.raised the money for sewage and sanitation in Mumbai and in Delhi. I
:37:41. > :37:46.was out there with the Guardian. It has been an interest of mine and I
:37:46. > :37:48.believe that women must be given much, much bigger roles in relation
:37:48. > :37:54.to the government and public services, education, health and
:37:54. > :37:59.water sanitation throughout the world. And it was the ideal
:37:59. > :38:04.opportunity, if the legislation is thematically worked into projects
:38:04. > :38:09.around the world, to ensure that that priority enables things to be
:38:09. > :38:12.done. Caroline Wozniacki former Shadow Minister for their element
:38:12. > :38:18.aid and she understands this. We agree in this strongly. Both
:38:18. > :38:21.worthwhile cases. You have made the argument forcefully. The problem
:38:22. > :38:25.with Private Members' Bill is that they often fall at the first hurdle
:38:25. > :38:30.or the next hurdle. You must be worried. It does not necessarily
:38:30. > :38:33.mean you do not get a change in the law. I have been lucky enough to be
:38:33. > :38:37.on the ballot for times. Even though my members Bill might have fallen,
:38:37. > :38:42.the government has been prompted by the Private Members' Bill to make a
:38:42. > :38:48.change in the law. In my case, on adoption and garden grabbing.
:38:48. > :38:54.the problems is being talked out. can give you an example of that. You
:38:54. > :38:59.will remember Cyril Townsend, the Member for Bexleyheath. I helped him
:38:59. > :39:06.with a bill to stop child photography, the abuse of children,
:39:06. > :39:10.paedophilia. In 1977 it was amazingly controversial. Don't ask
:39:10. > :39:15.me why. Actually, the government give it time and Jim Callaghan told
:39:15. > :39:20.me when I saw him in the House after, just before he retired, I
:39:20. > :39:24.asked him how he got it through and he said, my wife said I would not
:39:24. > :39:29.speak to -- she would not speak to me for six months if I did not put
:39:29. > :39:31.it on the statute books! But there is another bill that you,
:39:31. > :39:36.particularly, will also want to see made law. Would you drop yours in
:39:36. > :39:39.favour of the EU bill going through? I do not have to make that choice
:39:39. > :39:45.because it has been made for me. I am a supporter of the Referendum
:39:45. > :39:49.Bill. I brought in several Referendum Bill is and as far as I'm
:39:49. > :39:55.concerned, that campaign the Gyles knows of from the whips office, is
:39:55. > :40:00.now coming about. That is something I'm very pleased about. If you get
:40:00. > :40:05.the support of the government, there is momentum. And you really work
:40:05. > :40:08.with all sides. You speak to all the parties and then you go to the
:40:08. > :40:13.relevant Cabinet minister and take him with you. The government will
:40:13. > :40:17.always find time. Actually, they like things that are going to
:40:18. > :40:21.improve the world in which we live. And my marriage act in 1994 enables
:40:21. > :40:28.civil weddings to take place in venues others -- other than registry
:40:28. > :40:32.officers. -- registry offices. It came about because somebody in my
:40:32. > :40:35.constituency on the castle and wanted to hold weddings there. She
:40:35. > :40:38.thought it was unfair that Chester Cathedral could have a wedding but
:40:38. > :40:43.her castle could not. It was a constituent who made possible. The
:40:43. > :40:47.Prime Minister got behind it and the whole thing swept through. People
:40:47. > :40:50.say that the marriage act and the Northern Ireland peace process I the
:40:50. > :40:53.only two good things to come out of John Major's time in office.
:40:53. > :40:58.they could not be more different! There are other famous members bills
:40:58. > :41:04.that have made it. Capital punishment. And abortion. There have
:41:04. > :41:08.been a number of other ones. that was David steel's.
:41:08. > :41:14.opportunities that this gives you, with all the things that Gyles has
:41:14. > :41:20.said, at the whips office, mine is an all-party bill, and Malcolm Bruce
:41:20. > :41:25.is behind it. Michael James. There is a whole wide range of left, right
:41:25. > :41:30.and centre. Thank you both very much. They were dumped an exciting
:41:30. > :41:32.opportunity by the Prime Minister. And the coalition promised 200 of
:41:33. > :41:37.them nationwide. But it looks like the open primary has fallen out of
:41:37. > :41:42.favour. It seems they deliver MPs who are not playing ball. There is
:41:42. > :41:50.one of those MPs being selected. Apologies for the sound problems.
:41:50. > :42:00.am reading out the names in alphabetical order. Nick by. 3088.
:42:00. > :42:04.
