:00:38. > :00:48.Welcome to the Daily Politics. A new report from the TUC says a third of
:00:48. > :00:52.council tenants have fallen behind on rent because of cuts to housing
:00:52. > :00:56.benefit - that's the bedroom tacks or the spare room subsidy, depending
:00:56. > :00:58.on the cut of your jib. We'll have reaction from both sides of the
:00:58. > :01:02.argument. As house prices boom in parts of
:01:02. > :01:05.Britain, is this the start of a new housing bubble? Nick Clegg left the
:01:05. > :01:08.Lib Dem conference in Glasgow a happy chap - and with the polls
:01:08. > :01:11.looking close, is coalition government here to stay?
:01:12. > :01:15.And is David Cameron right to say football fans can call themselves
:01:15. > :01:23.what they want - or is offensive language always offensive language?
:01:23. > :01:28.All that in the next hour and with us for the duration, the
:01:28. > :01:36.constitutional expert, star of the House of Lords, cross bench peer,
:01:36. > :01:39.Peter Henessy. Welcome. Thank you. Let's talk about the Liberal
:01:39. > :01:43.Democrats, because we haven't done very much of that so far this week.
:01:43. > :01:46.Yesterday afternoon it was the Lib Dem leader, Deputy Prime Minister
:01:46. > :01:54.Nick Clegg, who took centre stage. He had this to say. Three is ago I
:01:54. > :02:00.told you, we had an opportunity, our predecessors would have given
:02:00. > :02:08.anything to govern. To turn our liberal principles into practice.
:02:08. > :02:15.Today I tell you that an even bigger opportunity awaits. The cycle of
:02:15. > :02:20.red, blue, blue, red. It has been interrupted. Our place in this
:02:20. > :02:26.government has prevented the pendulum swinging back from left to
:02:26. > :02:31.right. We are now where we always should have been. In power, in the
:02:31. > :02:37.liberal centre, in tune with the British people. And every day we are
:02:37. > :02:44.showing that we can govern and govern well. That pluralism works.
:02:44. > :02:50.And if we can do this again, in government began in 2015, we are a
:02:50. > :02:55.step closer to breaking the two party mould for good.
:02:55. > :02:58.And here to discuss whether Nick Clegg is right about breaking the
:02:58. > :03:05.mould of politics is Stephen Tall, co-editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.
:03:05. > :03:11.Is he really going to break the mould of two party politics? He is
:03:11. > :03:15.going to give it a go. It was an interesting speech because he was
:03:15. > :03:18.trying to stake out what is still quite controversial territory within
:03:18. > :03:23.the party, which is we are a party of the sensor that can anchor the
:03:23. > :03:26.other two parties in the liberal mainstream centre ground. For some
:03:26. > :03:31.activists it is a bit of a hard message to hear, they want to hear a
:03:31. > :03:34.radical, progressive viewpoint. He is saying, we did not win the
:03:34. > :03:38.election last time, we are not going to win the next election, we have to
:03:38. > :03:43.get real. That means we are going to be able walk against extremism of
:03:43. > :03:48.Labour and Tories, that is our way into politics. It is quite an
:03:48. > :03:52.audacious narrative to say that we are going to be a break of the
:03:52. > :03:55.extremes of right and left. In constitutional terms, do you think
:03:55. > :04:02.he is right in saying this is the start of the end of red, blue, blue,
:04:02. > :04:05.red? People have said this before. Joe Grimond in the 60s, a wonderful
:04:05. > :04:11.speech. All the well rehearsed Joe Grimond in the 60s, a wonderful
:04:11. > :04:17.spontaneity is look rather sad as the decades pass. I don't get is a
:04:17. > :04:23.problem just for the Lib Dem activists. I like Lib Dems, I tend
:04:23. > :04:28.to like herbivorous people. But it is very preachy. This is the Lib
:04:28. > :04:34.Dems of the holier than thou, that only sensible is possible. If we are
:04:34. > :04:37.rooted in a coalition government. It is almost as if you are saying that
:04:37. > :04:43.our views are self-evidently decent and right and the others will take
:04:43. > :04:46.ideological awaydays. Some might say it is a tad hubristic, I say this
:04:46. > :04:51.with the perfection and understanding. That is the Ritz,
:04:51. > :04:58.that voters think it is a load of old codswallop. -- that is the risk.
:04:58. > :05:01.Absolutely. We heard criticism that this is Nick Clegg declaring that
:05:01. > :05:05.the Lib Dems want to be in power for ever. At the last election, the
:05:05. > :05:09.electorate could not decide and did not give any one party a majority.
:05:09. > :05:14.In those circumstances, someone has to break the deadlock. Nick Clegg is
:05:14. > :05:18.saying he is the person who can. There is the more philosophical
:05:18. > :05:24.argument which is the symbol arguing, two heads are better than
:05:24. > :05:26.one. -- simple are given. If you have one party pretending they have
:05:27. > :05:30.some kind of real majority when they don't, it is much better to combine
:05:31. > :05:38.forces and come up with the best ideas between them. Except if you
:05:38. > :05:41.look as if you are prepared to do business with anyone, in the end
:05:41. > :05:45.your principles go. That is what it might have sounded like two voters,
:05:45. > :05:50.that it is just power they are after and will get into bed with anyone.
:05:50. > :05:54.That is the risk. In Germany they have the FDP party which has flipped
:05:54. > :05:58.between left and right over 40 or 50 years, propping up front
:05:58. > :06:02.governments. There is that risk that you come to be seen as political
:06:02. > :06:06.harlots. From the Lib Dem point of view, we are trying to make sure
:06:06. > :06:10.that there is a chance for a correction, to get some liberal
:06:10. > :06:15.policies in government. Stephen Tall made the point that no one voted for
:06:15. > :06:22.one particular party but no one votes for coalitions. They don't,
:06:22. > :06:24.but they would do if we had proportional representation. Then
:06:24. > :06:30.you would have to have agreements, you would develop agreements so that
:06:30. > :06:33.people knew what combination they would get if the outcome went this
:06:33. > :06:40.way rather than that. It is easier to do, it is obligatory in many
:06:40. > :06:43.ways. The real problem is it is very hard to strike a pose of a
:06:43. > :06:47.principled tart and that is exactly what this strategy involves. Do you
:06:47. > :06:52.think for Nick Clegg, look what happened to the alternative vote to
:06:52. > :06:57.proportional rippers and taken, it did not happen, no appetite for it
:06:57. > :07:01.-- abortion or representation. There is a risk that this could just be
:07:01. > :07:09.one win for them. -- proportional representation. Some Lib Dem
:07:09. > :07:12.activists would be more comfortable with Labour. Then you have the
:07:12. > :07:12.activists would be more comfortable leadership, having worked in
:07:12. > :07:17.partnership with vivid Cameron for leadership, having worked in
:07:17. > :07:22.three and a half years committee has got a working relationship with him
:07:22. > :07:25.is with David Cameron. He would probably prefer that relationship to
:07:25. > :07:33.continue rather than starting again with Ed Miliband. Do you think a
:07:33. > :07:37.coalition is likely in 2015? Do you think it is becoming more of a
:07:37. > :07:41.possibility? I have a terrible record as a forecaster. The polls
:07:41. > :07:45.suggest the Lib Dems may come down to 20 seats and that may be enough
:07:45. > :07:48.to be the power broker again, but it may not. Certainly the guardians of
:07:48. > :07:50.the British constitution are may not. Certainly the guardians of
:07:50. > :07:57.refining the lessons of last time in terms of how you get to a coalition.
