:00:40. > :00:44.Daily Politics where we can bring you news of a huge political gamble.
:00:44. > :00:47.The Labour leader Ed Miliband is the one who has rolled the dice and
:00:47. > :00:49.crossed his fingers. He wants fundamental reforms to his party's
:00:50. > :00:55.relations with the trade unions, which could cost them a fortune.
:00:55. > :00:59.We'll bring you all the details. Could we see slums like these back
:00:59. > :01:03.in Britain? We'll meet the MP who says we need new laws to stop
:01:03. > :01:07.landlords exploiting their tenants. When does information become
:01:07. > :01:12.propaganda? We'll take a look at how governments try and influence how we
:01:12. > :01:15.think. And we'll take a look at Margaret
:01:15. > :01:17.Thatcher's influence on the modern Tory party, as seen by a man who
:01:17. > :01:27.occasionally got a bit closer than he realised!
:01:27. > :01:28.
:01:28. > :01:33.It's here. This is the microphone. All that in the next hour.
:01:33. > :01:35.And with us for the whole programme today is the man you saw in that
:01:35. > :01:42.famous clip in Paris there, the BBC's former chief political
:01:42. > :01:47.correspondent John Sergeant. Welcome to the programme. You were
:01:47. > :01:51.absorbed in the Westminster village for 20 years, how has it changed?
:01:51. > :01:56.think many of the old troops have gone, many people thought they knew
:01:56. > :02:03.what they were doing. In recent times, people have realised how
:02:03. > :02:13.little the parties can do about foreign affairs and so on. When I
:02:13. > :02:37.
:02:37. > :02:42.was here, particularly the Thatcher period, politicians knew I could
:02:42. > :02:47.argue maybe politicians never did have the power they said they had,
:02:47. > :02:52.but now it is more transparent. It is more transparent.
:02:52. > :02:57.Because of the expenses scandal, people do not think, you are an MP
:02:57. > :03:03.and important. People think you are on the fiddle. That is an
:03:03. > :03:08.extraordinary weight to carry around if you are like most politicians
:03:08. > :03:12.decent, concerned, trying to make a difference. That is a reputation
:03:12. > :03:17.which is difficult to shake, from people who are confused about
:03:17. > :03:23.politics because so many issues are highly technical.
:03:23. > :03:30.Also, less ideological. Is that a good thing? There is quite a lot of
:03:30. > :03:33.consensus around some of the key issues in a way there wasn't in the
:03:33. > :03:38.1970s. You could certainly argue it is good
:03:38. > :03:44.for the country. The idea that politics is exciting, that is good
:03:44. > :03:49.for political correspondents, but it is good where people think it is not
:03:49. > :03:54.their concern and they have to get on with their business. When
:03:54. > :03:59.politics is really exciting, what is usually happening, it is in the
:03:59. > :04:05.middle of a war. Do you miss it? Only when I hear brilliant
:04:05. > :04:09.colleagues being too clever. would they be? There are times when
:04:09. > :04:16.I think some of my lovely, talented successors could say, we are not
:04:16. > :04:21.sure. Add in it they don't know. Or to point out what the problems are
:04:21. > :04:25.of knowing. Not so much knowing the problems, but how you cannot do
:04:26. > :04:35.this, you don't know that. I often felt that was the key to the
:04:36. > :04:40.
:04:40. > :04:44.audience. So, if at various points my brave, wonderful, marvellous
:04:44. > :04:47.successors could admit they don't know, I think that would help the
:04:47. > :04:50.audience. A bit more human, maybe. Right now, the Labour leader Ed
:04:50. > :04:53.Miliband is delivering a speech which sets out his vision for a
:04:53. > :04:55.reformed relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions.
:04:56. > :04:59.The move follows the allegations that the Unite union had improperly
:04:59. > :05:01.attempted to fix the outcome of the selection of the Labour candidate in
:05:01. > :05:07.Falkirk, and suggestions that their broader influence had become too
:05:07. > :05:10.great. There are 15 trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party.
:05:10. > :05:15.Between them, they have three million members, more than half of
:05:15. > :05:18.the total number of trade unionists in the country. Under the current
:05:18. > :05:21.rules, members of affiliated unions pay a political levy as part of
:05:22. > :05:25.their union subs, some of which is passed on to the Labour Party. If
:05:25. > :05:28.individuals don't want to pay the levy, they can choose to opt out,
:05:28. > :05:34.but few people do. Under the new rules being proposed by Ed Miliband,
:05:34. > :05:37.union members would opt in to supporting Labour. Or, as he puts it
:05:37. > :05:44.in his speech, "They would actively choose to be individually affiliated
:05:44. > :05:46.members of the Labour Party". That could mean a change in the way that
:05:46. > :05:53.union votes are treated in leadership elections, and at party
:05:53. > :05:58.conferences. One union leader, Billy Hayes, has described the proposed
:05:58. > :06:01.reforms as an "attack on the trade union movement". Former Labour MP
:06:01. > :06:11.George Galloway tweeted that Ed Miliband had cut the unions adrift,
:06:11. > :06:19.
:06:19. > :06:25.100 years ago, the trade unions found the Labour Party and, decade
:06:25. > :06:30.by decade, from Neil Kinnock to John Smith to Tony Blair, we have been
:06:30. > :06:35.changing that relationship. We must do so again in this generation. To
:06:35. > :06:41.build a new politics, to do more, not less, to make individual trade
:06:41. > :06:46.union members are part of our party. 3 million shop workers,
:06:46. > :06:51.nurses, engineers, construction workers, people in the public and
:06:51. > :06:58.private sector, they should be the biggest asset that any political
:06:59. > :07:02.party in Britain has. But, today, they are not. The problem is that
:07:02. > :07:07.they are not properly part of all that we do. Let us be frank about
:07:07. > :07:11.this. The vast majority are not members of local parties, not active
:07:11. > :07:18.in our campaigns, and we have to turn that around. Working people
:07:18. > :07:22.should be at the heart of our party. That is why our relationship
:07:22. > :07:25.with individual trade union members has got to change.