:42:04. > :42:09.Sarah Randall Johnson, 5495. And Sarah Wollaston, 7914. Sarah
:42:09. > :42:12.Wollaston is our successful candidate. And she is here. Well
:42:12. > :42:17.done. Why do you think the Prime Minister is backing away from these
:42:17. > :42:21.primaries? I am disappointed because I think they have great potential,
:42:21. > :42:23.particularly in safe seats which never change hands, to let people
:42:23. > :42:29.decide what kind of Conservative or Labour MP they would like
:42:29. > :42:32.representing them. Sometimes for decades to come. You accept that
:42:32. > :42:35.they have been ditched? I will keep up the pressure because I do not
:42:35. > :42:41.think that they should have been ditched. They need to be cheaper,
:42:41. > :42:44.that is the point. How expensive was your selection? I am told it was
:42:44. > :42:49.around �40,000 goes every voter in the constituency, regardless of
:42:49. > :42:53.political affiliation, got a paper. A lot of money if you do that 200
:42:54. > :42:58.times. We cannot afford it but we could pilot electronic footing.
:42:58. > :43:03.People interact with politics all the time. I get 1000 e-mails a week
:43:03. > :43:06.some weeks. People want to interact online. Just as people have got used
:43:06. > :43:10.to the idea that you might vote with the red button, you can see huge
:43:10. > :43:16.interactions with people if they have a secure code that they can use
:43:16. > :43:20.when they get the ballot paper. Then they could vote online and that
:43:21. > :43:25.would get rid of all the return postage issues. Do you think open
:43:25. > :43:29.primary produce awkward, outspoken MPs? I think there is a difference
:43:29. > :43:33.between being awkward and actually trying to approach things in a
:43:33. > :43:38.different way. I applied to be an MP without having ever been to a
:43:38. > :43:42.political meeting in my life. You are not a career politician.
:43:42. > :43:47.Actually, I think the point is that all of us can do politics. I think
:43:47. > :43:50.we see too many politicians who have come through a set route where they
:43:50. > :43:55.have been researchers, and I am not knocking them because we need people
:43:55. > :44:00.who have done this, but we also need to open up politics to more people
:44:00. > :44:07.who come from a variety of backgrounds and, crucially, more
:44:07. > :44:12.women. Can everyone do politics, Gyles? Everyone can do life and one
:44:12. > :44:16.of the problems with politics is it is about people doing politics.
:44:16. > :44:20.there too many of those? It is like a village talking to itself and the
:44:20. > :44:27.idea of the primary is that anybody can come along, so you can get a
:44:27. > :44:31.retired teacher or fire worker, or a mother or a father, every type of
:44:31. > :44:34.person can come along. The difficulty for party politicians is
:44:34. > :44:39.you will then get Mavericks, single issue people, people who are
:44:39. > :44:49.brilliant on the night but turn out to be flaky. One of the phrases one
:44:49. > :44:50.
:44:50. > :44:53.uses endlessly in Parliament, is, is she sounds? Is the current system is
:44:53. > :44:56.so spectacularly successful? Look at what we have at the moment. We need
:44:56. > :44:59.to have people who come through and understand how it works but the
:44:59. > :45:04.public are frustrated. We have lots of politicians who end up in jail.
:45:04. > :45:10.We need to accept that at the moment Parliament does not look and sound
:45:10. > :45:15.like wider Britain. What do you think of Number Ten? I have already
:45:15. > :45:19.made some comments about how I think that if you come from... Nobody has
:45:19. > :45:23.any problem with where the Prime Minister goes to school. None at
:45:23. > :45:32.all. But what they expect is to see a wide variety in the team around
:45:32. > :45:34.him. I went to a state comprehensive, one State conference
:45:34. > :45:37.of anti-grammar, I should correct that, but it would be unusual that
:45:37. > :45:39.there were people from my former school in Number Ten. That is the
:45:39. > :45:44.point. It does not matter where you come from, it is about having
:45:44. > :45:47.diversity. Is there a problem with democracy? I am excited that Prince
:45:47. > :45:50.William will be king and he went to Eton and the Archbishop of
:45:50. > :45:53.Canterbury went to Eton and the Prime Minister. The only thing that
:45:53. > :45:58.is wrong with the economy is that George Osborne did not go to Eton.
:45:58. > :46:01.Maybe we need more of these people. Boris Johnson went to Eton. They do
:46:01. > :46:10.not take girls, this is the problem. Sarah Woolaston, you can answer
:46:10. > :46:14.this. It kind of excludes women. I would like to see more diversity. It
:46:14. > :46:17.is a pipeline issue. There are not enough women applying to go into
:46:17. > :46:22.politics and often that is because they do not think they will be
:46:22. > :46:25.accepted. You are completely right and the whole thing needs to be
:46:25. > :46:29.reinvented. The problem with the primaries is that in America, they
:46:29. > :46:33.can test the candidates to destruction. The ones that we have
:46:33. > :46:37.had in the UK have not quite worked fully because it is a short process
:46:37. > :46:47.and a few oddballs have been thrown up all stop it has not tested people
:46:47. > :46:50.
