03/10/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



And afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. The Conservative


list is considering withdrawing benefits from under 25-year-olds who


are not in work, education or training. We will talk to the


Treasury Minister Sajid Javid. Will the government's new scheme to


underwrite billions of pounds' worth of new mortgages help house-buyers,


or pump up a new house price bubble? Schoolkids will learn how to write


computer code from next autumn. We will hear from two experts.


And Adam has been meeting the party animals at conference and finding


out whether activists go for the serious stuff or the socialising.


Did you go to bed last night or this morning? Is my mother is watching, I


was in bed at 12. 5am. What racy beasts. All that in the


next hour. With me for the whole programme today, two Former Downing


St insiders. Phil Collins worked for Tony Blair and now writes for the


towns -- Times, and Sean Worth were in Britain with David Cameron and is


now at the think-tank Policy Exchange. Let's start with some


breaking news. In the last half-hour, the Labour leader Ed


Miliband has released a letter he has written to the owner of the


Daily Mail, Lord for the mayor, to complain about a Daily Mail reporter


who he says got into a private memorial event held at Guy 's


Hospital in London for his uncle, who died earlier this year. I am


joined now by our political correspondent, who is outside the


Daily Mail headquarters. What is at Miliband asking your brother made to


do? He is asking the owner of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday to


instigate an investigation into what happened yesterday. This was meant


to be a private memorial service for the Miliband family and close


colleagues of Professor Harry Keane, an eminent doctor who died recently.


At that event, a reporter from the Mail on Sunday apparently


At that event, a reporter from the infiltrated it and was asking


members of his family about his late father and about the row over the


Daily Mail story from last weekend, saying that Ralph Miliband, Ed's


Rather hated Britain. Ed Miliband says this crosses a line of common


decency, but he's not going to the press complaints commission about


this. This comes a week before the privy Council discusses a much


tougher form of press regulation, on which the Daily Mail opposes. He is


saying to look for the mayor, time to put your house in order. Has the


Daily Mail responded? They have not responded yet. But as you said, this


only happened in the last half-hour. I am told a Labour Party official


will turn up here with an official copy of the letter, but there has


been no response yet. What will this meeting do in terms of looking ahead


to what is now being seen as a battle between the Daily Mail and


what they see as Ed Miliband and his support for strong press regulation?


Ed Miliband could have decided to lower the temperature today.


Instead, he has decided to increase the temperature considerably and


roared on the attack to the Mail on Sunday. This comes just a week


before this meeting, as I say. There are two different forms of press


relations being discussed, one which the press quite liked, and a tougher


one, the statutory underpinning, which they are discussing next week.


The Daily Mail says that is an attack on press freedom. In its own


pages, it has said that by Ed Miliband talking about the


boundaries that newspapers should keep two, this was a sinister


response, on the row shows that you should not allow politicians


anywhere near the press. But what has actually happened today was


across the political spectrum. Nick Clegg expressed sympathy for Ed


Miliband and denounced the Daily Mail, saying it vilified Britain.


Francis Maude said something similar. There is a possibility that


the Daily Mail have shot themselves in the foot and weakened their case


the Daily Mail have shot themselves for press freedom.


If you hear any response from the Daily Mail while we are now, we will


come back to you. Sean Worth, has the Daily Mail crossed the line in


terms of sending a reporter to this private memorial gathering?


Absolutely. Ed Miliband's reaction has not been about this regulation.


This seems to be personal, exactly the way he responded to the initial


article about his father. The prime minister and other politicians have


been saying that others would react in the same way. So he was right to


go after them, because on this occasion, they overstepped the mark.


What do you think Lord for the mayor and the Daily Mail will do? They


will probably double up. It is impossible to fathom what they are


doing. I think they crossed the line before with the original article,


which was a worthless piece of rubbish. Then they crossed it again


when they reprinted it, alongside Ed Miliband's Right to reply. When you


say rubbish, are you talking about the headline? We already knew much


of the substance about Ralph Miliband in terms of his lyrical


leanings. So do you think all of the article was rubbish, or the


headline? The supposition that he hated Britain is nonsensical. Nobody


who landed on the Normandy beaches or was in the Royal Navy has to beg


for the right to be thought of as a British patriotic op Ralph Miliband


did more in a day's work than any hack will ever do. So the idea that


a few scattered remarks could constitute hating Britain was


absurd. You said Ed Miliband's stance has not been about beefing up


as revelation, but the Daily Mail see it in that way. They feel there


is a battle. They have tried to link his father's views and the fact that


his father influenced Ed Miliband, and what could happen with press


regulation. Are they want? I agree with most of what Phil says about


the original article, but Ed Miliband does write about the


influence of his parents on his political views. So there are


journalists that want to go into that. But you are right, when it


became personal about that individual, that was wrong. It is a


family thing, not about regulation. On that front, many people have


sympathy with him. I suspect it will not alter the Leveson argument in


the end. I think it was likely that the outcome would be to choose the


cross-party consensus deal anyway, which would then lead to a stalemate


with the press. I don't take that has changed.


