20/06/2013 Daily Politics

Secretary has had a busy morning, banging the drum for genetically

modified crops. On Paterson things we should take a new look and GM

food, which he thinks will free up space for biodiversity, nature and

wilderness. Rollup, up, anyone fancy a punt on some bank shares? We will

look at the Chancellor's plans for Lloyds and RBS.

Prepare to be shocked. We have been dealt the in -- delving into the

world of whips. Whipping, like stripping, is best to be done in

private. We will be asking, does it matter what a politician wears?

London, here is to the suit. London is to the suit as Parma is to

Parmesan cheese. After those profound words from the

me of London, all that in the next hour. With us for the programme is

writer, broadcaster and former Tory MP, Gyles Brandreth. Welcome to the

programme. It is good to be with you. I hope you are going to be

cheering me up. Have you been following the Apprentice? I have

not. You have missed the treat. It is not worth watching now because my

love child, who calls themselves Jason, I'm not sure if he is my love

child but he is an openly like me, he has been booted off the

Apprentice and I am feeling low about this. Well, we will share in

your private grief but until then, you will have to do the programme.

am ready. I am having GM the here. First of all, let's talk about the

care quality commission. A report published yesterday found that the

CQC failed to spot problems in the maternity unit at Furness General

Hospital three years ago were several babies and mothers had died.

It is alleged that the findings of an internal review were later

suppressed. The CQC is now reconsidering a decision not to

publish the names of former senior managers accused of covering up

feelings in the organisation. Do you think we should know who they are? I

think we should. The world needs to be accountable and this is serious

stuff. What about prosecutions? People are saying that look, in the

private world, if this sort of feeling had occurred, the should be

private prosecutions. People are put into care and they expect to be

looked after properly. Families should feel that this is reliable

and if something goes wrong in the name of the state, and public money

is involved, public accountability has to be part of the story. And

people will gradually wake up. Sometimes these examples have to be

made so that down the line people learn the lesson. It is interesting

that there is a clamour for some sort of criminal action. But the new

Chief Executive is still saying that the care quality commission should

stay and be reformed. Should it be scrapped? I don't know. I first

learned about this thing a long time ago with the Metropolitan Police

when my father was a friend of Sir Robert Mark, who cleaned up the

Metropolitan Police. Lots of people were saying, we can manage it

internally, you must not ruin morale by naming and shaming. And actually,

he said no, we have to go to the root of this and people have to

leave. We have two name people and deal with this root and branch.

There is something very wrong here and it has to be dealt with once and

for all. People have to know that what they do in the fullness of

time, they must be ready to be accountable for. They are paid and

they must do the job properly or pay the price. It is time for our daily

quiz. The question for today, what name did Barack Obama use repeatedly

to refer to our beloved the Gyles, despite his private grief,

will attempt to give us the correct answer. Not yet. Docking of the

Chancellor, last night he delivered his annual speech at the Mansion

house in the city of London. To the normal crowd of bankers and city

grandees. -- talking of the Chancellor. He used it as a chance

to set out his vision of what we should do with the financial system.

The government would like to sell its stakes in the banks. Currently,

it owes that -- it owns 39% of Lloyds and 81% of RBS as a result of

the �65 billion bailout. George Osborne said that the Treasury is

actively considering how to sell its holdings. That could start within a

matter of months by selling some 20 matter of months by selling some 20

-- selling some to investors. What to do with RBS is trickier. Selling

now would mean crystallising a multi-billion pound loss for the

taxpayer. One option is to split it up into good bank and bad bank. That

would mean separating the loans which have suffered big losses and

keeping them in state hands. The advantage would be that the

remainder would be more attractive and easier to sell. But the bad bits

would stay on the Treasury books for years. Last night, the Chancellor

suggested he was in no great rush. do not want a quick sale of RBS

shares. I want the right sale, the right sale for the British people. I

right sale for the British people. I will only sell our state -- our

stake in RBS when we feel the bank is able to support our economy and

when we get good value for the taxpayer. In our judgement, when it

comes to RBS, that moment is some way off. We're joined by the Shadow

chair cherie Minister, Chris Leslie. -- Treasury Minister. Do you welcome

the announcement? He wants to take his time? He has backed down from

his plan. Last year, there was this whole thing about share giveaways.