:46:50. > :46:53.to destruction. We're going to have Now to the next in our series about
:46:53. > :46:55.the behind-the scenes figures who keep the Westminster village
:46:55. > :46:58.running. We've heard from the paparazzi, the ministerial drivers
:46:58. > :47:02.and the shadowy special advisors, but now we can reveal the most
:47:02. > :47:05.secretive of them all: the whips. They are the supremely discrete
:47:05. > :47:15.figures who keep MPs in line and make sure the Government gets its
:47:15. > :47:28.
:47:28. > :47:36.I am the chief whip - merely a functionary. I keep the troops in
:47:36. > :47:40.line. I make them jump. You cannot get a better description of the job
:47:40. > :47:46.than that one from the House of cards. He is the creation of
:47:46. > :47:52.Michael Dobbs, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Politics is a
:47:52. > :47:58.team game. Every team requires coaching staff. They need to be
:47:58. > :48:04.pretty rigorous - even ruthless - at times. That is what whips are.
:48:04. > :48:10.The problem is that the whips, past and present, are about as open and
:48:10. > :48:15.transparent as the Mafia. I could not possibly comment. Andrew
:48:15. > :48:21.Mitchell has been in the Whips Office twice. First during the
:48:21. > :48:25.Maastricht two years and then under David Cameron. Whipping, like
:48:25. > :48:31.stripping, is best done in private. It is discreet and should be very
:48:31. > :48:37.effective in what it does. Above all, it should go one below the
:48:37. > :48:41.waterline and it should deliver for the Government. It is a very close
:48:41. > :48:51.team. You tell a check everything and no one else anything. That is
:48:51. > :48:52.
:48:52. > :48:57.the rule. -- you tell each other everything. Sometimes it is like
:48:57. > :49:03.these guys, doing the housework, sorting out who gets which office
:49:03. > :49:07.and even helping new MPs find a flat. It does not just involve
:49:07. > :49:11.directing the traffic in Parliamentary Party. It also
:49:11. > :49:16.involves in the eyes and ears of the management. I have been asked
:49:16. > :49:20.who the most difficult MPs were to deal with. I always answered my
:49:20. > :49:25.ministerial colleagues. They always expected miracles from the Whips
:49:25. > :49:28.Office. That was not always possible. Then there are other
:49:28. > :49:35.moments carved into Westminster law, when the Labour whips kept Jim
:49:35. > :49:44.Callaghan in office, 20 had a majority of one or none. -- when he
:49:44. > :49:50.had. There was one moment when a colleague of hours, in the Whips
:49:50. > :49:54.Office, was deputed to secured the vote for a particular amendment of
:49:54. > :49:59.a Scottish member. It was necessary for him to drink an extraordinary
:49:59. > :50:04.quantity of alcohol in an adjacent restaurant and bar. I remember
:50:04. > :50:10.seeing the two of them staggering her arm in arm through the lobby, a
:50:10. > :50:13.glimpse of triumph in the eye of the whip in question. After the
:50:13. > :50:18.vote, I saw him in the corner of the Whips Office passed out through
:50:18. > :50:21.alcohol consumption. It was done in a very good cause. And we are
:50:21. > :50:26.joined now by a whip expert, none other than James Graham, who wrote
:50:26. > :50:30.This House - a play about Labour and Tory whips. Welcome. Of course,
:50:30. > :50:35.Gyles Brandreth, you have been a whip. I have was that I kept a
:50:35. > :50:40.diary, which was not approved of by my colleagues when I published it.
:50:40. > :50:49.I hope it was of assistance when writing the play. There is the code
:50:49. > :50:52.of science and on that in the Whips Office. It is hard to penetrate
:50:53. > :50:58.that. When you did manage to penetrate the layers of the Whips
:50:58. > :51:04.Office, always surprised by what you found? Shocked, surprised and
:51:05. > :51:11.delighted. So many stories from the 1970s when there was a party with
:51:11. > :51:16.not enough of a majority to form a government. Then every vote had to
:51:16. > :51:21.be fought for. You get incredible scenes of whips, charming and
:51:21. > :51:26.bribing and seducing members to go into the lobby. Then the strong
:51:26. > :51:32.arms and the threats. The Labour government of 1974 had to work with
:51:32. > :51:37.their enemies very closely. You had to bargain with all the odds and
:51:37. > :51:47.sods within the Conservative Party. And promise them all sorts of
:51:47. > :51:47.
