10/09/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/09/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. He was booed two years


ago, last year he didn't turn up, but Ed Miliband's addressing his


union mates as I speak. But will Red Ed pick a fight or try and make


friends with his comrades at the TUC over power in the party? As the US


weighs over to act in Syria, a new diplomatic solution is on the table.


Now we're in here, it's quite clear this isn't being rented by just one


family. Bed bugs and no broomsticks. We delve into the shady world of


private landlords and overcrowding. And it's National Gibraltar Day, hip


hip hooray. All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole


programme today is Sir Robin Wales. He's the elected Labour mayor of


Newham Council, here in London. Welcome to the programme. Now, first


this morning, let's start with a little snap shot of Britain because


according to a new survey on social attitudes out today, Britons have a


stronger belief in politics than 30 years ago but trust politicians


less. Surprise, surprise. The British Social Attitudes Report also


says that people sympathise more with the unemployed but struggle to


support spending more on benefits. You agree with that, don't you? That


is what people tell us and that is what the survey said. What is


happening is that as there is focus on benefits, people realise it is


not as generous as you might think, and support for people who will not


working is not where it should be. As benefits spending is up, the way


to deal with it is to get people into employment. That is what people


think. You said that the system cuts people's legs off. The issue is this


think. You said that the system cuts safety net on welfare. We get that.


When you start work, the claw-back on benefit and tax means it does not


pay. It is ludicrous that if you are wealthy then you can get 50p to the


pound. The current proposals would let people keep 35p. We need a


system where if you work then you can keep some of that money was you


need to reward work. Successive governments said that. You should


always paid to be in work and this government has said that they want


is to change the benefit system to enforce that. Your contributory


welfare system, will it reinforce that system between the deserving


and undeserving? You need to support people into work. The current


programme is a disaster and is not working. In my constituency we have


a system. We spend money and get 5000 people a year into work. You


need to support people into work. You would like to see more benefits


for people in work and lesser people out of work? I think there needs to


a safety net. That should include kids. We gave for e-mails to primary


school kids. -- free school meals.I think people understand this. If you


can encourage people to work and support them into work, and the


evidence we have is that you can help people into work but you must


invest. People need help. Do it properly and you can reduce the


benefit Bill. Work is the solution to the problem. Shouldn't employers


pay people more for the work they do, otherwise the tax credit system


has been criticised because it keeps people on benefits. One thing we


have said this government is, could we enforce the minimum wage? We know


a lot of people are being paid under the minimum wage. We have said that


lets make sure work is paid. We should move the minimum wage up. We


are supporting this. It is all about putting the whole package together


and this government is more concerned about attacking poor


people and driving people out of London because they cannot afford to


live there any more. They are more concerned with that than dealing


with the issues. Now it's time for our daily quiz. Today we've learned,


from one of his former England team-mates that footballer David


Beckham had a crush on the wife of a British Prime Minister. So who was


it? Was it:- A Sarah Brown, B Cherie Blair, C Norma Major, or D Samantha


Cameron. At the end of the show, Robin Wales will give us the correct


answer. Now, who says the BBC doesn't provide great family


entertainment? Yesterday afternoon at 3.15pm, seven top players, past


and present, from the world's leading public sector broadcaster


appeared in front of the Commons Public Accounts Committee to answer


some tough questions about big executive pay-offs. Eastenders, eat


your heart out, here's a flavour of the event. Why was half £1 million,


which for most people was a lot of money, not enough to get rid of


someone who you decided was not needed? We were in the middle of a


restructuring of the BBC, which meant losing a quarter of the senior


management. We were in the middle of a series of gigantic projects to


include the New Broadcasting House, and Salford. It also included the


royal wedding and the Olympics. We took the decision, and it was my


judgement, and we discussed it with the BBC Trust, that we wanted Mark


fully focused on the enormous task we had. We did not want him taking


calls from headhunters, we wanted him fully focused, and that is why


we did not ask him to work through his notice. You had to apologise


we did not ask him to work through because you claimed not to see a


document... I think...We need to take that evidence with a pinch of


salt. That is grossly unfair. You are referring to a document but I


did not understand which document you meant at the time. After that


meeting I was shown the document and I recognised it as a document I was


involved in. I clarified that. All I said to the committee, and I am in


some difficulty about this, I was not party to the agreement. I am in


a position where I am accused of having misled the committee on


something I never knew. Why was it not in the induction pack? We were


not aware of the arrangements, either in writing or through all


contact. That is the fact of the matter. I cannot believe that!If


you want me to explain, I will do so. To discuss the fallout from


yesterday's committee meeting I'm joined by member of the Public


Accounts Committee Stewart Jackson, and by media commentator and friend


of the programme Steve Hewlett. Your thoughts on the performances of Mark


Thompson and Chris Patten? I thought Thompson was at the top of his game.