He told the chairman of RBS that he was aiming for a fire sale by 2014.

That was mentioned to journalists on the last week. But over the weekend

because of the mishandling of the Chief Executive, Stephen Hester,

pushed out to prompted this fire sale, that attracted a lot of

criticism. He has had to back down. Is that the reason, as you claim,

that Stephen Hester was pushed out? Is it not more to do with the

splitting of the bank into a good bank and a bad bank. We know that

Stephen Hester was not in favour of that. The key thing is that George

Osborne was always rushing towards the fire sale. He has had to think

again, not least because of the Parliamentary commission, wisely,

saying that they had to look at all the options, retail investment

banks, regional banking networks, there are a lot of issues to look at

with RBS. I think the Chancellor could not get away with his original

plan to have a pre-election fire sale. But you have listened to the

-- but he has listened to the recommendations and acted upon them?

We are all were saying that the taxpayer has to come first as he

could not get away with the plan. The chaos now is that he has got rid

of the Chief Executive and there is no replacement. What is going on,

both with the Treasury and this plan, never mind the stability he

was trying to put in place? We are in a more chaotic position today

because he is chopping and changing. Gels Brandreth, did you like the

idea of selling off the shares? -- Gyles Brandreth. The Lib Dems

thought it would be a vote winner. Yes. Well, I'm quite glad.

Ultimately, the taxpayer wants our money back. What is going to secure

that realistically is what we have to go for. I am suspicious of

everyone involved here, that no one knows quite as much as they think

they do. Slowly, slowly, is the way forward. Caution, rather than

rushing into it. It matters a lot to the economy. RBS is a big

institution. Of course, we have two focus on kick-starting the economy.

Let's look at what is going to bring RBS back to health. Do you like the

idea of a good bank and a bad bank? I think it could have its merits.

But the key is that we do not leak to what we think -- leap to what we

think intuitively will be the best thing. It is dull and boring but

evidence -based policy making. The Parliamentary commission does an

enquiry, not just on the good bank, bad bank, but what about helping the

parts of the country that are struggling to get access to finance?

Small firms, distance from banks. you had a good bank, it might be

less dynamic but that might improve lending. That could be the case. But

what was wrong was George Osborne been so tempered to get rid of the

Chief Executive, headstrong rush towards a fire sale. He bungled that

plan and now he has to go back to the drawing board. Well, at least he

has the sense to listen to the Parliamentary commission. It is a

dangerous phrase, good bank, bad bank. We're talking about high and

low risk. It is an uncertain world and there is risk involved in

everything. The bad bank idea is to put toxic things together. To group

them together in order to spend your time water the flower that is

actually going to help regenerate the economy by making the money

available. We meet bankers all the time now who say it is OK, we are

now lending again, but we meet business people who say that they

are not. That is the dilemma. is one of the recommendations, on

the basis of what you have said, they should be expect in banks to

have even higher levels of capital in order to prove that they are in

good shape. -- they should be expecting. The Parliamentary

commission were interesting in their 560 page report. You have read every

word(!) For Cielo -- for steel -- there are ways of making sure that

capital is not sitting idly, but it is productively lent out. We have

had Project Merlin, where they tried to persuade the banks to do the

right thing. There was funding for lending. We are through to version

four of the Chancellor's attempts get lending going. Admittedly, with

hindsight, was this the wrong plan? It was necessary to make sure that

cash machines kept running. Otherwise, Gyles would not have been

able to go to the cash machine. It was a difficult decision. But it is

only the economy getting that moving again and helping to get confidence

going that will make bank shares more valuable and kick-start

benefits. You happy for whites shares to be sold off? We need to

get our my back. -- Lloyds shares. We need to get the money back. The

co-op sale of those branches fell through and we need a better plan to

get competition into the High Street. That is what the Treasury

has to focus upon. Gerald, I mean Kevin, I mean George Osborne was not

the only one speaking at the Mansion house last night. Mervyn King gave

his 10th and final speech to the city audience before he steps down

as the Governor of the bank of in blood. The central banker, set to

become a peer, has run the organisation since 2003 and his time

in office has been defined by the financial crash. He is planning an

extended holiday, a great gap year. Before he goes, here are some of his

more memorable moments. -- gery gap year. For the time being at least,

UK economy is entering a recession. # A little bit of Mardi Gras in my

life. A little bit of Erica by my side.