:51:47. > :52:40.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 52 seconds
:52:40. > :52:50.The point is, you are elected to support the Government of the day.
:52:50. > :52:50.
:52:50. > :53:37.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 52 seconds
:53:37. > :53:47.Ambulances could be brought in full stop you and the opposition could
:53:47. > :54:01.
:54:01. > :54:07.see a person. -- ambulances could . There is a human side to it. I
:54:07. > :54:17.encountered lots of noble stories of people being kind and supportive
:54:17. > :54:18.
:54:18. > :54:28.too ill and sick members. If you cannot make a boat, a member of the
:54:28. > :54:41.
:54:41. > :54:51.opposite party were agreed to step This was the most satisfying
:54:51. > :55:03.
:55:03. > :55:13.experience of my life. It is a very collegiate place - the House of
:55:13. > :55:16.
:55:16. > :55:21.collegiate place - the House of problems. A and John Major's
:55:21. > :55:28.birthday. We had a keeper copy of Who's Who above the safe. Your
:55:28. > :55:31.trusted with trying to get the votes through! No wonder he struggled. It
:55:31. > :55:37.is a lot of middle-aged men and three women doing their best. That
:55:37. > :55:43.is what it is. Now, it was Mark Twain who said that clothes make the
:55:43. > :55:48.man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. Clothes do
:55:48. > :55:52.matter. Just ask William Hague and his baseball cap. Or Gyles and his
:55:52. > :55:56.famous woolly jumpers. It has been interesting to view the wardrobe
:55:56. > :56:00.malfunctions which have recently occupied the political news agenda.
:56:00. > :56:05.First, there was Caroline Lucas in trouble for wearing this political
:56:05. > :56:09.T-shirt in the Commons, and was told to cover up. Strangely, the G8
:56:09. > :56:14.leaders were positively encouraged to dress down and relax in their
:56:14. > :56:18.press conference without ties. David Cameron was leading the charge
:56:18. > :56:22.without even a jacket to protect himself from the Lough Erne
:56:22. > :56:30.elements. It was there to protect our sartorial standards? You will
:56:30. > :56:34.never guess. -- who is there. When they want to get a good suit, they
:56:34. > :56:44.have two come to London, Savile Row, the epicentre of tailoring and suit
:56:44. > :56:46.
:56:46. > :56:50.making in London. London is to the suit as Parma is to Parmesan. And
:56:50. > :56:58.when the big cheeses of the world wants to get themselves properly
:56:58. > :57:02.attired, they come to our great city. That was the big cheese
:57:02. > :57:07.himself, Boris Johnson. Looking like he has made an effort, apart from
:57:07. > :57:12.the here, to smarten up. Do we like our politicians dress up or dress
:57:12. > :57:17.down? All the research shows that what people recall of what they see
:57:17. > :57:22.on television, 83% is a visual image and 17% is what they hear. How you
:57:22. > :57:27.look really makes a difference. If you looked at that line-up, Francois
:57:27. > :57:32.Hollande does not often appear clearly dressed. He did not look
:57:32. > :57:35.right. He does not know where to put his trousers. They were too high up.
:57:35. > :57:39.You can see the blokes in the line-up who were accustomed to
:57:39. > :57:43.appearing in shirt sleeves and those who were not. If you are going to
:57:43. > :57:46.appear in shirt sleeves, you have to maintain a slimmer figure. One of
:57:46. > :57:50.the problems the David Cameron has suffered at Downing Street is he has
:57:50. > :57:56.managed to, despite his excellent exercise regime, to put on a few
:57:57. > :58:06.pounds. So his tell me begins to show. There are are many virtues of
:58:06. > :58:10.wearing a jacket. You're not wearing a tie. I have tried to remain
:58:10. > :58:13.formal. How you appear is everything. This is why American
:58:13. > :58:19.presidents, whenever they approach the steps of an aeroplane, they will
:58:19. > :58:22.always run up. However old, or infirm, to look energetic. Now they
:58:22. > :58:27.have a jacket, and it is slung over the shoulder to show that they have
:58:27. > :58:31.one. I did not know you had such experience. There is time to find
:58:31. > :58:33.the answer to our quiz. The question was what name did Barack Obama used
:58:33. > :58:39.repeatedly to refer to our repeatedly to refer to our
:58:39. > :58:45.repeatedly to refer to our Chancellor? Gyles Brandreth? Gideon?
:58:45. > :58:50.No. That is his name. He kept referring to him as Jeffrey.
:58:50. > :58:54.Unfortunately. That is all for today. Thank you to our guests. The