Now, time for our daily quiz. The question for today is, what new


access arena was Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, spotted wearing


yesterday? Was it a trilby, a cravat, a pair of glasses or a


monocle? At the end of the show, Phil and Sean have the honour and


privilege of giving us the correct cancer.


So, the three main party conferences are over for another year. It was a


busy few weeks, with all three party leaders trying to woo voters with


shining new policies and positive messages. Let's look back at some of


the main announcements. Wicklow messages. Let's look back at some of


tried to attract as with stories of how the Lib Dems have softened the


nasty Tories and promised free school meals for all infants. Ed


Miliband tried to seduce us with his vow to address the cost of living


crisis. He said he would build 200 as new homes each year by 2020 and


freeze energy bills until March 2017. David Cameron's pitch was


about sticking to the course and showing us that only the


Conservatives can build a land of opportunity. He promised to make the


dream of home ownership a reality for more people by bringing forward


his Help To Buy mortgage guarantee scheme, now starting next week. He


also pledged to clamp down on welfare claimants who refuse to


work, and end the automatic entitlement housing benefit and


jobseeker's allowance for under 25s. There are still over a million


young people not in education, employment or training. Today, it is


still possible to leave school, sign on, find a flat, start claiming


housing benefit and opt for a life on benefits. Isn't it time for bold


action here? We should ask, as we write our next manifesto, if that


option should exist at all. Instead, we should give young people a clear


and positive choice. Go to school, go to college, do an apprenticeship,


get a job. But just choose the dole? We have got to offer them something


better. We have been joined by the Treasury minister Sajid Javid and


the Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert. Sajid Javid, the majority


of the blunder 25 who are claiming housing benefit have dependents. How


would this policy affect them? Well, David Cameron announced a high-level


announcement yesterday around the direction of Conservative Lizzie,


something we plan to put into our manifesto. -- Conservative policy.


For under 25s, there will be two options, burning on learning. That


is not just because it is the right thing to do for those individuals,


but it is also right for hard-working taxpayers who are


paying for these benefits. So that will affect under 25s claiming


housing benefits who have children? It will affect all under 25s. You


could take that argument to someone who loses their job, they are out of


work temporarily. Maybe they have not signed up for a course, they


lose their benefit, their family could be out on the street? There is


a lot of detail to work out, because this is something we will get ready


in our manifesto. There are not answers yet. People might be worried


if they are in their situation, and with the fluctuating job market,


people will be concerned. That is why we want to set out policy. But


you don't know the detail yet 's it will also depend on a Conservative


majority government, but our intention is clear. Thousands of


young people slide into a life on benefits when they leave compulsory


education. That is not acceptable. Julian Huppert, shouldn't there be a


straightforward choice, you either find a job or get training, or you


lose your benefits? It is helpful to see this message coming from the


Conservatives. This is the sort of thing we have stopped from happening


while we have been in government, this sort of unpleasant approach. We


do need to help young people get into employment or training. But


taking away the support that many of them desperately need will not help.


There are too many of these people, the numbers started shooting at a


decade ago when the economy was doing well. The last government let


them down. We have stopped the growth. It is about providing


opportunities, helping people to learn and earn, not punishing the


most vulnerable. For we get onto whether you are punishing the


vulnerable, do you agree that the Liberal Democrats have stopped your


unpleasant, as Julian says, policy? No. This is a coalition government.