:07:57. > :08:01.Because it will take longer because we are used to it, unless the money
:08:01. > :08:05.markets are going bonkers. The Cabinet manual has been refined
:08:05. > :08:10.based on the lessons of last time. The system is adapting to the
:08:10. > :08:15.possibility. I wrote a blog post about this and I want to make the
:08:15. > :08:19.commitment on TV, if we are reduced to 24 seats next time, I will run
:08:19. > :08:28.naked down Whitehall. I think the chances... Lets hope they get more,
:08:28. > :08:35.is all I can say. There is a risk, ten to 20 seats. It is a real
:08:35. > :08:38.possibility that the Liberal Democrats could lose that many
:08:38. > :08:48.seats, could they really then be the power brokers? They have 57 seats.
:08:48. > :08:53.If the party was reduced to 40 seats next time, don't forget when you're
:08:53. > :08:59.talking about government majorities, you can double that because one vote
:08:59. > :09:05.against is worth two in favour. You have to have 80 extra MPs on the
:09:05. > :09:08.other side. Do you think there is a bar below which the Liberal
:09:08. > :09:14.Democrats could not justify being power brokers? In human terms, if
:09:14. > :09:20.Nick has presided over you losing a lot of seats, he doesn't look like
:09:20. > :09:26.the young, promising, convincing person. He is still an extremely
:09:26. > :09:31.nice man but the polls don't suggest he is receiving the praise of a
:09:31. > :09:34.grateful nation. In psychological terms it would be hard to portray
:09:34. > :09:42.yourself as the repositories of reason and savers of the
:09:42. > :09:44.Constitution. There are two factors. If Nick Clegg has lost by losing
:09:44. > :09:50.seats, you are right, it makes it If Nick Clegg has lost by losing
:09:50. > :09:54.far harder to negotiate a good deal in the next hung parliament if there
:09:54. > :09:59.is one. I think he is aware of that risk, if any kind of backslide is
:09:59. > :10:05.going to make it much tougher to govern. There is also the other
:10:05. > :10:08.point that Conservatives and Labour have both watched the coalition play
:10:08. > :10:12.out and they are nervous about what another five years of coalition
:10:13. > :10:16.government means for them. The Conservatives are completely split,
:10:16. > :10:19.partly as a result of the coalition. Labour will not take kindly to
:10:19. > :10:24.having to deal with the Lib Dems either and Ed Bill abound -- Ed
:10:24. > :10:27.Miliband knows it could give him problems that David Cameron has
:10:27. > :10:28.faced. I don't think labour or Conservatives are looking forward to
:10:28. > :10:32.the prospect of coalition. And Nick Conservatives are looking forward to
:10:32. > :10:38.Clegg says he's not going to in politics for ever. Exactly, only
:10:38. > :10:42.three or form or elections! Now it's time for our daily quiz.
:10:42. > :10:45.With the Lib Dems holding their conference this week, and Labour
:10:45. > :10:48.following on next week, Conservative MPs have jumped on the chance of
:10:48. > :10:53.getting out of Westminster. But where have they all gone?
:10:53. > :10:59.A) The UKIP annual conference? B) Grouse shooting in Scotland? C) A
:10:59. > :11:04.late summer getaway in Ibiza? Or d) An away day at a hotel in
:11:04. > :11:07.Oxfordshire? At the end of the show Peter will give us the correct
:11:07. > :11:10.answer. Now, it's what the chattering middle
:11:10. > :11:13.classes like to talk about, especially if you live in Wandsworth
:11:13. > :11:16.or Hampstead. Not George Osborne's hair, but house prices. They're on
:11:16. > :11:21.the rise again and everyone's talking about a housing bubble. But
:11:21. > :11:24.what's the true picture? Certainly in London, average house prices have
:11:24. > :11:32.risen by almost 10% over the past year. And in the South East that
:11:32. > :11:35.figure is 2.6%. Elsewhere, in the South West and the East there are
:11:35. > :11:41.more modest increases compared to London. But it isn't such a rosy
:11:41. > :11:46.picture further north. Over the past year, prices in the North East fell
:11:46. > :11:51.by 1.3% and in the North West they have gone down by 0.7%. Despite the
:11:51. > :11:55.mixed picture there've been calls for the governor of the Bank of
:11:55. > :12:05.England to step in and control a housing led boom. Here's what he had
:12:05. > :12:10.to say. We see further improvement in prices and activity, but that is
:12:10. > :12:13.our expectation. And perhaps some acceleration, so we do need to be
:12:13. > :12:16.vigilant about this. But,speaking to the BBC's Business
:12:16. > :12:27.Editor Robert Peston, the Chancellor George Osborne rejected the idea. I
:12:27. > :12:32.don't see the evidence of some housing boom. IC has prices 25%
:12:32. > :12:38.lower, mortgage approvals half what they are. We are a long way from a
:12:38. > :12:42.housing boom. I do see a lot of families trying to buy homes, unable
:12:42. > :12:46.to afford deposits because of the weakness of some parts of our
:12:46. > :12:51.banking system and I want to help those families. I am joined by the
:12:51. > :12:55.Shadow implement minister, Stephen Timms, and Professor Len
:12:55. > :12:58.Shadow implement minister, Stephen Shackleton, a fellow at the
:12:58. > :13:03.Institute of Economic Affairs. We are experiencing another housing
:13:04. > :13:10.bubble? I think it is too early to say. The real problem is that we are
:13:10. > :13:19.not building enough new homes. It has got a lot worse. 9% down,
:13:19. > :13:24.107,000 new homes started last year, 9% less than the previous year, the
:13:24. > :13:27.lowest peacetime figure since the 1920s. That is why there is a rough
:13:27. > :13:35.threat of a bubble because we are not building enough. Labour in its
:13:35. > :13:38.13 years also built to few houses. We could certainly have done with
:13:38. > :13:45.building more but we did build more than the current government. You had
:13:45. > :13:48.13 years. More per year. There is still a shocking shortage of houses
:13:48. > :13:53.over those 13 years. More needs to be done but things have gone
:13:53. > :13:58.backwards. You say it is too early to understand if there is a housing
:13:59. > :14:02.bubble? I think it is too early, we must be vigilant but the priority
:14:02. > :14:06.must be on more homes. Is it a good thing that house prices are going up
:14:06. > :14:10.in London and the south-east? It is good if you own a house, not so much
:14:11. > :14:14.if you don't. I welcome the fact there is help being given to people
:14:14. > :14:17.who want to get onto the housing ladder but we need to make sure
:14:17. > :14:21.there are enough homes for them to buy. Do you think there is a housing
:14:21. > :14:26.bubble? I think there is potentially a housing bubble. I think Mark
:14:26. > :14:33.Carney is right to say we don't know. These schemes are boosting
:14:33. > :14:35.demand in a situation where we are not putting enough houses and the
:14:35. > :14:39.government has done nothing to liberalise the housing market, to
:14:39. > :14:44.open up the supply of land and make it easier for people to build.