The uncertainty faced by the committee, this assessment of the

uncertainties, we cannot be unsure which of the big risks to the

outlook will materialise. # A little bit of you makes me your man.

89 press conferences, 82 under the banner of the inflation report, I

have had my say. Now it is over to the next generation to have heirs.

# Mambo Number five. # Nobody was bullying in the studio. That was

Mervyn King and Mambo Number five, one of his Desert Island discs. Was

the effective? Missed his inflation target. Yes, but he had a difficult

job while he was in office. The key thing for his legacy, the bank of

England were trying to stimulant the economy, but at the same time,

particularly over the last three years, George Osborne was pulling in

the opposite direction. Of course, we had one brand of government --

branch of government doing one thing and the other doing another. That is

the unfortunate nature of the wiki has had to operate with a Chancellor

who has done anything he can to pull confidence away. Alistair Darling,

when he was Chancellor, in his book there were hints that he found

Mervyn King intransigence. There is not a lot of history. --

intransigence. Do you recall him? Neatly deflected! I recall a

priceless exchange between him and the Queen, just after the last last

crash. The Queen said, remind me how many people work there? He said

1413. The Queen said, 1413 and none of them saw this coming? The truth

is... She raises a good point.She did. And he has kept the thing

moving. Vaguely in the right direction. They sometimes do things

they do not know of. Nobody knows what is involved in quantitative

easing. What it involves, what is achieved. It has been an amazing

thing, huge element of this policy and I have not found anyone who has

You cannot just leave it to the Bank of England to sort out the

economy. The new chief executive is running the Bank of England. The

daughter of Douglas Hogg, our former minister of agriculture and

the granddaughter of Lord Hailsham. A woman at the helm will be better.

It is a very good idea to have women at the helm. Thank you.

Politicians love to talk about the importance of education, education,

education. Just last week we had Labour's offering on the direction

of schools as well as the government's appraisal of what

GCSE's should look like in the future. This morning it was the

turn of Michael Wilshaw. He has already discussed comprehensives

failing bright pupils and now he's worried about white working class

children falling behind. Here he is in an Ofsted advertisement talking

about what he calls the unseen children. This is a very nostalgic

experience for me. I am standing in St Michael's School in Bermondsey

in South East London, where I started teaching 46 years ago. I

taught the sons and daughters of mainly dockers. It laid the

foundation of what I did thereafter. There is absolutely nothing

predictable or predestined about poverty leading to failure. I have

always believed that. I have always believed that poor children can do

well. That is why I came to Hackney. There was pessimism in the area. It

cannot be done. You are talking about inner-city children and

deprivation. Our guest is here. Welcome to the programme. The

schools but you say are failing poor children have, in some cases,

been labelled as outstanding. said in the report were published

today that the focus is shifting. Failure often resided in the inner

city, in places like Hackney. What we have seen over the last five, 10

years, there is better performance in London. Even poorer children in

Birmingham, Manchester and city areas. Where problems now reside

are in areas where the spotlight has not shone. That is why we call

this report unseen children. In places we would assume they are

doing OK in rural areas, coastal areas, county areas where the

headlines are very glint. Actually, when you dig below the surface, it

is the poorest children in those schools that are doing the worst of

all. we mentioned one example, West Berkshire. When you look at the

performance of poor kids, they're doing really badly. That is very

difficult to delve into. While they are being given an outstanding

status if they are failing their poorest children catastrophically?

We need to look at this again. They should not be given an outstanding

grading, especially now they're getting additional funding through

the pupil premium. We can point the two schools where they're using it

really well - where there are high numbers of free school milk pupils

was up here, they are often ignored. That is why we have called it an

unseen problem. Why are those schools failing the poorest - the

least well-off? You also said it was white, working-class children.

Why is that if the vast majority of those children are doing so well?