:07:25. > :07:33.Our political correspondent Ben Wright can tell us more about what's
:07:33. > :07:37.in Miliband's speech. He is making this speech because of
:07:37. > :07:42.the shenanigans in Falkirk. He attacked what happened that as the
:07:42. > :07:47.very worst sort of machine politics that needs to be put to bed. This is
:07:47. > :07:53.his response, the charge that Ed Miliband is far too close to the
:07:53. > :07:56.trades unions, which is why he is suggesting this. The biggest change
:07:56. > :08:01.to the labour - trade union relationship since the introduction
:08:01. > :08:08.of one member, one vote, 20 years ago. He says, trade unions should
:08:08. > :08:14.only be paying affiliation fees to the Labour Party if they choose to
:08:14. > :08:18.do so and opt in. That is a massive change if he can get it through.
:08:18. > :08:22.Something we shall see during the day. It will be greeted with fierce
:08:22. > :08:28.opposition from trade union leaders. It is about Ed Miliband
:08:28. > :08:33.saying to his party and the country that this is an issue he is prepared
:08:33. > :08:38.to grasp, and he is not in the pocket of the unions. But he is
:08:38. > :08:45.making a wider point of the politics he wants to see, a political
:08:45. > :08:51.challenge to the other parties. He has said he wants to see a cap on
:08:51. > :08:56.how much MPs can earn through outside jobs. And he has said there
:08:56. > :09:01.needs to be a start to party political talks on overhauling party
:09:02. > :09:07.political funding which has run into so much trouble. Agreement has never
:09:07. > :09:13.been reached between the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour. Ed Miliband says
:09:13. > :09:15.that needs to be restarted. With me now is Gerry Morrissey,
:09:15. > :09:23.General Secretary of BECTU, a Labour-affiliated trade union
:09:23. > :09:27.representing the media and entertainment industries.
:09:27. > :09:32.We had Ed Miliband saying the relationship between Labour and the
:09:32. > :09:37.trade unions had to change. Do you agree that this is an attack on the
:09:37. > :09:42.trade union movement? I wouldn't go that far but I think
:09:42. > :09:44.it is an attack on stopping unions from being able to represent the
:09:44. > :09:51.interests of their members on the political level which we have done
:09:51. > :10:00.for many years, and democratically taken on board our members and their
:10:00. > :10:05.views. It is difficult to see how we can do that in the future. Do you
:10:05. > :10:10.see this as a break with the linked with unions?
:10:10. > :10:19.I do not think it is. The Labour party needs a trade union movement,
:10:19. > :10:25.the Labour -- the union movement created the Labour Party.
:10:25. > :10:30.If he is insisting union members will now have two opt in actively,
:10:30. > :10:35.in order for part of their subs to go via a political fund to the
:10:35. > :10:41.Labour Party, will it work? I do not think so, he is doing a disservice
:10:42. > :10:46.to the Labour Party. When unions are taking forward advice to party
:10:46. > :10:51.conferences, we will not speak for as many people. The trade union
:10:51. > :10:57.movement consults its members a lot more on those policy matters, issues
:10:57. > :11:00.affecting them in the workplace, the minimum wage, the future of the BBC
:11:00. > :11:05.licence fee, anybody inside the Labour Party does. If we don't
:11:05. > :11:13.consult them and bring forward their views, there is no way the Labour
:11:13. > :11:14.Party will hear these views from individual members, many are
:11:14. > :11:17.unfortunately cynical about politicians.
:11:17. > :11:23.Ed Miliband says there is union members will affiliate directly to
:11:23. > :11:28.the Labour Party, he will increase the membership of the Labour Party.
:11:28. > :11:34.There will be no middle man of the unions. History does not support
:11:34. > :11:40.that. There was an increase up to the 1997 elections. Since then,
:11:40. > :11:44.there has been a decline in membership. Ed Miliband has made a
:11:44. > :11:50.knee jerk reaction speech as a result of Falkirk. We don't know the
:11:50. > :11:57.full details at this stage. Did you see it as a dark period in
:11:57. > :12:00.politics, what happened in Falkirk? It is not acceptable. Our union
:12:00. > :12:08.prides itself on consulting members, this should not be allowed to
:12:08. > :12:12.happen. Ed Miliband started this by asking Peter Hain at re-founding
:12:12. > :12:19.Labour and one proposal was anybody could come along and nominate people
:12:20. > :12:23.to join the party for �1. Not just unions but all avenues. That damages
:12:23. > :12:27.democracy. Why should millions of union members
:12:27. > :12:33.who don't even vote for neighbour and up supporting the party
:12:33. > :12:38.financially because that is the default position -- don't even vote
:12:38. > :12:46.for Labour. Because these are on issues in the workplace which need
:12:46. > :12:49.to be taken forward at a political level. Why can't they opt in? The
:12:49. > :12:53.reality of the situation is general elections, the majority of people
:12:53. > :12:56.choose not to participate. Joining us now from College Green
:12:56. > :13:06.are Kevin Maguire from The Daily Mirror, and The Independent on
:13:06. > :13:11.Sunday's John Rentoul. Wellcome. How big is this move by Ed
:13:11. > :13:20.Miliband? It has created a big fight in this party, he is panicked over
:13:20. > :13:24.Paul Kirk -- Falkirk. This is a crisis for the Labour Party. He has
:13:24. > :13:31.sketched out his details on the back of an envelope, he has not thought
:13:32. > :13:36.through how he will deliver it. The unions may not back him. People are
:13:36. > :13:43.talking about living standards, job insecurity, he has decided to put
:13:43. > :13:51.the spotlight on his own party 's links with the unions. David Cameron
:13:51. > :13:54.must think it will be some everyday. On that basis, it is a huge gamble
:13:54. > :14:00.and a big calculation by Ed Miliband, does it bring him any
:14:00. > :14:03.political capital, not just in Westminster but out in the country,
:14:04. > :14:08.people view this as him standing up to the unions?
:14:08. > :14:16.Yes, it is the right thing to do. Kevin is right that the timing of
:14:16. > :14:21.this is terrible. Ed Miliband was elected against the wishes of party
:14:21. > :14:25.members and MPs by a trade union machine operation, and he had to
:14:25. > :14:32.demonstrate within months he was independent of the unions. He has
:14:32. > :14:36.waited until now to do it. It is too late. The problem is it now looks
:14:36. > :14:44.like a follower and not a leader acting out a weakness because there
:14:44. > :14:50.has been a problem in a constituency in Scotland. Does it look weaker? He
:14:50. > :15:00.did move to take action in Falkirk. He has now come up with what can be
:15:00. > :15:02.