:14:44. > :14:49.Except land is available and planning permission has been given
:14:49. > :14:53.but builders are waiting to see if house prices rise. There has been a
:14:53. > :14:58.sort of break. What can the government do about that? The
:14:58. > :15:02.government could bring forward planned public investment in
:15:02. > :15:07.housing. We have seen a 60% cut in government housing investment since
:15:07. > :15:11.the election. The IMF is calling for investment in infrastructure, things
:15:11. > :15:15.like housing, and the government could do more to bring that forward
:15:15. > :15:22.and lead by example by building new homes.
:15:22. > :15:30.We have had a deep recession. The fact people are now starting to move
:15:30. > :15:35.is surely a good thing. We need, if you like, some sort of housing boom
:15:35. > :15:40.in order to help the economy move. You might be right. As your piece
:15:40. > :15:44.made clear, at the top end of the market, the housing market is
:15:44. > :15:48.picking up. People are spending more at that
:15:48. > :15:54.end. That is going to boost spending in the London economy, certainly, as
:15:54. > :16:00.a result of the effect of greater equity in housing. That is
:16:00. > :16:06.threatened by people like the Lib Dems with their mansion tax.
:16:06. > :16:16.Something labour would like to do as well. Indeed we would. People who
:16:16. > :16:20.are well should make a contribution. Are they living in mansions if they
:16:20. > :16:29.are living in London in houses that are £1.5 million? We have seen a big
:16:29. > :16:32.-- big tax cut for those on the biggest incomes. We think it would
:16:32. > :16:35.be fairer if people were putting in more.
:16:35. > :16:37.At what point do you think action more.
:16:37. > :16:41.should be taken to dampen down more.
:16:41. > :16:48.housing market? You say you want to wait and see. What will say to you,
:16:48. > :16:55.right, we need to do something? We need to make sure we get more new
:16:55. > :17:00.homes built. That is going to take a certain amount of time. House prices
:17:00. > :17:04.have gone up 10% in a year. You can only build a certain amount of
:17:05. > :17:11.houses in 12 months. What level of increase in London do you think
:17:11. > :17:15.would be too much? One can't put a simple figure on that. We should be
:17:15. > :17:20.taking action now to bring forward housing investment to make sure we
:17:20. > :17:24.get no -- more new homes and don't get the inevitable bubble if we
:17:24. > :17:31.don't. The Bank of England has been told to
:17:31. > :17:40.put an annual cap on house prizes. Is that a good idea? Fantasy. It
:17:40. > :17:47.can't be done. What about increasing the base rate?
:17:47. > :17:52.Is it time for Mark Carney, even though he has said he is not going
:17:52. > :17:56.to do it, is there a point at which you would encourage the bank of
:17:56. > :18:02.England to look at increasing the base rate? I don't think politicians
:18:02. > :18:11.should do that. That is a decision for the governor. It is a good
:18:11. > :18:17.mechanism if they decided to do it. That is a call for the government. I
:18:17. > :18:26.can understand why politicians will do anything to promote growth. They
:18:26. > :18:34.would run naked around the square inch of Felder. -- in Trafalgar.
:18:34. > :18:40.From the past recoveries, the pacemaker has often been the housing
:18:40. > :18:44.market. There are problems with that, partly because it adds to the
:18:44. > :18:49.rigid tea of the labour market. It is hard to move to the South East
:18:49. > :18:54.and get a house and job if you have lived in the north. It always ends,
:18:54. > :19:01.to some degree, in tears. Unless you had a command economy, which nobody
:19:01. > :19:05.does, it is hard to know what to do about it. But there is a pattern
:19:05. > :19:11.from past recoveries in which this has always been a problem. You are
:19:11. > :19:13.right. It is difficult to see what the government and the bank of
:19:13. > :19:17.England can do that they are not the government and the bank of
:19:17. > :19:20.currently doing. They have got a policy of looking at what is
:19:20. > :19:30.happening to unemployment as an indicator... Is that a good idea, to
:19:31. > :19:35.tie it to unemployment? That is a useful indicator of demand in the
:19:35. > :19:45.economy. Would you scrap the help to buy scheme? No, it is a good idea.
:19:45. > :19:49.It has been criticised. It is saying we are going to get people in debt
:19:49. > :19:55.when they can't afford to pay back their mortgage payments.
:19:55. > :20:01.If we were building more homes, this would be a more manageable problem.
:20:01. > :20:09.Why does every government failed to build enough homes? There are
:20:09. > :20:15.varying degrees of failure. But generally, they do. The problem at
:20:15. > :20:23.varying degrees of failure. But the moment is that the worst
:20:23. > :20:28.recession since the 1920s is happening now.
:20:28. > :20:34.Stay with us. Since the government's bedroom tax has come
:20:34. > :20:44.into force, there has been an increase in rent arrears, and that
:20:44. > :20:48.is the view of the TUC. Of the 114 councils that responded to their
:20:48. > :20:54.Freedom of Information requests, one in three affected has fallen behind
:20:54. > :20:58.on rent. In a recent separate study, the National Housing
:20:58. > :21:05.Federation found that a quarter of households affected by the cut are
:21:05. > :21:06.falling to rent arrears for the first time ever. The Department for
:21:06. > :21:08.Work and Pensions say it is too first time ever. The Department for
:21:08. > :21:16.early to judge their policy and that the removal of the spare room
:21:16. > :21:21.subsidy is a necessary reform to return fairness to housing benefit.