It is about limited expectations at home and predominating in schools

in these areas where expectations are far too low. What we suggested

in this report, to rid the lift things quickly, we need the best

leaders of our schools up and down the country to go into these areas

under what is called a national leader of education scheme. We need

really good teachers. We suggested a tranche of teachers every year,

who prove themselves and the classroom and had done really well

are given a Centro contract by government. They become national

service teachers. They lift standards and disseminate good

practice and progress after a period of time to leadership

positions. You are going to take really good teachers out of other

schools. Parents in those schools were not be pleased to know you're

going to take them and put them somewhere else. All my experience

is where you have a teaching School Alliance. A lot of that teaching

goes on in schools. A lot of teachers go into those schools and

carry on their good work. There will always be a tranche were

teachers who want to go elsewhere. We are saying, give them a

government contract and son and two areas where they need teaching.

you surprised Ind terms of highlighting poor working-class

school children in these areas? problem areas commit you go to

schools where they are able because of the size and resources to give

breakfast clubs, so kids start with a good meal. They are after-school

clubs, activities. Their quality life is at school and the problem

is the home life. In more rural places, there is not that same

facility. It is not so surprising to me that action cannot be taken

so easily in rural communities. Isn't the problem also lack of

expectation? Teachers cannot be social workers. They cannot bring

up children like that. You are asking them to replace the failings

and shortcomings. I disagree. I ran the school where we knew youngsters

would come to school with a deficit that you and I would know about. We

became surrogate parents will those youngsters. We ran extension

classes and a rich and programmes. Retract their performances to

ensure we succeeded. The best teachers knew what to do. The other

important thing is that it worked in London because of something

called London challenge. It is led by head teachers. Good head

teachers and outstanding head teachers who gave tough messages to

underperforming schools. We are suggesting they support something

similar. Some regional challenges in places like Hastings, Norfolk

and North East Lincolnshire, who can do things we are suggesting -

co-ordinated well and get local performance to improve. I want this

to work. Good man. How long are you going to give your national service

for teachers? How long to raise the standards? It is an issue for

government. I suspect a few years. Show what can be done. Remain there

if you can. Become a leader of the schools in those communities and

showed good practice. That is what happened in London. State schools

in London are outstripping the national average partner because of

the high levels of immigrant children with very high

expectations who are driven to exceed. Absolutely. We need to make

sure our poor, white, British children do as well. We should

never give up. I was a London teacher. People were saying, what

could you do in London? London is a basket case. Look at it now! Thank

you. They used to call it franken- food. Genetically modified crops

have long been the bete noir of the tabloids - guaranteed to instil

fear over the breakfast table. Now the Environment Secretary wants us

to learn to love GM. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Have I missed you

campaign to bring GM foods to the UK? Where was your big

consultation? Good morning. What I'm trying to do is to get people

to realise this is not any strange new spooky innovation led by 20

professors with spiky hair and flapping Coates. This is well

established in many countries. There are 17 million farmers who

cultivate about 170 million hectares across 28 countries. That

This technology is now established agricultural production. Those

products are going into the food chain. They could no longer

guarantee there when non GM foods. My point today is to bring

attention to the fact that this technology is now well established

in many major agricultural countries. That we are importing

significant amounts for animal feed and the longer that we have

political decisions overriding the regulatory process at European

level, time and again products are approved by scientists and

overruled at political level. What I am asking is that everyone reads

my speech in some depth and sees that this is a well-established

technology. Not the only one. If we do not begin to use this technology,

Europe will slip further behind. What is also very important, it

will not just affect our farmers and food producers, it will have to

really damaging impact on our environment. There are

environmental gains on using GM, less spraying, less compaction of

soil. If I can just finish - another very important point. I am

at this World leading research centre for agree sides committed we

do not allow more progress on this one technology, research will go to

other countries. That is not the only shot in the locker. That is an

important innovation, along with other innovations. As the world

population grows, we should remember there are 1 billion people

hungry today, we have to embrace all the new technologies. I have to

come in with a question. Can I just put to you, the public do not like

it? There is no public clamour for it. They are suspicious of it. They

do not like the idea of jeans been taken from other organisms and

being injected into other plants. They think it is strange and

nothing has dissuaded them. However convincing and powerful you make it

across your point, at the moment, the public is not with you. I think

I would like to ask what what evidence is all that. I have a

survey. Can I just say? A survey here says 21% of the population

supports the technology. All right, 35% opposed but that leaves a lot

of people undecided. Friends of the Earth has described your support

for GM crops as flogging a dead horse. I think they are ignoring

the facts that today very large numbers of UK citizens will make a

choice and they will go into a supermarket and they will buy a

product where they know perfectly well from the announcement of the

main supermarket that the animal from which the meat product was to

ride, or the egg was derived, was fed on GM. There was no major

public reaction at Woolworth. I think your opinion is rather dated.