He had a lot of riding of this, his potential media career, if he was


seen to have lied or misled. He prepared well and was on top of his


game. He was able to direct the committee towards looking at the


failings and the dysfunctional nature of the relationship


failings and the dysfunctional senior members of the BBC Trust. Are


we any the wiser as to why departing executives were paid more than was


necessary? You can sum it up by saying the BBC thought it was


entitled to give private-sector pay and conditions in lieu of notice. I


think there was a culture of the higher up you get, the more likely


you were to get more enhanced payments. It was unacceptable and


wrong. There was, demonstrated by the evidence, a disconnect between


the managers and the rest of the staff. I was in a newsroom not 1


million miles from here and when Margaret Hodge said, we will have no


more lies today, thank you, a cheer went up from the staff in the


newsroom. That's just tells you that there is a degree of dysfunction.


Just to be clear, I do not think there is any doubt about what


happened here and who was paid what, and who authorised it. Mark Thompson


said he authorised it and it was a policy to reduced senior manager pay


as soon as possible. He said he stood by it. The tricky bit here is


about the BBC Trust and that isn't about whether they authorised it


about the BBC Trust and that isn't because they never tire of saying,


constitutionally, they are not allowed to authorise it. The


question is, do they know? If you have an organisation called the BBC


Trust, just think about the name for a second, which is there to protect


licence payer's interest, but cannot express a view or intervene


effectively when something is going wrong, then you plainly have a


problem. I think it is more concentrated than that in this case.