:21:21. > :21:24.Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC comment joins me. Can you
:21:24. > :21:25.Frances O'Grady, general secretary explain how, exactly, the findings
:21:25. > :21:30.were carried out? We issued a explain how, exactly, the findings
:21:30. > :21:34.Freedom of Information request to local authorities up and down
:21:34. > :21:43.Britain, and these were the results that came back to us.
:21:43. > :21:48.Is that evidence solid and this is the first time this council tenants
:21:48. > :21:54.have gone into arrears since the policy was brought in?
:21:54. > :22:01.These are tenants who were not in arrears before and now are. That is
:22:02. > :22:04.around 50,000, which we think is a conservative estimate.
:22:04. > :22:10.Not all local authorities responded to our request. The housing benefit
:22:10. > :22:16.bill is £24 billion. How would you bring it down? One of the key ways
:22:16. > :22:21.is to make sure that people earning decent wage in the first place and
:22:21. > :22:25.can afford fair rents. We have got sky-high rents in the
:22:25. > :22:31.private sector. They need to be tackled. You don't
:22:31. > :22:36.tackle them by pushing disabled people and pensioners out of their
:22:36. > :22:41.council homes. Bearing in mind that we have been in a recession and
:22:41. > :22:43.people have struggled to hold onto their jobs, the chances of there
:22:43. > :22:44.been increases in wages is obviously difficult.
:22:44. > :22:50.I ask you again, how else would you difficult.
:22:50. > :22:54.bring the housing benefit down? There is a big debate about how to
:22:54. > :23:01.control rent in the private sector. The best way with two -- would be to
:23:01. > :23:06.build more affordable homes. Is it too early to judge this
:23:06. > :23:10.policy? It has only been several months.
:23:10. > :23:14.Do you think that after a period of time, when people are just, that
:23:14. > :23:21.actually some of those difficulties will be ironed out? -- when people
:23:21. > :23:31.add just. It is easy for million years to talk about adjustment.
:23:31. > :23:35.-- millionaires. We need the crisis addressed now. There are too many
:23:35. > :23:42.people who are genuinely afraid that I going to be facing eviction. The
:23:42. > :23:47.government should scrap this crazy tax. The government talks about
:23:47. > :23:54.fairness. It says the policy is a symbol, if
:23:54. > :23:58.you like, for fairness, that they should not be council tenants in
:23:58. > :24:09.houses that are too big for them. Most people feel that a better
:24:09. > :24:17.symbol of fairness would be a mountain tax -- mansion tax. I hope
:24:17. > :24:23.that politicians from all parties are going to scrap it. We have been
:24:23. > :24:28.asking all parties to scrap it. It is unfair, unworkable, and it needs
:24:28. > :24:32.to change now. Lord Collins has today released his
:24:32. > :24:35.report on Labour's relationship with the unions. It says the electoral
:24:36. > :24:42.college, which elected Labour's leaders, is up for negotiation. A
:24:42. > :24:50.third of it is trade union votes. What is your response? That is an
:24:50. > :24:55.internal Labour Party matter. My opinion is the one most people
:24:55. > :24:59.share, which is that it is important that ordinary people have a voice in
:24:59. > :25:04.politics and that they have a stronger voice in politics. The
:25:04. > :25:09.Labour Party has been conducting its own consultation with those unions
:25:09. > :25:14.that are affiliated to it. I'm sure they will come up with a sensible
:25:14. > :25:19.solution that ensures that ordinary people keep a voice in politics so
:25:19. > :25:24.we can speak loudly on issues like this bedroom tax that most people
:25:24. > :25:27.feel is so unfair. But Ed Miliband has said that
:25:27. > :25:34.ordinary people should have a voice and they will have it by having one
:25:34. > :25:39.member, one vote. I say to you again, is it now time to look at the
:25:39. > :25:45.real possibility of getting rid of the union block vote in the
:25:45. > :25:49.electoral college? I think most people agree it is essential, Mao --
:25:49. > :25:54.now, more than ever, that British politics is rooted in the experience
:25:54. > :25:59.of ordinary people. Otherwise we would not hear, frankly, about
:26:00. > :26:04.issues like the bedroom tax. Thank you rematch. Stephen Timms,
:26:04. > :26:15.your colleague called for the spare room subsidy to beast -- be dropped.
:26:15. > :26:21.We don't yet have a fully costed programme for what we would do in
:26:21. > :26:25.2015. We will have a programme by 2015. We will make it clear at that
:26:25. > :26:32.point what we will do about this dreadful measure. Liam Byrne was
:26:32. > :26:38.very to go about this, so surely this is something you should pledge
:26:38. > :26:44.to reverse? Once we have a full programme, we will make that clear.
:26:44. > :26:48.The worst thing about this is, I think that people can do absolutely
:26:48. > :26:53.nothing about it. There is nowhere smaller for them to move to. When I
:26:53. > :26:58.canvass in my constituency, I know it is a lot of people who are
:26:58. > :27:04.frightened they have no idea where they can go to. I take that point,
:27:04. > :27:08.that there are not enough smaller houses. But then you do agree that
:27:08. > :27:14.people should live in homes that are the right size for them? They should
:27:14. > :27:19.not have spare rooms that are funded by the taxpayer?
:27:19. > :27:24.What we proposed during the debate on this was that if people had been
:27:24. > :27:29.offered somewhere smaller and refused to move, a penalty would be
:27:29. > :27:34.fair in now. Two Pina lies people when there is nothing they can do
:27:34. > :27:37.other than take the hit and potentially get into digger
:27:37. > :27:50.arrears, as we are hearing in the surveys, that is a terrible idea. --
:27:50. > :27:56.to penalised people. It has been executed in a ham-fisted
:27:56. > :28:02.way. Indeed, the amount of money to be saved by this is only in the
:28:02. > :28:09.region of £500 million per year. My daughter is being given two years of
:28:09. > :28:12.free meals. Why? And yet we are running into this problem with
:28:12. > :28:18.bedroom tax. In the longer term, we have to do something about using
:28:18. > :28:22.social housing in a rational way. We have got into a situation where a
:28:22. > :28:29.lot of people are occupying space that is different from the historic
:28:29. > :28:34.needs. Over time, I think we should give people strong incentives to
:28:34. > :28:40.downsize if that is appropriate. Is it the best way to reduce the
:28:40. > :28:42.housing benefit you'll? It is a small amount, really. You have got
:28:42. > :28:46.housing benefit you'll? It is a to think about how you can bring
:28:46. > :28:53.this down systemically. In real terms, in 1970, we were spending
:28:53. > :29:00.£250 million. Now we are spending £24 billion. This is extraordinary.