-- atoll. There was real concern a few days ago. -- a few years ago.

The whole point of today is to get a raft of facts to show this is

established. It is an accepted part of practice. Does it work? Can you

produce drowned resistant GM crops? It may be there has not been a

public reaction. Maybe it has seeped into the food chain. Do they

actually work? If you had time to plough through my speech, you would

minister in Berlin. Brazil is about The next generation is what is

really interesting. You mentioned saline resistant. That could bring

in marginal land, which is of enormous importance. My last

thought, 1 billion people got up this morning hungry and they will

go to bed really hungry. We owe it to them to use wonderful research

centres to use at innovation and developed technologies to help to

agreement about adopting GM foods? The coalition agreement is very

clear. The agreement was that there will be a government led discussion

which will highlight the potential benefits of GM foods, and also the

potential risks, and that no decisions will be made before we

have had that debate with the public. What we have had today from

Owen Paterson in his speech is cheerleading on behalf of the GM

industry. You say he is cheerleading on behalf of the industry but he

says that we could help the starving people across the world. It is an

emotional argument. Indeed. The Lib Dems are not in principle opposed to

the potential of looking at GM crops. What we need is the evidence.

In terms of the health opportunities and risks and, crucially, what is

not covered very much, the environmental risks and the economic

risks. I sit on the House of Lords agricultural committee. We were

promised a review from Owen Paterson's department about the

economic and environmental effects of GM crops. That was promised but

it had not arrived in March. Why are we not getting the facts from the

Department before we make the decisions about the use of these

crops? There have been hundreds of scientific surveys carried out and

there is a whole pile of evidence listening to people who are involved

in the GM industry, who say that it is safe. They say it is safe and it

is used across Canada, America, Brazil, and it is already in the

food chain. What are we frightened off? There is a lot of evidence that

we have not got definitive answers on the environmental impacts. In

China, Argentina, Brazil, they are using more synthetic chemicals to

control pests, despite the claims from the GM industry that the use of

these crops would bring down the use of insecticides. Is it spooky?

not think so. It is exciting, new Dom and I tend to agree with the

last person I heard. Owen Paterson was very impressive but when this

debate began my thought, what will I decide? When I discovered that the

Duke of Edinburgh was in favour of GM crops I thought, well, if he is

in favour, I will be too. The truth is, there is no evidence of it

having any damaging affect on health. There is no evidence of that

and the rest of it seems to be moving, scientifically, into

exciting new directions. Debate has been going on for several years and

we need action from government. He made a convincing adamant. It is

taking the debate further. We have had GM crops for 20 years and a lot

of the claims we had initially have still not been substantiated. You

say that you can then be is in favour full stop I am sure you might

get a different answer from the Prince of Wales. We have a lot of

organic farmers in the UK and in the states, that has -- there have been

thousands of lawsuits from organic farmers who cannot undertake their

business because of cross contamination. We have to take that

seriously. This is my view on most things. Whatever the argument, I set

the Prince of Wales in front of me, who is wonderful, and I follow

whatever the Duke of Edinburgh says, regardless of the issue. It

does save time in the long run. You do not need to read the report.

little simplistic, if you don't mind me saying. Is that how you view the

Duke of Edinburgh? Your argument. You're putting words into my mouth!

Vetiver joining us. And welcome to our viewers in Scotland who have

been watching first ministers questions. Last month, a strange

form of Ingo took place in the House of Commons. It looked like this.

asked the assistant to drop in numbers. As each number is strong, I

will read out the place in the ballot list and the corresponding

name of the member in the ballot rocks. -- ballot box.Number 20 will

be? 214.Doctor Matthew offer. And number 19 will be? 212.I think we

have to shake them up! Mr Michael Meacher. As we say in the North

West, shake them up. And we now want number 18. 485.Mr William Cash.

It is like winning the lottery. That was the Deputy Speaker, Lindsay

Hoyle, and two of those lucky winners are in our studio now.

Caroline Spelman, and William Cash. We only ever hear you being called

Bill Cash. I am Bill, 100%. I have a son called William so I call myself

William. -- old Bill. What is the bill about? It is about compensation

for blight. If there is an infrastructure built -- if there is

infrastructure near where you are, it is difficult to find

compensation. I am trying to improve compensation for blight. What a

durable or more you lobbied to put it forward? This is my bill. High

Speed two is going through my constituency. I am at the Midlands

motorway crosswords so a lot happens at my constituency. -- crossroads.

What is the chances of it happening? I think it is quite good because if

you listened to PMQs yesterday, there was a clue. Asked about a

property bonds, the Prime Minister was quite warm about that. He did

not reject it. What is your bill about? To enhance the role of women

in relation to the third World and developing countries. I have done a

lot of work in Africa and in India, and I have worked with the women who

raised the money for sewage and sanitation in Mumbai and in Delhi. I

was out there with the Guardian. It has been an interest of mine and I

believe that women must be given much, much bigger roles in relation

to the government and public services, education, health and

water sanitation throughout the world. And it was the ideal

opportunity, if the legislation is thematically worked into projects

around the world, to ensure that that priority enables things to be

done. Caroline Wozniacki former Shadow Minister for their element

aid and she understands this. We agree in this strongly. Both

worthwhile cases. You have made the argument forcefully. The problem

with Private Members' Bill is that they often fall at the first hurdle

or the next hurdle. You must be worried. It does not necessarily

mean you do not get a change in the law. I have been lucky enough to be

on the ballot for times. Even though my members Bill might have fallen,

the government has been prompted by the Private Members' Bill to make a

change in the law. In my case, on adoption and garden grabbing.

the problems is being talked out. can give you an example of that. You

will remember Cyril Townsend, the Member for Bexleyheath. I helped him

with a bill to stop child photography, the abuse of children,

paedophilia. In 1977 it was amazingly controversial. Don't ask

me why. Actually, the government give it time and Jim Callaghan told

me when I saw him in the House after, just before he retired, I

asked him how he got it through and he said, my wife said I would not

speak to -- she would not speak to me for six months if I did not put

it on the statute books! But there is another bill that you,

particularly, will also want to see made law. Would you drop yours in

favour of the EU bill going through? I do not have to make that choice

because it has been made for me. I am a supporter of the Referendum

Bill. I brought in several Referendum Bill is and as far as I'm

concerned, that campaign the Gyles knows of from the whips office, is

now coming about. That is something I'm very pleased about. If you get

the support of the government, there is momentum. And you really work

with all sides. You speak to all the parties and then you go to the

relevant Cabinet minister and take him with you. The government will

always find time. Actually, they like things that are going to

improve the world in which we live. And my marriage act in 1994 enables

civil weddings to take place in venues others -- other than registry

officers. -- registry offices. It came about because somebody in my

constituency on the castle and wanted to hold weddings there. She

thought it was unfair that Chester Cathedral could have a wedding but

her castle could not. It was a constituent who made possible. The

Prime Minister got behind it and the whole thing swept through. People

say that the marriage act and the Northern Ireland peace process I the

only two good things to come out of John Major's time in office.

they could not be more different! There are other famous members bills

that have made it. Capital punishment. And abortion. There have

been a number of other ones. that was David steel's.

opportunities that this gives you, with all the things that Gyles has

said, at the whips office, mine is an all-party bill, and Malcolm Bruce

is behind it. Michael James. There is a whole wide range of left, right

and centre. Thank you both very much. They were dumped an exciting

opportunity by the Prime Minister. And the coalition promised 200 of

them nationwide. But it looks like the open primary has fallen out of

favour. It seems they deliver MPs who are not playing ball. There is

one of those MPs being selected. Apologies for the sound problems.

am reading out the names in alphabetical order. Nick by. 3088.

Sarah Randall Johnson, 5495. And Sarah Wollaston, 7914. Sarah

Wollaston is our successful candidate. And she is here. Well

done. Why do you think the Prime Minister is backing away from these

primaries? I am disappointed because I think they have great potential,

particularly in safe seats which never change hands, to let people

decide what kind of Conservative or Labour MP they would like

representing them. Sometimes for decades to come. You accept that

they have been ditched? I will keep up the pressure because I do not

think that they should have been ditched. They need to be cheaper,

that is the point. How expensive was your selection? I am told it was

around �40,000 goes every voter in the constituency, regardless of

political affiliation, got a paper. A lot of money if you do that 200

times. We cannot afford it but we could pilot electronic footing.