The original position which is that they had no documents or no


recollections is completely wrong. That does not mean they knew


everything. Did they know, in general? Yes, they did. The


spotlight is on the BBC Trust and quite rightly in a way. They are the


ones who were caught looking as though they have not been


straightforward. Is that how you see it in terms of Chris Patten and the


Trust? I think he should consider his position. He should go or be


fired. He was not there, in fairness to him. He did not arrive at the BBC


until several months after this. My problem is that you have Tony hall


trying to gag everything. These people are paid a lot of money and


have brought the BBC into disrepute. The BBC is a fantastic thing for


this country and gives the enemies of the BBC more opportunities to


criticise it. It started with a of the BBC more opportunities to


payoff of George Entwistle. The National Audit Office began to look


at payments after that and we are now in a fight with the BBC because,


although we have used Parliamentary privilege and said we wanted the


names of the managers who received payoffs, the culture was about


payments made before they were signed off, and weak oversight. That


is the issue. Who is to blame for that? There will be staff and


members of the public who have taken a sharp intake of breath at the £1


million payoff. The people in the front line of the management. Mark


Thompson said that was the policy he stood by and he would do the same


again. He argued that it was worth its, even if it meant paying over


the odds. The overall Bill has been reduced and they say they have saved


188 million. That is a valid argument. If we delayed and had done


more negotiation it would have cost the licence payer of fortune. I


think you will agree that the trust were asleep on the job. They are


dysfunctional. Should somebody pay for that? Just to , meant --


complements the committee, Mark Thomson's argument was that if they


had not paid the extra, then he said his I would not be on the ball. How


does an institution, in that sense, gets to that point? It is people at


the top of the pyramid to all know each other and came into


broadcasting at the same time. It happens in lots of institutions. Let


me give you an example. You want to happens in lots of institutions. Let


get rid of a cleaner, you double the payoff. That is true. That is


something we need to crack down on. I preferred that Mark Thompson has


said, I think it is right. You can criticise it but at least there is


leadership there. It is leadership criticise it but at least there is


and I think we should go forward with that. Do we need to hear from


Tony hall? In this respect, in terms with that. Do we need to hear from


of what happened then, not really. I think he is widely trying to stay


out of the way and focus on... This is where the Trust are in


difficulty. I think what they would like to do is be part of Tony


hall's future and not part of Mark's past. They want to be in the


new era of maximum pay-outs of hundred and 50 million and they


don't want to be in the million pound payoff. The trouble is that


they cannot escape their own history. I think the BBC Trust is


asked and the BBC need to look for a new way forward. just yesterday, it


seemed like President Obama was set on taking military action in Syria,


as he took to the airwaves to persuade people to support him. Now


he has said he will put plans for a military strike on hold if Syria


agrees to place its military stockpile of weapons under control.


France has said it would put a resolution to this to the UN


Security Council. Last night, he was asked if this could pause military


action? Absolutely, if that happened. I don't think we would


have got to this point unless we have maintained a credible


possibility of military strikes. I have maintained a credible


want to make sure that the norm against chemical weapons is


maintained. We are joined now by a Conservative MP who has just


returned from the Syrian border. What is your response to this idea


of Syria putting its chemical weapons at arms length and under


international control? I think anything is possible. But I don't


think a scorpion ever changes its habits, so I am not optimistic. We


have two go the extra mile, give the Syrian government every opportunity


to give up their chemical weapons. And if, the Secretary of State, John


Kerry, said yesterday, if they are prepared to give up their chemical


weapons this week, then perhaps they can prevent action being taken


against them. Do you think it is right for President Obama to


persuade Congress that while this is discussed, they should put military


strikes on hold? He should ensure a resolution is passed, so if he does


not give up his chemical weapons, I think the United States and the


Alliance that has been put together, can take what ever action


is necessary to bring President Assad to account. Would you like to


see military action? I would like to see an end to the Civil War. So


anything that could bring an end to the Civil War, I would like to see


happen. But I would like to see President Assad and his brother, who


I believe is directly responsible for the chemical attack, brought


before the courts in the Hague. You have been on the Turkish, Syrian


border so you will have seen floods of refugees trying to leave Syria


for some sort of safe haven. Do you think this potential idea, which


seems to me is about saving face for the politicians involved, will it


help Syrians who are frightened for their lives? No it is not. There


have been over 100,000 people killed by the president is sad military


machine and by taking chemical weapons out of the occasion is not


going to stop what is an asymmetrical war in which the Syrian


regime is constantly bombarding both with aeroplanes and helicopters,


heavy artillery and shells and so on, on innocent, Syrian civilians.


Frankly, there is nothing I see in the future that will bring that to


an end. Do you think President Assad will go for this idea? I think he


will use it, as he always does, as a delaying tactic. I think the


Russians will do everything possible to make sure it is used as a


delaying device. I don't think there is any honest approach to try to


bring an end to the Civil War. He will try to slaughter his people


into submission with or without chemical weapons. Thanks for joining


us. Jim Ure, our Middle East correspondence is in Beirut. Is this


a turning point, or is it a delaying tactic? Obviously we will have to


a turning point, or is it a delaying wait and see. I have always been


foolishly optimistic on these things. I think when we look back in


a few years, we might conceivably see it as a turning point. The


Russians are now proposing something the Americans can accept. The French


are putting forward this idea of a resolution, formulating this stuff


about chemical weapons for a resolution at the UN. It will take a


about chemical weapons for a lot of hammering out, but the basis


is there, in the sense that both sides want to see chemical weapons


collected up and destroyed. We could, for the first time, seeing


Russia and America agreeing to a resolution being allowed through and


the national trend would be to talk about reviving the Geneva peace


process, which everybody agrees is the only way of settling this


conflict. Everybody says there cannot be a military solution, there


has to be a political one. If they cannot agree on these chemical


weapons measures, the National -- natural progression would be to get


a settlement under way again in Geneva or where ever. Thanks for


joining us. Do you share that confidence and optimism, but this


could be a way out for both President Obama, the Syrians and


Russia? Who knows? It has to be a positive thing. The Russians have


come along and said, we think we can take and do something with the


chemical weapons. I think we have learned lessons from Iraq about


intervening in civil wars and intervening in areas with a military


force, it does not always work. We should be working with the United


Nations and people across the world. The best we can hope for is to try


to keep working to get diplomacy going. It sounds like good news. It


is not bad news. Except the scepticism that it might not


happen. It will, to some extent, focus on Britain's role and a gain


on how David Cameron and Ed Miliband have dealt with this. First of all,


the Prime Minister ruling out another vote on military action and


Ed Miliband withdrawing support for what he saw was a march to war. I


Ed Miliband withdrawing support for think Ed Miliband was right, we did


not know enough. I think the Prime Minister came across as petulant.