:15:02. > :15:08.seen as a massive move to change the relationship with the unions.
:15:08. > :15:16.back a year, he was saying, this question of opting in is irrelevant.
:15:16. > :15:22.He has changed. He should have done this in 2010, not 2013. He has the
:15:22. > :15:27.wrong issue at the wrong time. It will also raise questions about the
:15:27. > :15:35.legitimacy of his own election as leader. If he is saying people opted
:15:35. > :15:45.out is the wrong way, that part of the electoral college, they voted
:15:45. > :16:02.
:16:02. > :16:12.for him. He made a complete problem not lie kit. If they say no, it
:16:12. > :16:14.
:16:14. > :16:23.Len McCluskey came very close this morning. It is the right thing for
:16:23. > :16:28.him to do. It is progress. This definitely is what Tony Blair
:16:28. > :16:33.should have done when he was leader. It is a very welcome development.
:16:33. > :16:42.The problem is, he is trying to presented as a bold and active
:16:42. > :16:47.leadership. He has been forced into doing it at the last minute. Let's
:16:47. > :16:53.say this does work. Doesn't he then get the prize of putting the
:16:53. > :17:00.problem in David Cameron scored, over things like party funding? If
:17:00. > :17:05.it appeals more broadly to Middle England, it will work for him.
:17:05. > :17:09.always valued people doing the right thing rather than the bold
:17:09. > :17:14.thing. I actually think the Labour Party gets a lot from trade union
:17:14. > :17:19.links. It gets working people represented and keeps it feet on
:17:19. > :17:23.the ground. The truth is that David Cameron will be laughing all away.
:17:23. > :17:30.If you are trying to get into some negotiations about finance and
:17:30. > :17:37.parties and saying that David Cameron gets too much from the city,
:17:37. > :17:43.the point is you do not play it or you'll cards and this game early.
:17:43. > :17:48.He will get all of the flak. It may rumble on for months, maybe even
:17:48. > :17:54.years. He will get a lot of stick and I think he will get very little
:17:54. > :17:59.credit. He is sane Labour's link to the trade unions is a problem. --
:17:59. > :18:08.he is saying. People do not see it as a problem. They are talking
:18:08. > :18:13.about other issues - big issues. He is talking to his own party when he
:18:13. > :18:15.should be talking to the electorate. With us now is the vice chairman of
:18:15. > :18:23.the Labour Party, Michael Dugher, and the chairman of the
:18:23. > :18:27.Conservative Party, Grant Shapps. Kevin says it is a disaster and
:18:27. > :18:33.you're causing civil war within your own party. I love Kevin
:18:33. > :18:43.Maguire. He did say we should have done this two-and-a-half years ago.
:18:43. > :18:44.
:18:44. > :18:49.We played all Arab hearts too early. The truth is, -- hour cards too
:18:49. > :18:55.early. The truth is, Ed Miliband has made big changes to how the
:18:55. > :19:01.party does its business. We have associated members - people who
:19:01. > :19:07.support as a want to play a part in our politics. It is about opening
:19:07. > :19:12.up politics to the public. These are big changes. Today is a step
:19:12. > :19:18.change. We cannot change Britain unless we change our cells. That is
:19:18. > :19:24.uncomfortable and difficult for people. -- change ourselves. This
:19:24. > :19:29.is the bold thing and the right thing to do. Why didn't you do it
:19:29. > :19:33.three years ago? Why are you doing it now? I suggest the only reason
:19:33. > :19:39.is because of allegations over impropriety in the Falkirk
:19:39. > :19:48.selection. It is knee-jerk reaction from Ed Miliband. In terms of
:19:48. > :19:53.sections, we have dealt with the Falkirk issue. -- selections. What
:19:53. > :19:57.happened in Falkirk, I have not seen abuses like that in 22 years
:19:58. > :20:03.of Labour Party membership. If you look at selections in reality, we
:20:03. > :20:08.have been selecting people from the armed forces, shop workers. I'm
:20:08. > :20:15.proud of the candidates we have got. Why are you making these changes?
:20:15. > :20:19.The changes on selections in terms of having the code of conduct, I
:20:19. > :20:26.admit that Falkirk has played a part in focusing the mind about
:20:26. > :20:31.taking tough action on this. As for membership, we have taught before
:20:31. > :20:37.about this. We have 20,000 registered supporters. It is a
:20:37. > :20:44.continuation of the big changes in the party. It is a step change but
:20:44. > :20:50.it is the right one. This is strong leadership, not weak leadership.
:20:50. > :20:57.You have tried to distract about some of the vested interests in the
:20:57. > :21:03.Tory Party. There will be a break in terms of the financial link. You
:21:03. > :21:08.must be delighted. I can see you do not believe a word of it yourself.
:21:08. > :21:14.This is an unmitigated disaster. Which is the disaster? You have
:21:14. > :21:19.been asking for years for that link in affiliation for people who want
:21:19. > :21:28.to be part of the Union, for that link to be broken and fees going to
:21:28. > :21:34.be Labour Party? It is about a weak leader of reacting to events. The
:21:34. > :21:38.Unite union published a paper which was withdrawn which named 40 other
:21:38. > :21:46.constituencies. The question for you and your leader, who is weak
:21:46. > :21:52.and owned by union barons is, when will he bring the other 40 in? To
:21:52. > :22:00.answer your point about opting in and opting out - opting out is when
:22:00. > :22:04.a tick a box to not automatically affiliate to the Labour Party.
:22:04. > :22:09.Opting in would be more fair. We would have backed him all away in
:22:09. > :22:13.doing that. We will help to legislate to make that happen. The
:22:13. > :22:19.union barons who owned Ed Miliband have already made it clear they are
:22:19. > :22:22.not going to do this. This is not going to happen. He ran through
:22:22. > :22:28.wish list of things, including a contract of agreement between
:22:28. > :22:33.candidates. That agreement is already there. They have shot your
:22:33. > :22:37.Fox in terms of affiliation. That link provides �8 million a year to
:22:37. > :22:46.the Labour Party. That will now be severed the stock that is the
:22:46. > :22:51.proposal. You are pleased about that. -- that is severed. Lots of
:22:51. > :22:53.members of Unite and others who work hard, Conservative members and
:22:53. > :22:59.supporters, they will have the right to support whichever party
:22:59. > :23:06.they want to through the union levy. It is welcome but he cannot deliver
:23:06. > :23:15.it. What happens if Len McCluskey et Alf say, we are not doing it.