People interact with politics all the time. I get 1000 e-mails a week

some weeks. People want to interact online. Just as people have got used

to the idea that you might vote with the red button, you can see huge

interactions with people if they have a secure code that they can use

when they get the ballot paper. Then they could vote online and that

would get rid of all the return postage issues. Do you think open

primary produce awkward, outspoken MPs? I think there is a difference

between being awkward and actually trying to approach things in a

different way. I applied to be an MP without having ever been to a

political meeting in my life. You are not a career politician.

Actually, I think the point is that all of us can do politics. I think

we see too many politicians who have come through a set route where they

have been researchers, and I am not knocking them because we need people

who have done this, but we also need to open up politics to more people

who come from a variety of backgrounds and, crucially, more

women. Can everyone do politics, Gyles? Everyone can do life and one

of the problems with politics is it is about people doing politics.

there too many of those? It is like a village talking to itself and the

idea of the primary is that anybody can come along, so you can get a

retired teacher or fire worker, or a mother or a father, every type of

person can come along. The difficulty for party politicians is

you will then get Mavericks, single issue people, people who are

brilliant on the night but turn out to be flaky. One of the phrases one

uses endlessly in Parliament, is, is she sounds? Is the current system is

so spectacularly successful? Look at what we have at the moment. We need

to have people who come through and understand how it works but the

public are frustrated. We have lots of politicians who end up in jail.

We need to accept that at the moment Parliament does not look and sound

like wider Britain. What do you think of Number Ten? I have already

made some comments about how I think that if you come from... Nobody has

any problem with where the Prime Minister goes to school. None at

all. But what they expect is to see a wide variety in the team around

him. I went to a state comprehensive, one State conference

of anti-grammar, I should correct that, but it would be unusual that

there were people from my former school in Number Ten. That is the

point. It does not matter where you come from, it is about having

diversity. Is there a problem with democracy? I am excited that Prince

William will be king and he went to Eton and the Archbishop of

Canterbury went to Eton and the Prime Minister. The only thing that

is wrong with the economy is that George Osborne did not go to Eton.

Maybe we need more of these people. Boris Johnson went to Eton. They do

not take girls, this is the problem. Sarah Woolaston, you can answer

this. It kind of excludes women. I would like to see more diversity. It

is a pipeline issue. There are not enough women applying to go into

politics and often that is because they do not think they will be

accepted. You are completely right and the whole thing needs to be

reinvented. The problem with the primaries is that in America, they

can test the candidates to destruction. The ones that we have

had in the UK have not quite worked fully because it is a short process

and a few oddballs have been thrown up all stop it has not tested people

to destruction. We're going to have Now to the next in our series about

the behind-the scenes figures who keep the Westminster village

running. We've heard from the paparazzi, the ministerial drivers

and the shadowy special advisors, but now we can reveal the most

secretive of them all: the whips. They are the supremely discrete

figures who keep MPs in line and make sure the Government gets its

I am the chief whip - merely a functionary. I keep the troops in

line. I make them jump. You cannot get a better description of the job

than that one from the House of cards. He is the creation of

Michael Dobbs, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Politics is a

team game. Every team requires coaching staff. They need to be

pretty rigorous - even ruthless - at times. That is what whips are.