:29:00. > :29:06.That is an eye watering figure. But as has been stated, if it saves £550
:29:06. > :29:11.million and there are limited options for many people in areas
:29:11. > :29:16.where there are not alternative housing, do you think is a good
:29:16. > :29:24.policy? The problems were explained in the
:29:24. > :29:31.House of Lords. Our expert pointed this out. I accept the need for
:29:31. > :29:37.deficit reduction. This is not fantasy stuff. It is a gripping
:29:37. > :29:41.priority. Housing benefit is one of the very big items. To do it this
:29:41. > :29:45.way, the level of social disruption and the lack of small alternative
:29:45. > :29:49.accommodation, all of this was foreseen. One can only sympathise
:29:49. > :29:55.with ministers who have got to find the billions. They have also got a
:29:55. > :30:05.duty of care to the vulnerable in society free. -- in society.
:30:05. > :30:08.Is it just the vulnerable who are affected? There are people who are
:30:08. > :30:13.just living in houses that are too before them.
:30:13. > :30:20.A lot of people on low incomes are being very badly damaged by this.
:30:20. > :30:23.The one encouraging thing is the Lib Dems conference voted overwhelmingly
:30:23. > :30:31.against the government. Until now, they have voted in favour. I hope we
:30:31. > :30:36.might see a change of heart. You said you are pleased the Lib
:30:36. > :30:41.Dems have voted against it. Why won't you just say you will get rid
:30:41. > :30:50.of it? In 2015, this measure should be scrapped. You think it is a good
:30:50. > :30:55.idea, Len Shackleton, in theory and principle. It has only been three
:30:55. > :30:59.months, that is quite early days. It is and I think some of the scare
:31:00. > :31:01.stories about this... There are obviously going to be people who are
:31:02. > :31:06.stories about this... There are in a difficult position but we don't
:31:06. > :31:10.really see from the figure is just what proportion of people there are,
:31:10. > :31:14.and whether they are being helped by the discretionary payments that are
:31:14. > :31:19.in place to help hard cases at the moment. When any measure to reduce
:31:19. > :31:22.public spending is introduced, you get the stories coming out about the
:31:22. > :31:30.people who are suffering. You have to pay it -- bear in mind that the
:31:30. > :31:33.average taxpayer is paying out about £700 a year on housing benefit for
:31:33. > :31:37.people, this figure has to come down. This may have been handled
:31:37. > :31:45.badly but I think the principle is OK. We are getting figures from the
:31:45. > :31:48.surveys of the scale of this. One in three council tenants affected,
:31:48. > :31:54.about half of housing association tenants who are affected. It would
:31:54. > :31:57.add up to 300,000 in the housing association side, a couple of
:31:57. > :32:03.hundred thousand in councils, it is a big problem. Those TUC figures are
:32:03. > :32:14.about people who have gone into debt after April 2000 and 13 -- April
:32:15. > :32:18.2013. The it does not compare the figures after the measures have been
:32:18. > :32:22.introduced so it is dishonest to compare the figures in this way.
:32:22. > :32:27.Labour voters want these issues tackled, they are the ones who fully
:32:27. > :32:33.support welfare reforms. They want to get people back to work. They
:32:33. > :32:37.want the welfare bill brought down. Indeed, the housing benefit bill is
:32:37. > :32:41.still far too high a cost they haven't managed to get people back
:32:41. > :32:48.to work. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
:32:48. > :32:52.So, the Lib Dem conference is over. How we will miss it. The media and
:32:52. > :32:55.political road show is now winding its way down from Glasgow to
:32:55. > :32:58.Brighton for the Labour conference as we speak. But have party
:32:58. > :33:01.conferences lost some of their sparkle? Giles has been rummaging
:33:01. > :33:05.round the archives to find out. Conferences. A few days of tribal
:33:05. > :33:12.politics, intermingling, some of it useful, some best unmentioned.
:33:12. > :33:17.Lewis, debate, policy and PR. Some of the worst comedy known to man. I
:33:17. > :33:21.heard they have got Peter Hain booked for the next series.
:33:21. > :33:25.Honestly, I just cannot watch that again. There is a narrative that
:33:25. > :33:32.conferences don't matter these days. Gone are the epic showdowns of
:33:32. > :33:36.labour in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I am telling you, you can't play politics
:33:36. > :33:38.with people's jobs and with people's services.
:33:38. > :33:50.APPLAUSE There is no doubt this man put his
:33:50. > :33:53.head on the block by saying, I fervently believe, because that is
:33:53. > :33:57.what he believes, of a relationship and a strong one with the trade
:33:57. > :34:01.unions and the Labour Party. He has put his head there, now is our time
:34:01. > :34:08.to vote, give us a bit of trust and let's have this vote support. And
:34:08. > :34:13.even the PR savvy new let's have this vote support. And
:34:13. > :34:18.couldn't stage manage everything. You can't make me leave the
:34:18. > :34:21.premises. The Tories have never been much infused by Sally in conference
:34:21. > :34:28.with anything like sites that matter, but tectonic plates have
:34:28. > :34:36.shifted in circles at conference. I have only one thing to say, you turn
:34:36. > :34:47.if you want to. The lady is not for turning. Let's be clear. Prison
:34:47. > :34:50.works. And it has been the stage of defining moments. The fact that we
:34:50. > :34:58.works. And it has been the stage of are gathered here, now, shocked but
:34:58. > :35:04.composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed
:35:04. > :35:12.but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.
:35:12. > :35:17.And don't tell the Lib Dems that conference is so passe, this is
:35:17. > :35:22.their week for above-average coverage, and poetic licence
:35:22. > :35:29.attacking both sides. Something borrowed, a lot that is blue, too
:35:29. > :35:33.much that is old and nothing new. Playing to the grassroots, the core,
:35:33. > :35:37.without giving away how awful you find most of them, is what it is
:35:37. > :35:45.about four MPs and ministers. To Cheri... I mean...
:35:45. > :35:49.APPLAUSE Well, at least I don't have to worry
:35:49. > :36:00.about her running off with the bloke next door. There you have it, the
:36:00. > :36:05.final proof, Labour's brand-new shining modernist, economic dream
:36:05. > :36:12.but it was not brown's, it was balls's. How much the public feel
:36:12. > :36:15.anything about these tribal tribulations is a good question,
:36:15. > :36:19.perhaps we should put it to conference.
:36:19. > :36:22.You're watching the Daily Politics - and we've been joined by viewers in
:36:22. > :36:23.Scotland who have been watching First Minister's Questions from
:36:23. > :36:33.Holyrood. Are they what they used to First Minister's Questions from
:36:33. > :36:37.be, party conferences? Nothing is what it used to be. It is easy to be
:36:37. > :36:42.sceptical and cynical in the error of hyper spin. One must remember
:36:42. > :36:46.there were turning points. We saw Mrs Thatcher in 1981, the lady is
:36:46. > :36:49.not for turning, in the middle of dreadful economic indicators,
:36:49. > :36:52.enormous pressure, the riots of that spring and summer. We saw Neil
:36:53. > :36:58.Kinnock taking on militant, just as spring and summer. We saw Neil
:36:58. > :37:05.Gates could have taken on CND in 1960. One remembers Jim Callaghan in
:37:05. > :37:08.76, talking as he saw it, truth to a labour movement that did not want to
:37:08. > :37:13.listen about not being able to spend your way out of a recession. It is
:37:13. > :37:17.easy for those on the outside, and I am not a party person. Heaven knows
:37:17. > :37:22.what the people who are not that interested in politics make of these
:37:22. > :37:25.weird tribal occasions. We must remind ourselves that it does matter
:37:25. > :37:30.that parties exist and it does matter that they have their own way
:37:30. > :37:34.days to cheer themselves up, and sometimes it matters in the wider
:37:34. > :37:39.scheme of things, but very rarely -- they have their own way days.
:37:39. > :37:50.Why does it matter, that the big changes have gone. The criticism is
:37:50. > :37:55.that these party conferences are too slick, the memberships are bundling.
:37:55. > :38:01.In all three of the main parties -- memberships are dwindling. And it is
:38:01. > :38:06.read the lobbyists that are provided for. You have to remember that the
:38:06. > :38:10.parties are under a lot of pressure, it is not an easy life being a party
:38:10. > :38:15.person, they are always got that and they have to cheer themselves up. It
:38:15. > :38:18.is largely internal, the tribe being jolly with itself was not the
:38:18. > :38:24.journalists and the rest of us love it when they have a domestic. This
:38:25. > :38:29.year, the Lib Dems was particularly upset, would Vince Cable turn-up to
:38:29. > :38:34.hear Nick Clegg defend the government's strategy? It won't be
:38:34. > :38:39.remembered, and yet it seemed to make the weather for at least a
:38:39. > :38:43.couple of days. I used to be a journalist so I won't be critical of
:38:43. > :38:49.them, but I think the combination of mania and fatigue sets in. If you
:38:49. > :38:53.put the TUC as the first one and you get three following on. People live
:38:53. > :38:59.in a strange world than they usually do. The symbiosis gets even tighter.
:38:59. > :39:04.But it does matter. You need an anthropologist, not an historian to
:39:04. > :39:06.explain this phenomenon. There are some people who genuinely love this
:39:06. > :39:10.explain this phenomenon. There are party conferences. Lots of
:39:10. > :39:14.journalists love it, too. So why deny them their annual pleasure? Why
:39:14. > :39:18.indeed. Now - are the luscious red benches
:39:18. > :39:21.of the House of Lords getting a tad overcrowded? When you tot up the
:39:21. > :39:27.bishops, the life peers, and the few remaining hereditaries, there are
:39:27. > :39:31.766 working peers. And the ermine keeps on coming - in fact in the
:39:31. > :39:35.last few weeks, the flow of newly ennobled peers has continued - see
:39:35. > :39:39.how many of the famous-ish faces you can name.
:39:40. > :39:51.I, Martha, Baroness Lane Fox of Soho, do solemnly, sincerely and
:39:51. > :39:54.truly declare and affirm... That I will be faithful and bear true
:39:54. > :39:59.allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth... Her heirs and
:39:59. > :40:23.successors, according to law, so help me God.
:40:23. > :40:27.The stately ceremony of it all. I'm now joined by the Liberal
:40:27. > :40:31.Democrat and newly ennobled Lord Paddick - formerly Brian Paddick.
:40:31. > :40:36.Democrat and newly ennobled Lord Are you excited? I was unable on
:40:36. > :40:42.Democrat and newly ennobled Lord Thursday but I will be inaugurated
:40:42. > :40:47.at the end of October. It feels very strange but I am looking forward to
:40:47. > :40:51.it. What is your plan and objective in the House of Lords? I want a
:40:51. > :40:55.political platform to try and talk about the things that I think are
:40:55. > :41:00.important. The bull might be surprised what the topics are. --
:41:00. > :41:05.people might be surprised. There is a bit of a clue on Liberal Democrat
:41:05. > :41:10.Voice website. I am not going to disappear without a trace as some
:41:10. > :41:13.peers do. Are there too many? There are too many but that is because
:41:13. > :41:16.there are so many who are not interested in the Democratic
:41:16. > :41:19.process, not interested in going to Parliament. A lot of them are too
:41:19. > :41:24.old or too infirmed to make it there Parliament. A lot of them are too
:41:24. > :41:28.anyway and under the current system there is no way they can retire
:41:28. > :41:33.gracefully. What about the bill to try and have a maximum the bishop or
:41:33. > :41:40.seniority, or a retirement age? We need to get it down to 500. It is a
:41:40. > :41:47.lot to lose. I think there are technically 815. Most working days,
:41:47. > :41:48.390 come. The majority of them are very conscientious. It is a
:41:48. > :41:52.coalition of the willing. People very conscientious. It is a
:41:52. > :41:55.come for things that matter to them. You will have a wonderful time and
:41:55. > :41:59.people will enjoy you being there, I am absolutely sure. It is a
:41:59. > :42:05.remarkable form of Adam education -- adult education. We have got to get
:42:05. > :42:10.it down to 500 and that will be difficult. I am against paying
:42:10. > :42:14.people redundancy because we are all volunteers. The public would not put
:42:14. > :42:16.up with it. You have to get a retirement scheme that enables
:42:16. > :42:22.people to live with dignity but it is very hard to get the numbers
:42:22. > :42:27.down. A study was done which suggests we live 15 years longer in
:42:27. > :42:30.the House of Lords because the grey cells asked elated everyday and we
:42:30. > :42:34.are pampered. At what age would you make it compulsory? -- the grey
:42:34. > :42:44.cells are stimulated every day. Some of our best people, however you
:42:44. > :42:49.measure it, I think I over 80. Lord Carrington is 94. Would you back
:42:49. > :42:53.that sort of bill? They have been trying to get a bill through and it
:42:53. > :42:55.has never managed to get onto the statute book. We want a
:42:55. > :43:00.democratically elected upper chamber. Bearing in mind that has
:43:00. > :43:03.not gone through, would you back some sort of bill that would put a
:43:03. > :43:08.maximum age, anything to bring the numbers down? I think the first step
:43:08. > :43:10.is to say to current members that there is an option to retire
:43:10. > :43:15.gracefully from the house. Where you there is an option to retire
:43:15. > :43:19.can keep your title but you are no longer able to attend the House. I
:43:19. > :43:24.think that would significantly reduce the numbers. Then we need to
:43:24. > :43:30.look and see if we need to cull any more. In this latest intake, there
:43:30. > :43:34.isn't, I am told, a single crossbench peer. They are done
:43:34. > :43:38.separately to those lists, that is why. The Prime Minister did a deal
:43:38. > :43:42.with the chairman of the appointments commission to get it
:43:42. > :43:47.down to two a year from four. I think because the crossbenchers were
:43:47. > :43:51.voting against the government. They are quite separate from the
:43:51. > :43:57.political trance. Isn't it too dominated by political patronage? It
:43:57. > :43:59.is very important to have experts in their field and sometimes you can
:43:59. > :44:03.only get those by having crossbenchers. We have the former
:44:03. > :44:08.direct of public prosecutions as a Liberal Democrat peer so it is
:44:08. > :44:15.possible to have experts who will also take the party whip. Are there
:44:15. > :44:19.too many people who are political? I think we House of Lords, from what I
:44:19. > :44:23.understand, is far more consensual than the House of Commons. And that
:44:23. > :44:32.there is far more movement in terms of peers who decide not to obey the
:44:32. > :44:37.whip when votes, long. I am not sure -- when votes, long. I am not sure
:44:37. > :44:39.the problem with tribalism is not as much of a problem as it is in the
:44:39. > :44:47.the problem with tribalism is not as House of Commons. I think the Lib
:44:47. > :44:52.Dem peers in the House of Lords are the heaviest whip of all, it is
:44:52. > :44:55.wonderful that the party of liberty and freedom and thought are the most
:44:55. > :45:01.heavily whipped. I hope you will rebel. I don't think that is the
:45:01. > :45:07.case and talking to some of my fellow Liberal Democrat peers, they
:45:07. > :45:09.quite enjoy rebelling. It is just because the Liberal Democrat
:45:09. > :45:12.argument are far more convincing than the other parties, which is why
:45:12. > :45:21.more Liberal Democrat peers as peers follow the whip. I am touched!
:45:21. > :45:26.Now for something completely different.
:45:26. > :45:37.Today on the Daily Politics, we play who is this man? He ran an election
:45:37. > :45:44.campaign. He wanted to be boss. He invented the Labour red rose. He
:45:44. > :45:50.likes walking dogs. Let's go through the studio doors and find out who it
:45:51. > :45:58.is! Congratulations. The answer is Bryan Gold.
:45:58. > :46:04.There are no prizes. I do apologise. Where have you been? I have been in
:46:04. > :46:09.New Zealand, where I was born. There is a life after politics and I have
:46:09. > :46:14.enjoyed it. I have kept up my interest in politics in New Zealand
:46:14. > :46:21.and Britain. I have it in a book about the last two or three decades.
:46:21. > :46:29.-- I have written. Where did it all go wrong? The book is pretty damning
:46:29. > :46:34.about the state of western democracy. Where did it go wrong?
:46:35. > :46:43.It went wrong because we invented democracy, or achieved it, so there
:46:43. > :46:47.was a legitimate force, government, that could offset and restraint
:46:47. > :46:53.would otherwise be the overwhelming power of those who would be
:46:53. > :47:00.dominating the marketplace. We found in the 1980s, with globalisation,
:47:00. > :47:04.that governments were sidelined. International capital could simply
:47:04. > :47:11.say, if you don't do what we want, we will go elsewhere. Do you think
:47:11. > :47:21.Tony Blair was sidelined? He resided over a huge majority in this
:47:21. > :47:24.country. He presided over a boom. I think it is tendentious to save
:47:24. > :47:30.the global crisis was created by governments. It was certainly the
:47:30. > :47:36.irresponsible behaviour of banks. The only point I would disagree
:47:36. > :47:42.where Tony Blair was encouraging this development of weaker democracy
:47:42. > :47:47.in favour of the big forces of the economy is that I think he embraced
:47:47. > :47:52.it. This is the extraordinary thing about new Labour. They didn't set
:47:52. > :47:58.out to withhold support or restrain the powerful forces in the economy.
:47:58. > :48:03.They said, go for it! The free market is a wonderful thing.
:48:03. > :48:06.Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Nobody was calling for that kind of
:48:06. > :48:13.restraint. The Conservatives weren't, either. With respect, I
:48:13. > :48:18.was. If you have seen my book, which I don't expect you will have done,
:48:18. > :48:22.I'm able to draw on a long experience going back through all of
:48:22. > :48:33.that period and before in which, on issues like the City, the euro, full
:48:33. > :48:35.employment, or monetarism, on all of those issues I have been
:48:35. > :48:40.consistently calling for the positions that I now believe are
:48:40. > :48:45.likely to be more acceptable because we have seen the deficiencies of
:48:45. > :48:51.what has gone before. Do you think that if Labour had taken your
:48:51. > :48:55.positions in the mid or late 1990s, would they have been elected three
:48:56. > :49:04.times? Of course they would. In 1992, the British electorate were
:49:04. > :49:10.desperate to get rid of the Tories. It was, I think, wrong for Labour to
:49:10. > :49:14.believe they had to abandon their old policies in order to get
:49:14. > :49:18.elected. It seems to me that what new Labour did was simply to
:49:18. > :49:23.perpetuate, as they have agreed that they did, Mrs Thatcher public
:49:23. > :49:27.policies. It is a shame he left. His voice in
:49:27. > :49:38.the Cabinet would have been something. Even Bryan would have a
:49:38. > :49:44.job arguing against these big forces in the world. Was the Cold War was
:49:44. > :49:50.over and IT and globalisation let rip, you couldn't do democratic
:49:50. > :49:55.socialism in one country. It would have become increasingly difficult
:49:56. > :50:01.for the Casey would have argued -- the case you would have argued to
:50:01. > :50:05.operate in the new reality. I recognise that. I had lost an
:50:05. > :50:14.argument, not intellectually, but the forces came against me. That is
:50:14. > :50:21.why I left. I saw my future as to be a licensed cricket -- cricket. Ed
:50:21. > :50:26.Miliband has at least drawn the line under the sort of defeatism that I
:50:26. > :50:31.believe characterised Labour. The polls are good enough. There's a
:50:31. > :50:36.chance he will win. He is addressing the wrong issues. He is still
:50:36. > :50:39.debating in a debate framed and characterised by Tory values. The
:50:39. > :50:45.one piece of advice I would offer him, not a criticism, is develop
:50:45. > :50:49.your own agenda. There are really coming problems out there. Not
:50:49. > :50:54.reducing the deficit, that is they sent off the problems. Our problem
:50:54. > :50:58.is that we are fundamentally an uncompetitive economy. We have
:50:59. > :51:12.handed over eating policy to the bankers. We have banded full
:51:12. > :51:14.employment as even achievable, let alone desirable. These are the
:51:14. > :51:17.things that should constitute a Labour agenda now. I believe that if
:51:17. > :51:23.they did that, they would be elected overwhelmingly. Now, do you find
:51:23. > :51:45.this offensive? Yid army! Yid army!
:51:45. > :52:08.That is, of course, what Tottenham Hotspur's fans. The club
:52:08. > :52:15.traditionally has a strong Jewish following, but the FA has said it is
:52:15. > :52:20.not acceptable for their fans to use the word yid. David Cameron has
:52:20. > :52:25.argued that it is fine for Tottenham fans to do so as they are not
:52:25. > :52:29.motivated by hate. Joining me to discuss this are David Aaronovitch
:52:29. > :52:36.and the actor and writer David Schneider. Is the term yid
:52:36. > :52:40.offences? In most contexts in which it is used against somebody as an
:52:40. > :52:44.attempt to offends them and be detrimental, yes.
:52:45. > :52:51.But not in all circumstances. As used by Spurs fans, no. Is that
:52:51. > :52:56.right? Can you make it that nuanced?
:52:56. > :53:02.As a comedian, you are always aware of what you say, whether it is a
:53:02. > :53:09.joke, how it is going to play, how you intend it.
:53:09. > :53:14.It is also who is receiving it, who is listening to it. The reason I
:53:14. > :53:17.think it is wrong, which is a decision I have recently made, is
:53:17. > :53:23.because of the response, because of the audience. That means everybody
:53:23. > :53:28.else. The Chelsea fans, West Ham fans, anybody who replies with the
:53:28. > :53:35.gas noises, the Holocaust chance. My beef is not so much with the Spurs
:53:35. > :53:40.fans. It is with the general response. Spurs fans now have to
:53:40. > :53:45.take responsibility to accept that the word, and I am shocked at how
:53:45. > :53:50.people bandy it around, like when your Twitter feed. It makes me
:53:50. > :53:56.cringe, but I can't say the word. Yet people are saying yid without
:53:56. > :54:00.inverted commas. That shows how it is wrong.
:54:00. > :54:04.All you are encouraging is for people to be committed even if they
:54:05. > :54:12.don't intend it to be, to be pejorative. They are using a term
:54:12. > :54:18.that can offends people. There is a kind of absurd to in this.
:54:19. > :54:30.Here is a word, yid, and in fact my grandma over -- grandmother only
:54:30. > :54:39.spoke Yiddish... I speak Yiddish, the youngest
:54:39. > :54:47.Yiddish speaking the world! It comes from a Yiddish word. When it is in
:54:47. > :54:54.English, it is offences. What I was going to say is that it
:54:54. > :54:59.is absurd that a word which is used by people who are not using it to be
:54:59. > :55:02.offences, that actually isn't offensive to Jewish people when
:55:02. > :55:05.hearing it in that context, and by and large it isn't, should anything
:55:05. > :55:09.be regarded as something you have to and large it isn't, should anything
:55:09. > :55:14.stop. Other people might take it up as a basis on which they build their
:55:14. > :55:22.own... But everybody has a responsibility... Let's look at the
:55:22. > :55:35.end word. Why is it so unacceptable and yet the word yid is OK?
:55:35. > :55:40.In a comic context you could find ways of using it. I remember that
:55:40. > :55:45.you were one of the people who was upset about the idea of introducing
:55:45. > :55:50.a law about religious discrimination because of the effect it would have
:55:50. > :55:55.had on comics because he wanted the freedom to be able to use words.
:55:56. > :56:03.As Spider-man would say, with great power comes great refunds ability.
:56:03. > :56:08.-- great responsibility. You have to be aware of the effect of what you
:56:08. > :56:13.are saying. This is a chance at a football match. I don't think
:56:14. > :56:17.football match fans should be thinking about their social
:56:17. > :56:22.responsibility at the point of making a chance. You are not there
:56:22. > :56:25.to do that. You are not there to prove your social responsibility.
:56:25. > :56:29.You are there to celebrate your tribe. There are things, actually,
:56:29. > :56:34.that's Spurs fans have chances that are genuinely offences and that I
:56:34. > :56:40.have wanted them to stop. This is not one of them. The FA are in a
:56:41. > :56:44.tricky position. Can they afford to intellectualise about it if they are
:56:44. > :56:48.trying to get rid of racism in football?
:56:48. > :56:53.They are in a tricky position because they are dumb. If they want
:56:53. > :57:01.to take up the business of anti-Semitism, by all means do.
:57:01. > :57:08.What would happen, by your logic, if Ed Miliband, who self identifies as
:57:08. > :57:19.a yid and called Labour the yid army, would Cameron say it was
:57:19. > :57:25.fine? He has got to take responsibility for the word. If Ed
:57:25. > :57:32.Miliband was a West Ham supporter and sang, I am for ever blowing
:57:32. > :57:38.bubbles, it would be strange. Should David Cameron have got
:57:38. > :57:43.involved in this? He can only lose. We are a better country for people
:57:43. > :57:49.being sensitive. The first time I went to White Hart Lane, there was a
:57:49. > :57:57.drum and everybody shouted the word. I was shocked. I couldn't believe
:57:57. > :58:04.it. There are linguistic minefields. Banging the drum! Don't rap artists
:58:04. > :58:13.use the end word? That is another word. If this was in a synagogue, it
:58:13. > :58:20.might be different. What percentage of Jewish people does it have to
:58:20. > :58:26.be, David? 5%? I would say it has to be mostly Jews and to a Jewish
:58:26. > :58:36.audience so that the irony is clear. The problem is not Spurs fans, it is
:58:36. > :58:39.other fans. I agree. The problem is... To defend David Cameron, he
:58:39. > :58:46.replied because he was asked. Quickly, the quiz. Where did they
:58:46. > :58:50.all go, the Conservatives? I think it was the nice hotels. You are
:58:50. > :58:54.all go, the Conservatives? I think quite right. We would love to carry
:58:54. > :59:00.on talking. You can do that outside. Thank you to all of our guests,
:59:00. > :59:01.particularly Peter Henessey. The one o'clock News is starting on BBC One
:59:01. > :59:03.now.