We have different points of view. You could not introduce it under a


coalition. If Julian represents all Lib Dems, then we couldn't. This is


for our manifesto, but it sets a clear direction and builds on the


reform of the welfare system under Iain Duncan Smith and our reforms


under Michael Gove. But isn't the problem is that there are not enough


jobs around for young people? 1 million young people unemployed, and


taking away their benefit will punish them 's well, jobs are being


created. But how many young people are unemployed? Youth unemployed and


is falling, but it is still a problem. Part of dealing with that


is falling, but it is still a issue is having a welfare system


that helps people get into the world of work, but also having an


education system that gives them the skills that companies want. Julian,


it costs £1.2 billion a year. You yourself say there are too many


young people in this situation. You need a it. B we have already stopped


this from happening. This was pushed for by Conservatives in previous


budgets. We discussed this and stopped it from happening. We do


need to do more will stop some of that is about getting rid of some of


the benefit traps. I had an autistic man who worked in my office who was


only allowed to work for six hours a week because if he worked for any


more, he ended up with less money. He was applying for jobs and


eventually found a full-time job, but stopping him on being able to go


eventually found a full-time job, to ten or 16 hours was ridiculous. I


am pleased that we are getting rid to ten or 16 hours was ridiculous. I


of that. It has to be about things like the Deputy Prime Minister's


youth contract to help young people, rather than to hit them hard. I have


taken the YMCA to see Iain Duncan Smith to talk about the people who


are living in the YMCA who need help, who don't have a family to go


back to. The politics of this are interesting, Sean Worth, as we see


the coalition partners divert from each other? Very. You hit the nail


on the head when you talked about detail. Look at something like the


bedroom tax, spare room subsidy, depending on which party you are in.


Human stories started to come out of that where there were anomalies.


Then you see the public support starts to evaporate. So as long as


the Tories do some decent work on that, so that we don't see these


anomalies such as disabled people's medical rooms being brought into


this, it could be some support. Do you agree? No, I think it would be a


disaster. It is not the case that everyone is thinking, I will either


joined McKinsey or I will go on the dole. The vast majority of people


will have to go into some form of training. Where will that come


from? We don't have the provision for that. Where would the money come


from, Sajid Javid? Of course there will be a demand for training. And


where would the money come from? As we work out the detail, I can give


you more information if you invite me back. We certainly will. I just


think it is interesting over this period that both the Liberal


Democrats and the Conservatives, despite boasting about being


fiscally disciplined, have been announcing things that will cost


money. If the end result is that more people end up in work and not a


life of benefits, it is good for them and good for the economy. We


have costed up looking at long-term unemployment, and the coalition will


look at introducing that from April next year, and it will cost £300


million in the short term. We are willing to make that investment


because it will help the long-term unemployed to get the help they want


to get back into work. One of the great policy failures in Britain in


the last 50 years has been the lack of provision for people who don't go


through academic courses and on to university, and David Cameron has


said he is going to fix that. This is a colossal task he has set


himself, and I don't get any sense that you understand the scale. We


have had a dysfunctional welfare system for many years, and the


changes that Iain Duncan Smith is brought about, the introduction of


universal credit and some of the other changes mentioned, they are


not easy, and they might have teething issues. Added is the right


direction of policy, because we can't continue to have a welfare


system that denies people the right to work by giving them the wrong


incentives and a budget that is out of control. Welfare spending under


the previous government went up by 57%, and that is unacceptable.


Thank you very much. The big theme of David Cameron's conference speech


yesterday was making Britain a land of opportunity. Here he is talking


about the Government's plan to underwrite new mortgages up to the


value of £600,000. In a land of opportunity, we must


make sure that more people are able to own a home of their own. Your


make sure that more people are able home is your castle. For most young


people today, their home is their landlord's. It is starting to make


them wonder why they bother. They are stuck in rental accommodation


when they are desperate to buy. I met a couple on Sunday, Emily and


James. They both had decent jobs, but because they didn't have rich


parents, they couldn't get big big enough deposit to buy a house. And


let me tell you where I met them. In their new home, built in their help


to buy mortgage scheme. It was still half built, but they showed me where


the kitchen was going to be. Outside was rubble all over the ground, but


they had already bought a lawn mower. They talked about how excited


they were to be spending their first Christmas in a home of their own. My


friends, that is what we are about, and the party of aspiration will


finish the job on home ownership that we started.