:23:15. > :23:19.Every indication shows they will not do it. Every poll says they
:23:19. > :23:25.will not do it for us stop their members will get a much stronger
:23:25. > :23:31.boys. At the moment we have a relationship with people who fund
:23:31. > :23:38.the Labour Party - people who drive the buses and work the factory full.
:23:38. > :23:42.-- ate much stronger voice. They should have the strongest voice of
:23:43. > :23:46.all. At the moment, we have a relationship with them. They do not
:23:46. > :23:51.nearly played enough of a contribution as individuals. It is
:23:51. > :23:57.about strengthening the voice of people in politics. I would rather
:23:57. > :24:02.be funded by them. We will come to them in a minute. How many will
:24:02. > :24:11.octane? We have announced today there are 2.7 million of them at
:24:11. > :24:16.the moment. -- opt in. We're the only party that has grown in
:24:16. > :24:21.membership. There is huge potential to recruit people through
:24:21. > :24:28.affiliation. Let's talk to those people and say, do you want a
:24:28. > :24:33.director and individual voice? this make Ed Miliband look like a
:24:33. > :24:38.strong or weak leader? In my view he could not run away from this. He
:24:38. > :24:46.could see this issue was going to grind on. It is not the perfect
:24:46. > :24:56.place to stand. Not, can we have a nice option and a horrible option?
:24:56. > :25:00.There are two horrible options. He knows it will be difficult. He
:25:00. > :25:06.realises he cannot go into the next election as the person who ran away
:25:06. > :25:14.from this issue. The issue is too big. The Conservatives have their
:25:14. > :25:20.tails up. It is an open goal. Ed Miliband muss stop that. He was
:25:20. > :25:26.trapped in this brave position. -- must stop. If he wins, it will help
:25:26. > :25:29.him enormously. If he loses, it will be very difficult. He does not
:25:29. > :25:33.often that I agree with Kevin Maguire but he was spot on. If Ed
:25:33. > :25:40.Miliband wants a serious conversation about party funding,
:25:40. > :25:45.we are up for that. And to agree to a cap on individual donations. --
:25:45. > :25:52.and you agree. The problem he needs to ghetto there is he is owned by
:25:52. > :25:58.the unions because he was put in by them. -- he needs to get over. No
:25:58. > :26:02.other party in this country is funded in a way where everything
:26:02. > :26:06.about that party is bought. A union leader is worried about what Ed
:26:06. > :26:09.Miliband is proposing because of the reasons you have put forward.
:26:09. > :26:16.That will all melt away and you will be left with the spotlight
:26:16. > :26:24.being turned on donations on your party. I prepared to catch them at
:26:24. > :26:29.�10,000? We have been talking about it for years. Will you say here and
:26:29. > :26:34.now, we will be agreed and signed up to individual donations being
:26:34. > :26:38.capped at �10,000? We have always been serious about having party
:26:38. > :26:43.funding negotiations. We're very happy to see that resolved. It
:26:43. > :26:48.needs to include everyone and has to include the unions. We can have
:26:48. > :26:51.a situation where they find their way around it by turning individual
:26:51. > :26:55.donations or some other approach which allows them to circumvent the
:26:55. > :27:00.rules. What happens with the Labour Party is they own the leader, run
:27:00. > :27:06.the policies and a place candidates as well. None of our donors have
:27:06. > :27:12.any of those powers. We must move on to the other issue which was
:27:12. > :27:16.brought up by Ed Miliband. millionaire owners of the
:27:16. > :27:20.Conservative Party to bankroll the Conservative Party. They get wined
:27:20. > :27:26.and dined at Chequers and in Downing Street. The Prime Minister
:27:26. > :27:31.has never dealt with those allegations. York chief fund raiser
:27:31. > :27:34.and treasurer resigned in disgrace, I seem to recall, over those
:27:34. > :27:39.allegations of wining and dining high-value donors at Downing Street
:27:39. > :27:44.and Chequers. You have never dealt with that. You walked away from the
:27:44. > :27:50.all party talks. You do not want her to be a cap or take money out
:27:50. > :27:59.of politics. Ed Miliband was not in agreement with the doctor in
:27:59. > :28:04.principle. This issue is important. -- with the bopped in principle.
:28:04. > :28:09.has said we will look at this in the policy review. The public is
:28:09. > :28:12.sick to death with politics in the moment. They think we are all the
:28:12. > :28:19.same and politicians liars are hundreds of miles away from their
:28:19. > :28:23.own. All of us need to address that. -- and politicians lives. We are
:28:23. > :28:31.not saying anything against people at the moment. Is it right that you
:28:31. > :28:37.have people who have a job which is not being an MP but they do lots of
:28:37. > :28:44.other things? In America, they had a percentage cap on the mat of
:28:44. > :28:49.additional income you can earn. I think we need new rules and the new
:28:49. > :28:54.limits. There are dozens and dozens of Conservative MPs, absolutely
:28:54. > :29:03.coining it in from large companies. The public has had enough and did
:29:03. > :29:07.all will have to go in the next Parliament. -- and it all. I do not
:29:07. > :29:11.think to million dollar campaigns is the right way. Ed Miliband is in
:29:11. > :29:15.enormous trouble. He is a weak leader under the grip of unions. He
:29:15. > :29:20.is standing up and making a speech when he tries to deflect attention
:29:20. > :29:25.in all sorts of other areas. He is trying to turn this into original
:29:25. > :29:31.party funding discussion. That is not the issue. The issue is rigging
:29:31. > :29:36.elections for candidates. We have talked about that. Should MPs have
:29:36. > :29:43.second jobs? Should they be paid lots of money? Would you legislate
:29:43. > :29:51.stop that happening? Hold on a second. Today, the row is about
:29:51. > :29:59.elections being raped. He has raters the issue. -- being raped.