What he should have said, when we know more facts, we will talk about


what we can do. The right way to do that is through a United Nations


process and work with other countries. We are not the police of


the world. What we can be is a force for the good when we are working


with other people. I think Ed Miliband's position was correct.


Would it make any difference? Is it the right time? Let's see what


develops. This solution might not work, but what is the downside if it


doesn't. If there was fresh evidence and circumstances change, they would


look again at another vote and possibility of military action, what


would your view be? I do like the idea of Britain being involved in


military action. It will not solve things. -- I do not like. It will


also kill and maim the people. It is finding a solution to the Syrian


problem. The only way that will happen is by getting the major


powers together and working it through politically.


As we were saying earlier, Sir Robin Wales is the first directly elected


mayor of the London Borough of Newham. He has been involved in the


London 2012 Olympics. The borough has seen a great deal of


regeneration, but there are still poor areas, suffering from


overcrowding and deprivation. This has prompted the council to


introduce mandatory landlord licensing, the first scheme of its


kind in the country. Early morning in new in London, and


three council officers are knocking on, although not kicking in, doors.


It is not a courtesy call. Since February, the council have been


enforcing the licensing of rented properties. The borough is full of


ordinary houses, some of which have extraordinary numbers of occupants,


whilst each room is unofficially rented as a flat. At first, there is


little luck, but after a while someone opens up and we are allowed


in. Actually, when we first arrived, despite some furious knocking and no


one replied, and the entire group moved on down the street, I just


happened to notice when I look back, people were peeking out of the


window. Some of the occupants had looked out to see what was going on,


so we all came back. Now we are in here, it is clear it is not being


rented by just one family. Now we have come into the property and come


to the top floor, we have locks on the outside of the doors. That


indicates to us, that although the lady is saying and they are one


family, they are living here with some friends staying, we would not


normally have locks on doors. We need to investigate further. Police


are in attendance, and why -- while many occupants who are paying very


high rents are here significantly, some have overstayed their visas.


But for legitimate residents, wide target them, why not rate the


landlords? We need to get the evidence first of all to show the


property is rented. This is what we are doing, gathering evidence,


gathering statements and intelligence. We are making our own


notes and taking our own photographs. Then we will go to see


the landlord. So far, 110 cases have been brought against criminal


landlords and the evidence gathering goes on. A different door, but the


same story. We have access to another one. Just be careful of the


carpet. The condition is not as good as the last one. And the last one


was not great. The state of the house and the kitchen is astonishing


in comparison to the rent charged. Just as it is in the next property.


This is another one they think may have multiple occupancy, being


unlicensed. You cannot help feeling a little bit sorry for the people.