Sajid Javid is still with us. David Cameron says that this is gay to


help young people buy their first home. But if you look at the figures


involved, this scheme will be out of reach for many people. The average


house in the UK costs £242,000, so a 95% mortgage means you would have to


borrow £230,000. You would need a salary of over £57,000 to avoid


that. That is beyond the reach of many, many people. This isn't a


scheme just for young people. It is a scheme for everyone. That would


apply to everyone. Many people in their late 30s or even 40s still


haven't managed to buy a home will stop and the figure that you are


using is not the average price of a first home, that would be a lot


less. Everyone I have ever met aspires to own their own home. We


want to help them with that. It is perfectly natural. There are


millions of people out there, young and not so young, who can afford


payments, and the Prime Minister gave an example in his speech, but


they don't have the savings for the deposit. Ten or 15 years ago, the


average deposit required was around £10,000. Today it is closer to


£30,000. In the early 2000s, it would take you for five years to


save that, but now it will take you 25 years. If people haven't got


access to a big pot of savings or rich parents, they can't afford


those homes. But because they have got the income, they can afford the


mortgage repayments. I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm


trying to work out who it is going to help. The sorts of people you are


talking about who don't have that to help. The sorts of people you are


income or help from parents, what to help. The sorts of people you are


sort of salary, in your mind, does someone have to earn to benefit from


this scheme, if you say my £230,000 for an average home is not the price


of an average first-time home. Let's take the example the Brymon is to.


of an average first-time home. Let's The two individuals -- let's take


the example the Prime Minister referred to. Those two individuals


had an income of £25,000 each, and they can easily afford payments even


on a 95% mortgage, even once you they can easily afford payments even


stress test them and allow for changes in interest rates in the


future. Banks are now obligated to do that. But they don't have rich


parents. And you often find that people who criticise this scheme,


they have their own homes, they have rich parents, and it doesn't really


touch them that much, when it does actually affect a lot of people that


touch them that much, when it does don't have rich parents, but they


can afford the payments. If you are trying to help first-time buyers,


why does the scheme need to go up to houses worth £600,000? I didn't say


it was just for first-time buyers. It is designed to help both


first-time buyers and also people that wish to move up the housing


ladder. That is a big leap up the housing ladder! Why aren't you


focusing just on lower valued houses, or as you say, first-time


buyers, since they are the ones who houses, or as you say, first-time


need the leg up the ladder. As you know, throughout the United Kingdom,


especially in the south-east, you will see a big differentiation in


prices. If you are a family of three or four in the south-east, it might


be the cost of the home that you need. But it is not just the


south-east. If you look at the south-west, people have paid ten


times over their average income in order to meet mortgage payments. It


isn't just a south-east problem. Is it going to work or is it going to


cause a housing bubble? I take some of your points, and I appreciate


that this is a serious problem and of your points, and I appreciate


it is difficult to find policy, but if this were a Labour scheme, you


would be saying, don't these economic illiterate understand that


if you just throw more money at something with constraints applied,


the price will go up. Answer that question. 10% rises in London. We


have a whole list here of mortgage experts, Declan Curran from home


fixed direct says that it is likely to create a house price bubble. You


are creating the next credit crunch. If left unchecked. If there was a


capacity constraint in the market, evidence of a capacity problem, I


would be concerned. What is your benchmark? Annual house construction


fell to its lowest level since the 1920s under the previous government.


It is up 33% since then, but it is still one third below its long-term


average. If you are a housing company, and you know there might be


more mortgage availability because of this scheme, it helps disperse


apply, but to make sure, and to deal with that left unchecked point, we


have given powers quite clearly to the Bank of England... And they are


worried about it! Know they are not. We have asked them to look at it


every September and report back to the government. Is that doing


enough? You have to get supply moving, and there is no reason to


suppose that you are going to be able to. It is more valuable for the


companies to sit on the land. What has changed all that? Why will


housing supply suddenly start moving? Some of the planning changes


we have made... That won't revolutionise supply in the sort of


numbers that you and Ed Miliband are talking about. We have to go on the


facts. In the last year, there was a 49% increase in the number of units


approved by local authorities, and that is a step in the right


direction. Yesterday we heard from the latest PMI reports that


construction is rising at its fastest level since ten years ago.


It is heading in the right direction, but we need to be


vigilant and stay on top of it. Is this good politics and bad


economics? The key difference between this and the previous


housing bubble is not just the sub-prime, and the wider policy


about land release and planning reform. It is the fact that the


government is in control of releasing the extra credit into the


economy, and as you have just said there, and this hasn't been a big


part of the message, to say that you can just turn the taps off. It was a


race to the bottom by sub-prime lending by the banks. But the key


difference and this is where the right needs to support these


measures, the Government can intervene, turn the taps on, monitor


this every year, turn it down a bit if it does heat things up too much.