:29:59. > :30:03.He has raised the issue. MPs should concentrate on constituents and
:30:03. > :30:09.constituencies. It is not the issue for today at will. What do you
:30:09. > :30:13.think about the idea of second jobs? -- at all. The public has a
:30:13. > :30:19.right to know what is going on. What are they doing in the morning
:30:19. > :30:24.when they should be doing something house? The way the club has
:30:24. > :30:28.operated at Westminster for so long is not acceptable. An American
:30:28. > :30:32.presidential candidate has to immediately publish his income tax
:30:32. > :30:36.returns. You think, how extraordinary? I'm sure people will
:30:36. > :30:40.look back on this period and say, they could earn any money and do
:30:40. > :30:46.other things and set up a little office inside their offers to do
:30:46. > :30:51.this and do that. The whole thing is... Back game is over in the
:30:51. > :30:56.public mind. That is because of MP's reputation being tarnished by
:30:56. > :31:06.expenses. Do not be surprised. The stoppage and say, across the board,
:31:06. > :31:11.
:31:11. > :31:14.we're going to be clean. -- you house builders hailed a recovery in
:31:14. > :31:16.the housing market. Good news, you might think. But, as the Labour MP
:31:16. > :31:19.for Tottenham David Lammy explains, the long-term increase in property
:31:19. > :31:21.prices, particularly in London, hasn't benefited everyone. He is
:31:21. > :31:24.worried that a shortage of affordable and social housing is
:31:24. > :31:34.pushing families into the private rental sector, with some worrying
:31:34. > :31:48.
:31:48. > :31:52.I am worried that parts of the private rental sector of forcing
:31:52. > :31:58.people back into poverty and squalor.
:31:58. > :32:03.Each week when my constituents come to see me at my advice surgery, the
:32:03. > :32:09.majority come about housing. House prices in London are so high, and
:32:09. > :32:19.waiting lists, council waiting lists, so long. Most people are in
:32:19. > :32:22.
:32:22. > :32:27.the private rented sector not out of They come and see me because they
:32:27. > :32:35.are powerless. They can be evicted after six months. Their rent can go
:32:35. > :32:39.up after just two months. The average rent is eight times the pace
:32:39. > :32:47.of earnings. Because of this, they are too scared to ask their landlord
:32:47. > :32:50.for improvements which are often damp and decrepit housing. These
:32:50. > :32:55.factors make it particularly tough for families. Not only is the
:32:55. > :33:00.frequent upheaval difficult with evictions but it is very hard to
:33:00. > :33:04.plan for the future. I have got one constituent who has a son who has
:33:04. > :33:14.been moved three times from local schools in just the last few years.
:33:14. > :33:20.
:33:20. > :33:25.Imagine the impact on that young So, we need more homes like these.
:33:25. > :33:30.That will take years to have an effect. In the meantime, tenants
:33:30. > :33:36.need security and stability. They need a minimum five-year term for a
:33:36. > :33:39.contract, with rents increasing no more than the price of inflation.
:33:39. > :33:44.Landlords who offer these fair rent contract should be rewarded through
:33:44. > :33:51.the tax system. This would offer stability to the private rented
:33:51. > :33:54.sector, and offer rewards to landlords who do the right thing.
:33:54. > :34:01.David Lammy is here now, alongside Carolyn Uphill, chair of the
:34:01. > :34:06.National Landlords Association. Will you concede some tenants,
:34:06. > :34:10.particularly families on low incomes, are getting a raw deal?
:34:10. > :34:15.I wouldn't say there are some subtle stance is where tenants haven't got
:34:15. > :34:21.the best accommodation. But the vast majority are happy in their private
:34:21. > :34:29.rented accommodation. It is simply not the case that the bad landlord
:34:29. > :34:36.who are in -- are in the majority. Are you saying that the markets
:34:36. > :34:40.particularly in London has pushed rents up? Why is it affecting
:34:40. > :34:44.particularly low income families? Is it just because they are not able to
:34:44. > :34:52.afford that increasing rent and there isn't enough social housing,
:34:52. > :34:57.rather than bad landlords? We have assured short-term tenancies of just
:34:57. > :35:02.six months. They can put your rent up after two
:35:02. > :35:11.months. The people gaining are letting agents. There is a fee
:35:11. > :35:14.charge, they gain. At the same time, we are spending as taxpayers �23.8
:35:14. > :35:20.billion on housing benefit to these landlords, when a third of
:35:20. > :35:24.properties in London do not meet the decent standard we set for local
:35:24. > :35:28.authorities. That is a lot of properties. Even if
:35:28. > :35:33.the rents are being paid, the standard is not reflected in the
:35:33. > :35:37.properties. Let us be clear, I represent the
:35:37. > :35:41.National landlords Association and we help our members improve
:35:41. > :35:47.standards of their properties so they can run their businesses more
:35:47. > :35:52.successfully, have happy tenants who want to stay. On that point,
:35:52. > :35:57.although it is possible at the end of six months, for landlords to ask
:35:57. > :36:02.tenants to move on, in general, they do not. We survey tenants as well
:36:02. > :36:07.and they say half of tenants have been in their property for four
:36:07. > :36:13.years or more. Every time a landlord changes a tenant it costs money in
:36:13. > :36:17.agency fees, marketing costs. If there is a good, reliable tenant
:36:17. > :36:24.looking after the property, it does not suit their business to move that
:36:24. > :36:29.Tennant on. What would be the motivation?
:36:29. > :36:36.What I am proposing is to end this and move to a situation where you
:36:36. > :36:42.have tenancies for five years, index link rises to inflation. This is the
:36:42. > :36:46.system in Germany. I do not think you should be punitive and demand
:36:46. > :36:50.landlords have a five-year tenancy but you want stability of the
:36:50. > :36:57.landlords so they know how much they will get over five years, and
:36:57. > :37:02.stability for tenants. Some of what people are living in is not
:37:02. > :37:08.acceptable in a developed country. Would that work having a five-year
:37:08. > :37:10.contract, some sort of security and a fair rent contract, whereby rent
:37:10. > :37:17.will not increase much more than the rate of inflation?
:37:17. > :37:24.Be careful interfering with a successful market. If the private
:37:24. > :37:29.rental sector was not providing nearly 8% -- 18% of the homes in
:37:29. > :37:37.this country, many would not have a roof over their heads. We are
:37:37. > :37:42.possibly touching on rent controls which did not work. Landlords do not
:37:42. > :37:46.have the income to invest in their property. David wants better
:37:46. > :37:50.standards, he will not get that if you restrict income the landlord
:37:50. > :37:57.needs. They are running a business in the
:37:57. > :38:03.end. Of course, but we do not need to spend �23 billion in housing
:38:03. > :38:09.benefit to landlords, picking up the cost for free school meals. We need
:38:09. > :38:15.stability in the market. There are landlords at the bottom end for not
:38:15. > :38:22.serving the public or their tenants. The problem is there is not enough
:38:22. > :38:27.social housing. Labour did not build many social housing properties. This
:38:27. > :38:36.isn't the fault of private landlords, there will always be
:38:36. > :38:41.rogue landlords and substandard properties. That is clearly wrong.
:38:42. > :38:46.It's really the fault of not having affordable social housing.
:38:46. > :38:53.We had a balance after the war where a third were living in private
:38:53. > :38:57.rented, third in social housing, a third could buy. Now the prospect of
:38:57. > :39:03.buying in London is remote. Social housing has not been built and
:39:03. > :39:08.labour must take its fair blame. It has decreased under the coalition.
:39:08. > :39:13.In the meantime we have to deal with the private rented sector.
:39:13. > :39:18.Yes, otherwise people will be living in squalid conditions. Isn't there a
:39:18. > :39:21.case of regulation to prevent that happening. If there is such evidence
:39:21. > :39:27.to say people are paying extortionate rents for substandard
:39:27. > :39:32.accommodation, surely there is a case for regulation? There are
:39:32. > :39:38.already regulations to deal with substandard accommodation.
:39:38. > :39:43.Councils have duties and obligations and the ability to act. We would
:39:43. > :39:47.fully support that. Rogue landlords do not do favours to the
:39:47. > :39:51.professional landlords providing good quality accommodation. This
:39:51. > :39:59.conversation is about London. We have housing throughout the
:39:59. > :40:04.country, and in areas around the country there is no pressure on
:40:04. > :40:10.rents, rents have gone down in some areas. We must not legislate for a
:40:10. > :40:17.particular problem in a particular area, a capital city, which will
:40:18. > :40:23.always be under housing pressure. Does London distort the market?
:40:23. > :40:30.This is an issue in London and the South East and major conurbations.
:40:30. > :40:36.London is a massive market, jobs are in London. The population of London
:40:36. > :40:42.is set to grow to 10 million by 2031. We have to deal with this
:40:42. > :40:45.problem otherwise we will see more Our guest of the day is the former
:40:45. > :40:48.BBC chief political correspondent John Sergeant, who spent more than
:40:48. > :40:51.20 years on the political beat, before stepping back to spend more
:40:51. > :40:56.time on the dance floor. He started here at Westminster in 1981, with
:40:56. > :40:59.Mrs Thatcher the figure who dominated British politics. He
:40:59. > :41:02.watched her take on the unions, go to war in the Falklands, and
:41:02. > :41:06.negotiate the end of the Cold War with the Russians. Most famously of
:41:06. > :41:09.all, he was handbagged on the steps of a European summit meeting in
:41:09. > :41:19.Paris, on the night she found out the result of Michael Heseltine's
:41:19. > :41:20.
:41:20. > :41:25.attempt to depose her as leader of the party.
:41:25. > :41:30.It is known as a doorstep in the trade, and they don't get better or
:41:30. > :41:36.more memorable than this. The Prime Minister is behind you,
:41:36. > :41:43.John. Mrs Thatcher, could I ask you to comment. Good evening. This is
:41:43. > :41:49.the microphone. One of their most memorable moments. Yet this is --
:41:49. > :41:57.this was the highlight of 20 years covering Westminster. A period
:41:57. > :42:01.defined by a woman who defined post war politics. And John was there.
:42:01. > :42:11.There are few commentators better placed to analyse the Thatcher
:42:11. > :42:12.
:42:12. > :42:16.legacy. John Sergeant had a ringside seat here. In his book, he argues
:42:16. > :42:22.the woman remains a Tory icon actually inflicted serious damage on
:42:22. > :42:29.the party she did so much to shape. Some will disagree. Others will
:42:29. > :42:31.conquer. There are few journalists Joining me now is Norman Fowler who
:42:31. > :42:39.served in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet for her whole time in
:42:39. > :42:46.office, from 1979 to 1990. Welcome to the programme. Your
:42:46. > :42:53.thesis, John Sergeant, in what way did she damage the party? I wrote
:42:54. > :42:59.that ten years ago. Can you remember! The problem was that,
:42:59. > :43:04.obviously, she was very hurt by the way she felt she had been stabbed in
:43:04. > :43:09.the back. So, the sense in which it was her party, not the Socialists
:43:09. > :43:16.who had removed her, but throwing party. That was a major factor in
:43:16. > :43:20.deciding how she would respond when she into opposition. In fact, poor
:43:20. > :43:24.old John Major had to put up with the fact there were two leaders of
:43:24. > :43:29.the Conservative party, the people who thought she was wonderful and
:43:29. > :43:33.shouldn't have been removed. John Major was trying to be the Prime
:43:33. > :43:39.Minister. That caused a terrific tension, particularly over Europe.
:43:39. > :43:43.There were plenty of Conservatives who wanted to support Margaret
:43:43. > :43:48.Thatcher. And others who said, you should be supporting our new leader
:43:48. > :43:53.John Major. That pretty well finished John Major particularly
:43:53. > :43:56.because one of the first things that happened was Britain was ejected
:43:56. > :43:59.from the exchange rate mechanism. The whole idea of Britain being at
:44:00. > :44:04.the heart of Europe under a Conservative leader was not
:44:04. > :44:10.possible. While this was going on, Margaret Thatcher, she didn't mean
:44:11. > :44:15.to really most of the time. Didn't she? She did and she didn't, it was
:44:15. > :44:20.a difficult problem. She did not want to undermine the person she had
:44:20. > :44:26.brought in as leader. She was behind John Major. And she wanted to behave
:44:26. > :44:32.while. But the other part of her was, these dreadful people, can't
:44:32. > :44:34.they see over Europe that I'm right? John Major tried to work out the
:44:34. > :44:39.perfect position so that the Conservatives would be united on
:44:39. > :44:46.this if only he could find what our position was. It was impossible for
:44:46. > :44:50.him. David Cameron is amazingly in the same position. Can't we agree
:44:50. > :44:54.this or that? Large numbers of people in the Conservative party
:44:54. > :44:58.wanted Britain strong and independent and to help with the EU.