The problem is that the whips, past and present, are about as open and

transparent as the Mafia. I could not possibly comment. Andrew

Mitchell has been in the Whips Office twice. First during the

Maastricht two years and then under David Cameron. Whipping, like

stripping, is best done in private. It is discreet and should be very

effective in what it does. Above all, it should go one below the

waterline and it should deliver for the Government. It is a very close

team. You tell a check everything and no one else anything. That is

the rule. -- you tell each other everything. Sometimes it is like

these guys, doing the housework, sorting out who gets which office

and even helping new MPs find a flat. It does not just involve

directing the traffic in Parliamentary Party. It also

involves in the eyes and ears of the management. I have been asked

who the most difficult MPs were to deal with. I always answered my

ministerial colleagues. They always expected miracles from the Whips

Office. That was not always possible. Then there are other

moments carved into Westminster law, when the Labour whips kept Jim

Callaghan in office, 20 had a majority of one or none. -- when he

had. There was one moment when a colleague of hours, in the Whips

Office, was deputed to secured the vote for a particular amendment of

a Scottish member. It was necessary for him to drink an extraordinary

quantity of alcohol in an adjacent restaurant and bar. I remember

seeing the two of them staggering her arm in arm through the lobby, a

glimpse of triumph in the eye of the whip in question. After the

vote, I saw him in the corner of the Whips Office passed out through

alcohol consumption. It was done in a very good cause. And we are

joined now by a whip expert, none other than James Graham, who wrote

This House - a play about Labour and Tory whips. Welcome. Of course,

Gyles Brandreth, you have been a whip. I have was that I kept a

diary, which was not approved of by my colleagues when I published it.

I hope it was of assistance when writing the play. There is the code

of science and on that in the Whips Office. It is hard to penetrate

that. When you did manage to penetrate the layers of the Whips

Office, always surprised by what you found? Shocked, surprised and

delighted. So many stories from the 1970s when there was a party with

not enough of a majority to form a government. Then every vote had to

be fought for. You get incredible scenes of whips, charming and

bribing and seducing members to go into the lobby. Then the strong

arms and the threats. The Labour government of 1974 had to work with

their enemies very closely. You had to bargain with all the odds and

sods within the Conservative Party. And promise them all sorts of

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 52 seconds

The point is, you are elected to support the Government of the day.

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 52 seconds

Ambulances could be brought in full stop you and the opposition could

see a person. -- ambulances could . There is a human side to it. I

encountered lots of noble stories of people being kind and supportive

too ill and sick members. If you cannot make a boat, a member of the

opposite party were agreed to step This was the most satisfying

experience of my life. It is a very collegiate place - the House of

collegiate place - the House of problems. A and John Major's

birthday. We had a keeper copy of Who's Who above the safe. Your

trusted with trying to get the votes through! No wonder he struggled. It

is a lot of middle-aged men and three women doing their best. That

is what it is. Now, it was Mark Twain who said that clothes make the

man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. Clothes do

matter. Just ask William Hague and his baseball cap. Or Gyles and his

famous woolly jumpers. It has been interesting to view the wardrobe

malfunctions which have recently occupied the political news agenda.

First, there was Caroline Lucas in trouble for wearing this political

T-shirt in the Commons, and was told to cover up. Strangely, the G8

leaders were positively encouraged to dress down and relax in their

press conference without ties. David Cameron was leading the charge

without even a jacket to protect himself from the Lough Erne

elements. It was there to protect our sartorial standards? You will

never guess. -- who is there. When they want to get a good suit, they

have two come to London, Savile Row, the epicentre of tailoring and suit

making in London. London is to the suit as Parma is to Parmesan. And

when the big cheeses of the world wants to get themselves properly

attired, they come to our great city. That was the big cheese

himself, Boris Johnson. Looking like he has made an effort, apart from

the here, to smarten up. Do we like our politicians dress up or dress

down? All the research shows that what people recall of what they see

on television, 83% is a visual image and 17% is what they hear. How you

look really makes a difference. If you looked at that line-up, Francois

Hollande does not often appear clearly dressed. He did not look

right. He does not know where to put his trousers. They were too high up.

You can see the blokes in the line-up who were accustomed to

appearing in shirt sleeves and those who were not. If you are going to

appear in shirt sleeves, you have to maintain a slimmer figure. One of

the problems the David Cameron has suffered at Downing Street is he has

managed to, despite his excellent exercise regime, to put on a few

pounds. So his tell me begins to show. There are are many virtues of

wearing a jacket. You're not wearing a tie. I have tried to remain

formal. How you appear is everything. This is why American

presidents, whenever they approach the steps of an aeroplane, they will

always run up. However old, or infirm, to look energetic. Now they

have a jacket, and it is slung over the shoulder to show that they have

one. I did not know you had such experience. There is time to find

the answer to our quiz. The question was what name did Barack Obama used

repeatedly to refer to our repeatedly to refer to our

repeatedly to refer to our Chancellor? Gyles Brandreth? Gideon?

No. That is his name. He kept referring to him as Jeffrey.

Unfortunately. That is all for today. Thank you to our guests. The