One of the issues is the supply issue, and we have yet to see how


many homes are built over the next few years. The other issue is the


taxpayer underwriting loans where people could in future default. Is


that a risk that you are comfortable with, bearing in mind that we could


seem ace rate of interest rates rise, not for a few years, but then


seem ace rate of interest rates what happens. It is a risk the


taxpayer doesn't really have, and the reason is that when we announce


this next week, it is clear that it the reason is that when we announce


is commercially priced, so it is priced in a way that the Government


will break even on this. So there is no effective taxpayer subsidy, and


that is what makes it even more powerful. Sajid Javid, thank you.


Finishing the job. Britain can do better than this. A stronger economy


and a better society. Three better still -- messages from three


different party leaders. But can you tell which?


There are some of us, Mr Chairman, who will fight and fight and fight


again to save the party we love. The Britain that is going to be forged


in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive


practices of outdated methods on either side of industry. I have only


one thing to say. You turn if you want to, but the Lady's not for


turning. And you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council,


a Labour council hiring taxis to scuttle around the city handing out


redundancy notices to its own workers. We have to have our


agreements in public and our disagreements in Private. This is a


modern party living in an age of change. It requires a modern


constitution that says what we are in terms the public and understand


-- cannot misunderstand. Tony Blair, looking a little younger there. Your


favourite of the three conferences this year? I thought Ed Miliband's


was the best performance. I am not sure it will last is content. A bit


calmer and's was solid and workmanlike, and although it will be


instantly forgotten, in a sense, that was the point -- David


Cameron's was solid and workmanlike. The decision to be Dell was probably


the right one. -- to be dull. Is that right? You would think that the


pressure would be more on David Cameron to produce more. I think the


key difference this year is that normally in this kind of period in a


Parliament, you would be expecting an election in May. But this is a


fixed term Parliament, so you don't need to air these things. It was


workmanlike because it had to set out a clear stall. Nick Clegg,


exactly the same, but for policy reasons. And there was some of the


theatre about the dog and all the reasons. And there was some of the


rest of it. Yes, the personal stories. But Ed Miliband had a


rest of it. Yes, the personal bigger problem going into the


conferences, he had to do something to give him cut through, and the


freezing of the energy prices policy, to some extent, did that. It


has excited the attention of people who don't normally watch politics.


And it is a web conference speech that does that. Most of them don't.


The clips you saw were all big political moments and descriptions


of major political events. My favourite was Neil Kinnock's


magnificent speech. It was a really big moment. There was nothing


comparable in these conferences that was sufficiently big for anyone to


hang a speech on how we will was sufficiently big for anyone to


remember for anyone. What about Nick Clegg? He had a confident


performance. He probably thinks he Clegg? He had a confident


has got over the worst. There is no serious challenge to his leadership.


Maybe he felt liberated by that. Yeah, the Lib Dems I spoke to at


that conference came back happy. They had had some sort of permission


to go into any government in the next Parliament. Trident, they got


through energy. They are not obsessed with constitutional reform


in the way they were in the past. On the point about catching the


imagination, Ed Miliband got all the headlines. But I was captured by the


other thing he did, which was go on to the Tories' turf about small


businesses. When you are an opposition leader, the way to


capture attention is to be controversial, but also to be


counterintuitive. To me, this was the first time I really saw him


starting to work as an opposition leader. He has a personal


credibility problem, so policy is the thing. The rhythm of conferences


and has been interrupted. Do you think next year, they will be


and has been interrupted. Do you barnstormers? Not necessarily. But


they will be different, because we will then be a year from an


election, and there will be a desire to be prime ministerial on the part


of all three. Nick Clegg, you never used to get Liberal Democrat leaders


doing prime ministerial speeches, but now you do, and they like it.


There was a weird passage where he detailed a lot of things that had


not happened, but would have happened, had it not been for the


Liberal Democrats. It is a novelty in political rhetoric. These things


have not happened, let's cheer! Now, we are going to imagine the scene.


A party conference is. You are looking to have a good time. Listen


to a discussion on infrastructure investment and regional growth, or


check out the drinks reception and parties on the conference fringe?


Adam has been finding out what kind of party animals go to Conservative


Party conference. Let's get to the truth of why these


people are actually here. Is it for the party, or is it really for the


parties? That is an easy one, the parties. What is the best party you


have into? Reception. Why was it so good? It was a great laugh. The


have into? Reception. Why was it so serious stuff, but that is most


important. But I love the social stuff. I will go for the parties,


because they don't stage manage that. When did you go to bed last


night? If my mother is watching, I was in bed at 12. 5am, I got home.