:44:58. > :45:05.I personally do not think that is possible. Did she undermine her
:45:05. > :45:12.successors? Certainly with John Major. He was chairman until 1994.
:45:12. > :45:17.She made life much more difficult. The trouble was, the basic trouble
:45:17. > :45:23.was she was displaced not in a general election but in an internal
:45:23. > :45:28.election. Had she been displaced in a general election, we wouldn't have
:45:28. > :45:32.had the problems. I remember going up to Margaret Thatcher just before
:45:32. > :45:37.she, just after she had made the announcement she was leaving the
:45:37. > :45:44.Commons. She was on autopilot. People were saying to her in the
:45:44. > :45:54.division lobby. Basically her reply was, the fight must go on. She
:45:54. > :46:03.
:46:03. > :46:08.Was her argument misrepresented? think she had steadily become more
:46:08. > :46:15.Euro-sceptic. She was opposed to Maastricht. The significant thing
:46:15. > :46:22.as for the party - the Parliamentary Party - is that she
:46:22. > :46:27.was a great leader. She put some real spine into those people who
:46:27. > :46:31.were opposing John Major on Maastricht. It could not have been
:46:31. > :46:40.Frankie from that point of view more helpful. The other point was,
:46:40. > :46:44.like lots of us can she felt she was right. When she felt that, John
:46:44. > :46:49.Major and Jeffrey Howe had all been wrong over these issues - I think
:46:49. > :46:56.that really got into her. I have been removed as party leader and I
:46:56. > :46:59.was right and I have won three- party elections and they are all
:46:59. > :47:07.dreadful. How did she feel about Iain Duncan-Smith and William
:47:07. > :47:17.Hague? She felt she would back any one he was not Ken Clarke. They
:47:17. > :47:19.
:47:19. > :47:25.lost rather fantastically, didn't they? -- who was not. William Hague
:47:25. > :47:32.is a great politician, as we see now. It was too early for him to
:47:32. > :47:35.become leader of the Tory Party. The fact was that she was not
:47:35. > :47:40.prepared to see a euro enthusiasts becoming leader of the party when
:47:40. > :47:45.it was the obvious thing for the public. If she had not interfered
:47:45. > :47:50.and overshadowed what came after us would it have changed anything?
:47:50. > :47:54.They she had been able to indicate she understood the problem, instead
:47:55. > :47:59.of thinking if she were there or her side could win, that would be
:47:59. > :48:04.straightforward, that has been a problem about Europe in my view all
:48:04. > :48:09.along. If there had been a straightforward position. Of course
:48:09. > :48:15.people drift into fantasy politics full debate thing we do not need
:48:15. > :48:21.the European Union. These are very complicated arrangements. --
:48:21. > :48:26.fantasy politics. They think. For someone like me, it is not serious
:48:26. > :48:30.politics. It is crazy behaviour. If she could indicate there might be a
:48:30. > :48:35.few problems about leading European Union... Sh she would have done had
:48:35. > :48:38.she had been in office. -- she would have done. She would have
:48:38. > :48:47.worked out what the right moves would have been calls that she was
:48:47. > :48:50.very cautious. She did not leap into the dark. -- would have been.
:48:50. > :48:56.Ann Widdecombe was sitting here not long ago and she said she wished
:48:56. > :49:02.the Tories had lost the 92 election. That was quite a fashionable view
:49:02. > :49:08.at the time. Even now she says that the stuff I had a heard her say it
:49:08. > :49:14.before. The theory is you lose the election and bounce back in 97. --
:49:14. > :49:20.even now she says that. I was with John Major to rout the 92 campaign.
:49:20. > :49:27.It was very much his victory. It was entirely down to John Major.
:49:27. > :49:31.Only in the sense he was not Margaret Thatcher! That was
:49:31. > :49:37.extremely important that he was not her. The public actually took to
:49:37. > :49:40.John Major and they did not take to Neil Kinnock. It was a personal
:49:40. > :49:46.victory. His tragedy was he got more votes than Margaret Thatcher
:49:47. > :49:51.but the tragedy was, because of the divisions in constituencies, he did
:49:51. > :49:57.not have the votes in the House. When you are up to Maastricht, a
:49:57. > :50:05.small number of people - which it was at that stage - could hold sway.
:50:05. > :50:13.These things she did leave a fatal legacy? Fatal - I think is probably
:50:13. > :50:19.overstating it. Her legacy... In that respect, in other ways it was
:50:19. > :50:26.tremendous. The ticket ready for the Conservative Party. In that
:50:26. > :50:30.point of view, she should have done what previous leaders have done. --
:50:30. > :50:36.particularly for the Conservative Party. Eden did not come back and
:50:36. > :50:40.make it difficult. Until we got Ted Heath. That again is the irony. She
:50:40. > :50:47.had Ted Heath proving over her shoulder and being as awkward as he
:50:47. > :50:51.possibly could be. He had not won three elections. The she did the
:50:51. > :50:55.same. Oh well, it is all history. Now, is all political propaganda a
:50:55. > :50:58.bad thing? When we think of propaganda many of us may think of
:50:58. > :51:00.the techniques used by the Nazi Party in Germany, or perhaps the
:51:00. > :51:03.spin tactics used by our political parties today. But what about
:51:03. > :51:08.governments who use TV campaigns to encourage us to be careful when
:51:08. > :51:11.crossing the road or warn us about the dangers of contracting HIV?
:51:11. > :51:21.Elizabeth Glinka has been down to a special exhibition at the British
:51:21. > :51:29.
:51:29. > :51:33.Politics is about ideas, about how things should be able to be if you
:51:33. > :51:37.want people to vote for you, Folly you into battle or eat their Greens,
:51:37. > :51:44.you must convince them York ideas are best. Propaganda has been a
:51:45. > :51:51.weapon of choice for thousands of years. -- your ideas. This exhibit
:51:51. > :51:56.dates back to 290 BC. The king of Thrace was trying to link himself
:51:56. > :52:01.to Alexander the Great - his predecessor. Power and persuasion
:52:01. > :52:06.brings together examples of state propaganda from around the world.
:52:06. > :52:10.lots of people when they come to an exhibition like this, they think
:52:10. > :52:15.propaganda is about misleading and lies for stoppages what bad people
:52:15. > :52:20.do. When we were planning the exhibition, we took more ethically
:52:20. > :52:25.neutral approach. We defined propaganda as any form of
:52:25. > :52:35.communication which is designed to influence, persuade all reinforce
:52:35. > :52:39.
:52:39. > :52:45.Some of the most recognisable images on show casts long shadows.
:52:45. > :52:51.Propaganda gave it a bad name. should be concerned about who is
:52:51. > :52:56.trying to influence us. Are they appealing to a set of evidence we
:52:56. > :53:02.can see and check? Is it more about emotion and playing on existing
:53:02. > :53:07.prejudices? Not everything has such a sinister air. Propaganda has also
:53:07. > :53:12.been used to try to save us from ourselves and even improve our
:53:12. > :53:16.health. There is now a danger that has become a threat to us all. The
:53:16. > :53:22.exhibition includes the 1980s eights television advert, thought
:53:22. > :53:28.to be the most successful public health television film ever made. -
:53:28. > :53:35.- AIDS. The 1990s saw the emergence of propaganda as upstart little
:53:35. > :53:40.brother - spin. Alastair Campbell says the internet has been a game
:53:41. > :53:45.changer. Public opinion used to be based on media opinion. It is not
:53:45. > :53:51.the same thing. That is why I have embraced it. It gives the public
:53:51. > :54:01.more power. His propaganda plane the same old tricks? The challenge
:54:01. > :54:06.is always have to go unnoticed. -- always to go unnoticed. It goes
:54:06. > :54:11.through mass print media, into cinema, radio, television and your
:54:11. > :54:15.homes. It provides a natural home for propaganda to work and get
:54:15. > :54:18.messages and influence through unnoticed. Her while the message of
:54:18. > :54:26.the exhibition is she should question what you are told, it is
:54:26. > :54:29.also perhaps that some propaganda can be good for you. -- you should
:54:29. > :54:32.question. Norman Fowler was the Secretary of State for Health at
:54:32. > :54:37.the time of that memorable AIDs campaign of the late 1980s that we
:54:37. > :54:42.saw featured in that film and he's still with us here in the studio.
:54:42. > :54:46.How do you feel about that campaign - being put in the same exhibition
:54:46. > :54:51.of some of the wartime Nazi propaganda that which used in the
:54:51. > :54:55.1930s? It does not have any relevance whatsoever to that and
:54:55. > :55:00.Goebbels and that sort of stuff. The other thing which came out in
:55:00. > :55:07.that film, the I did it should not be noticed. My whole idea was that
:55:07. > :55:11.it should be noticed. -- the idea. With HIV and AIDS Macro, there were
:55:11. > :55:21.no drugs and no vaccines. Or you could do was warned the public of
:55:21. > :55:22.
:55:22. > :55:28.the dangers. Did it work?Yes, it did. HIV went down and general
:55:28. > :55:33.sexual disease went down. Then, of course, the Government being
:55:33. > :55:42.wattages, we'll move on a meat go off the air for the next 20 years.
:55:42. > :55:47.-- being what it is, we all move for off the air. Would you count
:55:47. > :55:51.that campaign as propaganda? would not. The point about
:55:51. > :55:56.propaganda, it is all very well to say they are ethically neutral,
:55:56. > :56:01.propaganda is evil. It is completely cynical. If you were Dr
:56:01. > :56:07.Goebbels, you are not worried about the truth of the Jews, you're
:56:07. > :56:13.thinking, how can we hit them? The essence of propaganda, if you
:56:13. > :56:17.repeat a light enough, people believe it. That is propaganda.
:56:17. > :56:21.Government information - how bad is HIV going to be - is a different
:56:21. > :56:27.sort. I should not say this in public that I was asked to be
:56:28. > :56:32.interviewed for that and I refused. People do not see how people like
:56:32. > :56:36.me and Norman, who has spent a whole lives in this area of
:56:36. > :56:40.government information and reporting, we have not set out
:56:40. > :56:44.cynically to light to the British public. Is there a fine line
:56:44. > :56:54.between what some people would regard as public information and it
:56:54. > :56:56.
:56:56. > :57:03.could be quite forceful and Spain - which grew out of the Tony Blair
:57:03. > :57:10.leadership? We saw Alastair Campbell being interviewed. Is
:57:10. > :57:15.there a worry it is presented as government information but it is a
:57:15. > :57:19.viewpoint. You need to be aware of that. Since the years of Margaret
:57:19. > :57:22.Thatcher, governments have feared the bit that way. If you take
:57:22. > :57:27.something like AIDS and the difference between matter what went
:57:27. > :57:30.before, we were about saving lives - attempting to save lives. That
:57:30. > :57:35.was the whole purpose of what we were trying to do. Some people
:57:35. > :57:40.might have said it was about scaremongering. It was hard hitting
:57:40. > :57:47.- doing the opposite of what the chap was saying on the fells.
:57:47. > :57:55.Trying to get the notice of the public. -- on the film. Isn't
:57:55. > :58:02.government spin the propaganda of our modern age? Kids Spain, of
:58:02. > :58:09.course, does not live. -- good spin. It admits, it puts forward
:58:09. > :58:14.arguments about put encounter our arguments. It does all those things.
:58:14. > :58:20.Under Adolf Hitler, the Government set up cynically to deceive the
:58:20. > :58:25.public. You may say, it is the same. It is quite different. The best
:58:25. > :58:31.spin doctors, they very seldom live. That is incompetent spin-doctoring
:58:31. > :58:35.of the worst sort. You are found out. You really are in trouble.
:58:35. > :58:41.What went wrong in Iraq was there were no weapons of mass destruction.
:58:41. > :58:45.They thought there were. The idea that they knew there were not
:58:45. > :58:52.weapons but they but said there were. That is not what happened.