The landlord is making up to £50,000 a year from multiple rental on a


property unlicensed, unsafe and unpleasant for such use. These marks


are squashed bedbugs. In my hair, in my ears, it in my hair. 15 last


night? Yes. It is no surprise the council are accusing in new of being


a thing cover for border agency checks. But it is clear for now, the


raids will go on. Why did you decide to do this? When


we looked at the situation there has been a big expansion in the private


sector rental market in you. You are twice as likely to get anti-social


behaviour from a property that is rented. We had lots of complaints,


rubbish in gardens, people behaving badly, people making noise. If you


have lots of people in a house, they generate noise and it is awful. Then


when we looked, people are being exploited. They are people who do


not care. A third of the landlords are very good, a and about 25% are


criminals. We are out to get the 25% of criminal landlords. We have no


issue with landlords, it is the ones who are criminal putting too many


people in a property. 15 people, typically. We have two people living


in a walk in freezer. It is not good enough. They are shocking, some of


the pictures and I am sure people think those squalid conditions are


unacceptable. But there is obviously think those squalid conditions are


demand out there. Report said you feel a bit sorry for the people


living there, when you have your teams going in? We are going to


drive these landlords out and have the properties improved, so they are


better places for people to live. If we don't do this, it is £50 for a


bed, typically. They are making a fortune? Of course they are. If we


don't do anything, more people will do it. It is not the people we are


after, it is the landlords we go after. But there may be people


living illegally there? What we have found is, out of the 600 unlicensed


properties we visited, one in five we made an arrest. We are paying for


the police officers. It is costing us money. Residents are telling us


they are sick and tired of living next to places who are bad. What you


have seen is replicated in many properties. We are not going to put


up with it. How long are you going to do this for? It is very


expensive. How long will you continue to do this? Until we clear


these bad landlords out. A good landlord, if you register, £150 for


five years. Interestingly, across landlord, if you register, £150 for


London and the rest of the country, people are looking at this. Who else


is looking at this in London councils? We have been talking to


Oxford, Blackpool and Liverpool. This is trailblazing. As they see


the impact, other people will want to do it. We have the same problem


in other parts of London in particular. You could argue that


some of these dodgy landlords could go to neighbouring counties?


Anecdotally, that is what we are hearing. Other councils will respond


the same way. In the end it is about the neighbours who have been putting


up with appalling problems from these places, and the people who are


exploited. You have children living in a number of them. You see that,


and it is not on. We cannot allow this. If we don't do anything, it


will turn into a ghetto. What about the number of landlords


that are signed up to the new licensing scheme? It is 25% of the


landlords. It is cash in hand and they are not paying tax. It is being


avoided by these people. There are criminals living in them. Many are


avoided by these people. There are arrested for immigration but for


other crimes as well. What about the legacy for 2012 for your area? You


were in the spotlight and this is your dark side. You were trying to


clear the issue up. Has the legacy been a good thing? It has created


jobs and opportunities. We have got 5000 people into work last year. We


think employment is important. On top of that, we have invested 40


million in sport. Every child gets free tuition. What we wanted from


million in sport. Every child gets the Olympics was inspiration and I


think it has inspired our people. Last night we had a show for


schoolchildren to come to. For us, it it was regeneration but


inspiration as well. There are lots of good news stories, but we will


not allow the bad news stories to continue either. Now, the weather's


getting colder, the mornings are getting darker and the leaves are


starting to turn. But that hasn't stopped Ed Miliband from planning a


nice trip to the seaside. However, it's choppy waters ahead for the


Labour leader who addressed the TUC conference in Bournemouth this


morning. His most pressing challenge is to sort out Labour's relationship


with the unions. It's all guns blazing between the two sides over


proposed changes to Labour Party funding in the wake of the


controversy over the selection of Labour's candidate in Falkirk. And


fighting with the unions means Labour's finances looks likely to


take a hit with both the GMB and Unison withdrawing some of their


funding to the party. Meanwhile, voters still haven't warmed to Ed.


The latest poll shows his net approval rating is at minus 31


compared to just minus 15 for David Cameron. And that's all while things


are looking rosier for the government, with George Osborne


insisting the UK economy has turned a corner all thanks to their


economic policy. I want a different relationship with individual trade


union members as part of building a relationship with individual trade


different Labour Party. Some people ask me, why do you think it is


necessary to make these changes? Let me try and explain. We have 3


million working men and women affiliated to our party, and I am


proud of that. I am proud of that link. But here is the problem. So


many of them, the vast majority of them, play no role in our local


parties. They are affiliated in name only. That was not the vision of the


founders of our party. That is not my vision and it is not your vision


either. I want each and every my vision and it is not your vision


affiliated member of the Labour Party to be a real part of the


party. A real voice in our party based on an active choice to be part


of the party. Well, joining me now from Bournemouth are two union


delegates who were listening to Ed Miliband's speech - Maureen Le


Marinel from Unison and Lisa Johnson from the GMB. Your response to the


speech? I think he said some of the right things. Certainly, our members


are not asking what the funding relationship is between ourselves


and the Labour Party but what they are wanting to hear is what he is


going to do about the economic crisis and how he is going to get


education for our young people, jobs for our young people, how he is


going to fight the Bedroom Tax which is forcing our families out of their


homes. They are the important thing is that the members. Do you think he


has picked the wrong time to have a fight? I do not think there is a


fight in all honesty. I think Ed Miliband is saying that people


should have a choice. Where Unison members are concerned, we have


always had that choice. For us, and our members, what Ed Miliband is


suggesting is no different to the way we have been operating for ten


years. Was the GMB union rights to cut funding to the Labour Party? --


right. What we have seen today from Ed Miliband is what we want to hear.


We want to hear how to get people back to work and how people can pay


the Bills. This is exactly what we need to talk about. I am not sure


that our members in care homes and the dinner ladies want us to talk


about an internal Labour Party issued when they are struggling to


pay the Bills. Do you think this was the wrong time to bring this up? He


was the one that tried to reform the relationship and used the Falkirk


saga to act as a platform. That is exactly what I think. People are


interested on policies that impact on their everyday lives. They are


not interested in internal party workings. We're not saying we do not


want change at all. Our general secretary said many times it was not


working exactly as we wanted but it needs to be the right change and


Labour need to start talking. Maureen, you are both members of the


Labour Party, how many new members Do you think will join up to Labour


if they have to do it as individual members? I think if members know


that they have that choice then more people will join the Labour Party


because they know that they have that choice. 300,000?Why not? Why


not 300,000? It Ed Miliband is going to lead the Labour Party in the


right way for the people of this country, doing all the economic


things and getting them off the ground, that the public ones, and


that the community needs, then I believe that the Labour Party is the


party for the future. Thank you very much for joining us from sunny


Bournemouth. That's the view from Bournemouth. Labour's Chuka Umanna


joins me now. They are optimistic about all of these new members that


will sign up. What other political about all of these new members that


parties have turned down the membership declination? We have a


crisis of politics across the Western world. The point is that


this is not just an issue for the Labour Party. We are seeking to


tackle this crisis and I found, in my own constituency, in many


respects, people are more political than ever because of the adverse


circumstances that they are living in, but they have never felt so


distant from party politics. That represents a challenge for you in


the media and for us. I think we have a head start over other


political parties because we have a link to 3 million people who power


British businesses and services. What we are trying to do through


these reforms is making sure we have a better relationship with them.


Secondly, we need to take big money out of politics and that is why this


individual link, and having a funding to the Labour Party, is so


important. Compare and contrast that to the Conservative party who've


made no effort to transform politics whatsoever. They use this issue to


denigrate hard-working trade union members. Since you brought it up,


about taking the big money out of politics, there will be many voters


who are saying it is brave to tackle this issue at this point. You have


laid all your cards on the table and have picked a fight with union


leaders, what concessions have you got for the Tories? It is not about


picking a fight. Quite frankly, there have been no concessions from


the Conservative party... They are in a position where they lose 25% of


their funding. MPs in marginal seats will be thinking yikes! If we do not


sort out our politics it does not matter what policies we come up


with. That is why this is a priority. The principle of having a


healthy democracy has got to come before big money. We have had a


discussion about where we set a funding cap. The simple fact is that


if your viewers would sue Google Conservative party, you will see


that for the price of £50,000 a year, you can have a dinner with


David Cameron. We think that is big money. I know that there you have


David Cameron. We think that is big not achieved it. We will achieve!


That is an issue for them. We are adjusting... You are going to


bankrupt your party... No, we are not! Diane Abbott, your colleague,


said she is not worried about it because the union leaders will come


up with the money when election time comes. Is that your strategy? The


money that the GMB is cutting will come back just before the election?


I think you are missing the point as to why we are doing this. Jo, I am


not going to deny that there will be a dent in the Labour Party's


finances but the majority of our funding comes from small donations


and individuals. The idea that the Labour Party is suddenly going to be


bankrupt is not a picture that I recognise. The implication that


ending affiliation with trade unions is that they will lose their


leadership. The block vote, will that end? Lord Ray Collins is


carrying out the review into the reforms and if we opt in, that will


have implications for our roles but he is consulting with all of the


stakeholders in the Labour Party to work out a reform package. I was


talking about the need for a change to politics. If I come on this


programme and dictate everything that is going to happen, without us


having a consultation with the members, it makes a mockery of


everything. Was this the right time to do this because you could argue


that Ed Miliband has been a leader for three years and there has been


no mention of this dramatic reform or changing relationship? Falkirk


happens and then there is a revolution. Perhaps it was not done


in the best way but he stood up and said he thought it was wrong before


anyone else was doing it. He said, we need to get more working people


into the Labour Party. The Labour Party desperately needs those


people. Do you want it to happen? Yes. We will see a big increase in


membership and we will see hundreds Yes. We will see a big increase in


of people knocking on doors during the next election. I am not bothered


about the money. He has done the right thing and we have a leader who


does the right thing. I have been in the Labour Party for more years than


I care to mention. I go back to 1970, and if I had a pound for every


time that you said there was a battle between Labour and the trade


unions, we will get people who work. We will get people who work on lower


incomes coming in and influencing the Labour Party. It is good for


politics and is the right thing to do. Let's talk about what the Tories


will do with their big donations. Yesterday Diane Abbott said people


in the Labour Party are obsessed that he is not labelled Red Ed. Is


that true? I don't agree with that. I don't believe we are obsessed with


that. What we are obsessed with is putting forward a positive vision on


how we can build a fairer, more equal and democratic and more


prosperous Britain. That is why you have seen exploitative use of zero


hours contract. Do you not agree with zero hours contracts? You think


they are applicable in some instances? Ed Miliband said you


cannot force people to work. Those are important. And where possible we


should have permanent contracts. For a music programme, we have to give


people a contract for a term. What I have said as a result of what it has


done, I have instigated a review of all the zero hours contract in the


council, we have 112 of them. I would rather have people working on


proper contracts. He has not said no to zero contracts, he has said about


the abuse of them. Exploitation. That is what we are trying to outlaw


them. In a year, let's see how many new members there are to the Labour


Party. Bold, radical change is what we need. And 300,000 new members.


Today is an important day on a two square miles rock off the coast of


Spain. I'm talking about Gibraltar which is celebrating National Jibril


today, marking the 19th anniversary of the southern tree agreement.


After authorities dropped 74 concrete blocks into the bay to


build what they say is an artificial reef to encourage conservation,


there has been controversy. Madrid have retaliated by increasing border


checks between Spain and Gibraltar. I spoke to the Chief Minister of


Gibraltar and I asked him what the day would involve. Today we are


celebrating the first expression of our free will in Gibraltar, which


celebrating the first expression of was on the 10th of September 1967,


first referendum. 99% of people voted to remain British and we are


remembering that expression of free will by dressing up in red and


white. The main streets and squares are a swathe of red and white.


Everybody is enjoying the day as a National Carnival and celebration.


Sounds wonderful, will you get a message from the Prime Minister,


David Cameron? We have had a message from the Prime Minister delivered


today, where he has been clear and loud in his support for the people


of Gibraltar and our right to determine our political future for


ourselves. In particular, to choose to remain British. This comes after


a summer of tension between Spain, Gibraltar and Great Britain, if you


like. What is this most recent row Gibraltar and Great Britain, if you


with Spain really like? It has got to be about more than just the


artificial reef built by Gibraltar? You are right, in the same way it is


not about why there are officers shooting at a jet skier which they


did two weeks before the reef was set up. It is all about Spain


wanting to take the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Spain were saying I wish


to persuade the people of Gibraltar they should stop being British and


become Spanish. That is one way of dealing with the matter. Spain says


the wishes of the people of Gibraltar are irrelevant and we


should be turned into a Spanish territory, because there are some


resolutions of the United Nations from the 1960s which say this and


the treaty should be undone. That is the background issue.


Geographically, you are so close to Spain, you could not be any closer.


If relations are that bad between yourselves, the Spanish and Great


Britain, it is not good for you and the people of Gibraltar. We do not


wish for there to be bad relations between Spain and Gibraltar. We


could boast of a great relationship with Spain. Our most important


relationship in the world is that with the United Kingdom. And the


second important relationships are that with Spain and Morocco. We have


a fluid communication with the municipality. But unfortunately the


Spanish government does not want to engage in direct contact with the


government of Gibraltar and the forum that has been set up for that


purpose. Hopefully the formula William Hague has proposed a leaders


to rekindle some contract with Madrid. -- contact. You have


described Spain as acting like North Korea over the latest tensions. That


will not help the matter will it? I was quoting the Spanish foreign


minister in an interview on the 4th of August. An interview from which


he has resile in great measure now. But in that interview, the way he


expressed issues was a kin to that But in that interview, the way he


you might expect from the North Korean regime. A complete


overreaction and an attack on the people of Gibraltar. Are you


entirely blameless in the tensions that have built up in recent weeks?


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am a politician, and


politicians in this area have tried to take an axe to human relations


because of the way they deal with things. I would not be the first one


to say I am entirely blameless in everything. Even though every time


we have acted we have acted reasonably, responsibly to try to


deflect tensions. But I let others judge me, not myself. We'll


relations improve with Spain, or do you think it could deteriorate


further? The will of the people of Gibraltar prevails. The relationship


will only improve, and the best possible relationship between the


people of Gibraltar and the people possible relationship between the


of Spain, and the two governments, we think it is important for the


people. In particular, the people of the region. But there is no region


-- reason for people in Madrid to read in the newspapers that there is


friction between Gibraltar and Spain. Gibraltar is an opportunity


to showcase how well Anglo Spanish relations can go and take the


benefits of Gibraltar and the economic opportunities we create and


four Gibraltar to enjoy the touristic opportunities the region


around us provides. That is what I would like to see is concentrating


on. Enjoy the day.Thank you very much, indeed.


I am joined by Ian Paisley, and London correspondent for the Spanish


nationalist -- national newspaper, ABC. What do the Spanish press make


of the Gibraltar story? It made for an August vacuum story to fill our


pages and covers. It is a big story. It comes and goes. The main elements


of the story are well-known. It is a British colony, it will probably


always remain a British colony. But other elements were played out


through the summer that are different to previous incidents. So


there was a story and people had feelings about this story. And some


of the more social and economical elements of the story involving


fishermen. People get quite emotional about fishing rights. What


have the Spanish made about fishing rights, telling the Spanish


ambassador in London to pack his sombrero, straw donkey and sangria


and go? I have not spoken to the ambassador, he does not wear a


sombrero, and does not have a donkey. But he does like a drink


once in a while. British people do drink tonnes of sangria. Do you


regret your choice of words? I don't think the ambassador has had a


bypass operation of humour. It is a very tense situation, was it


appropriate to use that humour. Others say it was insulting to refer


so personally to the Spanish ambassador and Spain in that way.


Did it help? We met with the Minister prior to this question Time


and the feelings in that group were very strong. They wanted to summon


ambassador in and tell him that this was technically wrong with what was


happening in Gibraltar. Is that what you think? That is why I thought


about putting humour in this and deflect some of the feelings but


make the point. I hope tension does go down. The Prime Minister needs a


good relationship with Spain, Spain needs a good relationship with him.


Are the Spanish passionate about getting Gibraltar back? It goes to


the national feelings. But it is not just a strategic issue in the minds


of the people. Most people would agree with the saying, Spanish


Gibraltar. But for the government, agree with the saying, Spanish


it is different. Gibraltar is a tax haven. Spain has its own tax haven


list which includes Gibraltar. It has a problem with tobacco


smuggling. It was once a beautiful, natural bay, now filled with an


ugly, industrial landscape. The Minister said it, they should be on


good terms and there would be a lot of potential for developing a


beautiful area on both sides of the border, but it is not happening. The


people who live on this rock, families who stay there. They have


said they British and want to remain British. That is what needs to be


respected. It may be easy to walk away from it, but it cannot be


done, these people have rights. Should the government be tougher


with the Spanish government? I think they should. What would you do? I


cannot imagine any situation where people who want to be part of


Britain, we would walk away from them. But to compare them to North


Korea however, if there are issues them. But to compare them to North


they should be dealt with. It suits politicians to make a fuss about it.


And it filled the newspapers in Spain over August. I will have to


say goodbye to both of you. Just before we go, we can find out the


answer to our quiz. Which leader's wife does David Beckham have a crush


on, according to one of his former team-mates? Which one? I would guess


Cherie Blair. You are right. That is all for today. Thanks to our guests.


The 1pm news is starting on BBC One now. We will be back at 11:30am




Download Subtitles