That is hard-core. Go and vote. Loving the vote is. The drink is


good, but the party is important, and it is the best party. The party


stuff, absolutely. Yesterday, we went to one with Liam Fox. Is he a


party animal? I imagine so. Which led to go party has the best


parties? Obviously, the Conservatives know how to party. The


Labour Party like karaoke. But we know how to do it properly! Can I


put one in each? OK. I don't want to spoil the party spirit. The party,


of course. You like a night out, don't you? No matter though I


enjoyed the politics and the people who make up the party and seeing


what's of friends. The party is first and the parties are second.


What is more important, the part of political stuff all the parties?


Which do you prefer? Governing. He says governing is more fun than a


party. Best party was the south-west area deception last night. Prime


minister Cameron turned up. You have to be pretty sad to love the


Conservative Party more than a free pint, so I have to say the parties.


Cheers. I had you down as a partying man? No, I am a Presbyterian. What


is the latest you have been to bed this week 's I am always tucked up


before mid-night. You don't have to choose, you get both at a


conference. The Conservative grassroots are clearly a bunch of


party animals, although more people have gone for the serious side than


the frivolous side. I have got some party invites. See you later.


We have not seen Adam Fleming since then! You are watching the Daily


Politics, and we have been joined by viewers in Scotland, who have been


Politics, and we have been joined by watching First Minister's Questions


from Holyrood. Phil Collins from the Times and Sean were from the


politics to enjoy with me. Did you believe the cabinet minister is when


they said they didn't do the parties? I cannot believe they don't


go to some. I have seen them at some. Maybe you would go to bed


early if you had a media meeting in the morning. The Conservative


conference is a great time to let your hair down and meet everybody,


so I am not surprised the parties won over the politics. Attendants


follows a political cycle. In the first few years, they go to all of


them. By year four, they stop going. By year five, they don't go to


anything. By then, you have got no friends in the press, so you think,


I am not going to the Guardian's party. I think if the food and drink


are good, it is enough. I tend not to go to parties where Liam Fox is


the main attraction. I am sure that will put him off inviting you to the


next one. Now, according to Education


Secretary Michael Gove, one of the big things to come out of David


Cameron's speech yesterday was a commitment to teaching


schoolchildren in England how to write computer programmes. On next


September, all five to 14-year-olds in state schools will be taught how


to code as part of a number of changes to the national curriculum


designed to prepare children for the modern workplace. But our school


kids up for it? BBC Breakfast spoke to some of those taking part in a


national event that brings young coders together. When I write a


piece of code, it is exciting to see what it does and in what ways it


breaks. It is exciting to imagine that you have made this to do that.


I was looking on Google, and I couldn't find an episode list or


website, so I thought I would make one. I am very good at web design.


It was £60,000 per year on job centre! I love the confidence! I am


joined now by Clive Beal, the director of educational development


at raspberry pie, and Emma Mulqueeny, who set up an


organisation which finds and brings together young coders, some of whom


we saw in that film. Clive, we had better explain what you have got in


front of us -- in front of you. Tell us about raspberry pie? It is an


educational charity. We want to support young people to get them


into computing and learn to code and be creative. How difficult is it? I


am a bit of a Luddite, but that is partly my age. Looking at these


youngsters, they are so much better. Is that worldly the case for most


kids? Absolutely. I think we patronise them at an early age, but


if you show them the basics, they will blow you away. Show us the


basics. How much does that contraption cost? You can buy a


Raspberry Pi full £30. That was one of the criteria behind it. You can


buy your own computer for £20 to £30. It is a general purpose


computer. We designed it to be accessible, so we have got pins on


here that I can connect to the outside world. You can put in a


phone charger or nest the card. We have got some programming language


on here. This one is designed for eight to 14-year-olds to get them


into programming. It is a visual programming language. Show us


exactly what that can do, in simple terms? So I have got a little cat on


the stage. If I clicked on this, he moves about, which is not that much


fun, but then I can go and stick it in a loop that goes on for ever. And


I can stop him from bouncing on the edge. Really easy to get into for


younger children, and they love it. Is that the sort of thing that can


get them going? Yes. And most of them will start with a simple


programming thing like that. But actually, there are very few


children that have access to this kind of stuff, because it has not


been taught in schools so far, which is why what has been announced is


important. The footage you should be for was filmed at the Festival of


code that we ran this summer. Our youngest kids are five, and then it


goes up to 18. They start with this, but once they get to grips with the


basics, they quickly want to move on to building their own apps or


websites, and more importantly, solving problems that they find


during the day. They want to find solving problems that they find


their own solutions. That is part of the fun of her grabbing. Do you


think this will set school alight? B my kids are one and three, and they


can both use an iPad. The three-year-old is quite good at it.


You will never see your iPad again. But should it be on the curriculum?


Definitely. The key thing is make it intuitive and easy, and they will


run with it. The future economy will be technology led. We really are in


a global race. I don't want to use that hackneyed term. You have just


used it! I can't think of a better one. We have got to get these kids


doing this stuff, because we need to be world leaders. Do you think it is


as important as doing maths and English GCSE? It has to be on the


curriculum, because there are lots of children who don't have access to


computers. I wonder whether it is like any other language, whether


earlier you learn it, the easier it is. There is an element of that, but


it is also important to remember that your child is consuming that


technology. It is like giving a child a bike, but without giving


them any knowledge about how the roads work and how safe they can


be. How the digital world operates is the same as giving them an iPad


and expecting them to use it, but they have to understand how the


digital world works. But Clive, you can't really buy one of those and


use it immediate leak, you would have to be shown how to do it,


wouldn't you? Or is it simpler than that? It is fairly simple, so you


can plug it in and start programming from scratch. Or if you are a bit


older, use a programming language like python. I think the earlier,


the better, as long as you can understand logic and you like


puzzles and playing, which we all do. You are not too young or too old


puzzles and playing, which we all to start. Thank you for bringing in


the gizmo, Raspberry Pi, and good luck with the coding. There are code


clubs, aren't there? But they are voluntary stop I have tried to find


one. There is not one in my area. That is the problem, but there was


lots of stuff going on. Now onto UKIP. Despite leader Nigel Farage's


assertions that the party opposes racism, the party is again sending


off accusations of racism in its ranks will stop on this programme


yesterday, Lord Heseltine described UKIP is a racist party. Here is what


he said. You always have these right-wing, racist operations,


pandering to the lowest common denominator in politics. That is


what is happening. But when it comes to a general election, the choice


will be very simple. This is where the strength of Cameron lives. Do


you want Ed Miliband as prime minister, or David Cameron? Are you


saying UKIP is racist? Of course. Who doubts that? The language, the


rhetoric, the membership, who doubts it? That was Michael has all time,


our guest yesterday. -- Michael Heseltine. And we've been joined by


Amjad Bashir, who is UKIP's spokesman on small business. You


have given this has been politician the chance to level these


accusations against us. There was a picture in the paper of Nigel


Farage, with the microphone looking like it was a Nazi moustache. We are


a mainstream political party with 30,000 members. We got over 1


million votes in the last elections in May. We are a serious player, and


you can't treat us like this. Would you do that on the front page with


David Cameron? You are now having the right to reply following what


Michael Heseltine said, and he is quite a distinguished politician,


albeit a formal one. Of course we would use a picture of David Cameron


or Ed Miliband just the same. These standards are being applied to Nigel


Farage that have always been applied to other leaders, and the question


is whether he can stand up to it. We to other leaders, and the question


are trying to have a serious discussion about immigration. Are


you seriously suggesting that there are no racists in UKIP? Michael


Heseltine said yesterday that UKIP was racist. Look at me, look at my


ethnicity. Are you saying that there was racist. Look at me, look at my


are no racists in UKIP? There are 30,000 members out there. These


accusations are levelled by the BBC a gain and again. They are not


levelled by the BBC, Michael Heseltine was our guest. Friday or


members keep getting caught up in controversy? These accusations are


not made up, they are based on stories that come out. They haven't


come from nowhere. This is silly. We have just selected somebody to run


for Orpington who is of Indonesian Muslim background. Here I am running


as a potential MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire. What did you


make of Godfrey Bloom? I am of Pakistani background. I have worked


in this country for 50 years. Would they select me if they were racist?


Is it racist to refer to foreign places as Bongo Bongo Land? The


point that he made was very relevant. He was talking about


foreign aid. The party distance itself from those two lines. Because


foreign aid. The party distance it was racist. It is not right to


dwell on that too much. He has been withdrawn the whip. He is no longer


going to run for the party. That was as a result of his other comment


about women, rather than Bongo Bongo Land. But you distanced yourself


because it wasn't appropriate language. You are not talking about


the real subject. You are saying it is very unfair that people are


accusing the party of being racist. So is it racist to describe a female


journalist as from some form of ethnic extraction? He is married to


an Indian lady who comes from Australia. He was trying to describe


the journalist. Would you describe anybody as being somebody who is of


some form of ethnic extraction? This is political correctness gone mad.


Allow people the latitude to go further. This is stifling the debate


on racism. I am somebody who is of Pakistani background who lives in


this country. I have experienced racism. Lord Heseltine hasn't


this country. I have experienced experienced this. He doesn't know


anything about racism. What do you say to that? Amjad Bashir is of


Pakistani origin, and how can the party be racist if they have him in


the party? If the party was officially racist comment he


wouldn't be sitting here now, I agree with that. But you have party


officials being outed as former BNP members, and Nigel Farage said, we


don't have tonnes of money to do the disciplined checks. The key point


for UKIP is probably learning from that complete implosion at


for UKIP is probably learning from conference, that when you do become


popular, you come under massive scrutiny, and your party needs to


have a disciplined operation of briefing and messaging. I don't know


if you have the resources to do that, but that is the key difference


between UKIP and other parties. We already have 12 MEPs. So why is your


discipline so poor? All these things that you mention, and I take that on


board, these are things we are going to address. Because you have lost


45% of your MEPs since 2009. That is not a sign of a disciplined party.


It is a very disciplined party going forward. I hope to instil that


discipline. I have worked hard over the last 30 years in business. Our


main supporters, one of them is of Pakistani background, and was


responsible for that leaflet that Michael Crick tried to expose to


Godfrey, where are the Asian faces? Is it a racist party? There is a


difference between being a racist party, which it is not, and Michael


Heseltine did not say that, and an accusation that in a party which is


part of a splinter group of smaller parties on the right, there are some


people who hold racist views, and that seems an answer a bleak true. I


beg to differ. We are not a party of the extreme right. We're appealing


to voters across-the-board. 30% from Labour. We are gaining ground all


over the North. Amjad Bashir, I have to stop it there. Thank you very


much. You may think some politicians are


beyond parity. Peter Brookes's cartoons have betrayed various


leaders. Here is some of his work. And Peter Brookes has joined us.


Sign of the Times is out today. Where'd you get the inspiration


from? The politicians. The ideas come from me, and the agony comes


from it. Is there agony? Yes, quite often there is, come for clock in


the afternoon. There is a process to doing them, but every day is


different, and everyday's news is different. What is the process? The


process is listening to the Today programme. Watching the Daily


Politics as Mac indeed! I do have radio and television on a lot. I get


a lot of feedback from that sort of thing. And then I am thinking and


trying to come to terms with what I want to say and what the target is,


and putting it all together. Has a coalition government provided you


with rich pickings. Has it been easier with two parties in


government? Yes, because from day one of the campaign, I came up with


the idea of Clegg being Cameron's fag. You can actually make that work


within this format. I find that inventing things all the time, ways


of humiliating Clegg by Cameron, is one of life's Rita joys for me. --


one of life's great joys. And you will need a new haircut for George


Osborne now. I have heard that the traditional cartoon is under


pressure. Due to the joys of winged journalism. You do get a lot of


cartoons appearing online in various forms, and once newspapers start to


disappear, which may or may not be in the not too distant future, I


hope not, but it could happen, then we will die out. Ed Miliband doesn't


escape you either. I'm sure everyone has heard of Ed Miliband being


compared to Wallace and Gromit. Are you laughing? Philip Larkin was once


asked, weighed you get your ideas from, and he said, sheer genius.


When we discuss which of us will ever be remembered by anyone, if it


is not one of us, it is very definitely going to be Peter


Brookes. How did Ed Miliband respond to this? I have done quite a lot of


these, and apparently the people around him have talked about the


fact that Wallace is a national hero and endlessly resourceful. Trying to


put the spin on it! Is there a line you won't cross? That is difficult


to say. It is terribly difficult to say. I can only answer that from


each day's experience. Let's have a look at the final one, this is a bit


different. Every cartoon isn't necessarily a


laughter cartoon, and I'm dealing with a lot of serious matters. And I


am, by nature, not afraid, not an interventionist. And the whole point


of this cartoon was that Abu Qatada was having a gun held to his head


whilst at the same time Cameron was arming, or not. Thank you very much.


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz. The


question was: What new accessory was Boris Johnson spotted wearing


yesterday? The answer: A new pair of glasses, which Boris described as


being "a bit Elton John". We gave it away! Peter Brookes, thank you very


much. That's all for today. Thanks to Phil Collins, Sean Worth and all


my guests. I will be back tomorrow. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles