:00:41. > :00:46.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron says
:00:47. > :00:49.he'll fight to reduce EU red tape for businesses as a report from
:00:50. > :00:52.company bosses says regulations are costing UK firms billions of pounds.
:00:53. > :00:55.Should lads' mags featuring pictures of topless women be sold in
:00:56. > :00:59.supermarkets? We'll talk to Green MP Caroline Lucas about her campaign to
:01:00. > :01:02.persuade Tesco to bin them. MPs debate new measures to control
:01:03. > :01:08.dangerous dogs, but Labour say they don't go far enough.
:01:09. > :01:13.And as the race to be the next deputy Speaker of the House of
:01:14. > :01:15.Commons heats up, we'll hear from five - yes, five - of the
:01:16. > :01:24.candidates. All that in the next hour. And with
:01:25. > :01:31.us for the whole programme today is the TV presenter par excellence,
:01:32. > :01:35.Richard Madeley. That's very kind! Take the introduction with a smile.
:01:36. > :01:38.Let's start with the news that leading British business figures
:01:39. > :01:45.have attended a meeting of the cabinet today to share their report
:01:46. > :01:52.on EU red tape. In the last few minutes, there has been more
:01:53. > :01:56.breaking news on pleb gate. This is a report not into the original
:01:57. > :02:00.incident, but a report into a meeting held between the former
:02:01. > :02:04.Government Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, and representatives of the
:02:05. > :02:07.police Federation. You will remember that Mr Mitchell was alleged to have
:02:08. > :02:15.said that he thought officers who wouldn't let his -- let him ride his
:02:16. > :02:26.bike through the gates of Downing Street were, and I quote, effing
:02:27. > :02:31.plebs. He always said that he never said that. He said that he had never
:02:32. > :02:38.used those words, but that he had been impatient, that he thought the
:02:39. > :02:43.police were there to help, and that indeed he apologised for it. And yet
:02:44. > :02:46.the representatives of what in effect is the police trade union and
:02:47. > :02:50.said that he had simply refuse to clear up what was said on the
:02:51. > :02:55.fateful night at Downing Street, that he hadn't been clear about what
:02:56. > :03:00.had and hadn't gone on. Today the police watchdog says, in event, not
:03:01. > :03:06.good enough. Its report says that this raises issues of honesty and
:03:07. > :03:12.integrity and discreditable conduct. It says that the police officers
:03:13. > :03:23.involved had a clear agenda, to discredit Mr Mitchell and to pursue
:03:24. > :03:29.the police campaign against cuts. This report said that the police
:03:30. > :03:31.therefore have a case to answer. The police have already investigated
:03:32. > :03:35.themselves and looked into the behaviour of these officers, and the
:03:36. > :03:39.report, you would be surprised to learn, clear the officers and said
:03:40. > :03:45.that there was no deliberate intention to life. This is a
:03:46. > :03:49.dramatic turnaround, given how long we have been waiting for the report
:03:50. > :03:53.on the original incident, as you say. But now we have this
:03:54. > :03:57.conflicting report in terms of what the Police Federation claimed was
:03:58. > :04:07.said. Where does that leave the police? This it the first act of
:04:08. > :04:11.drama. There will be a report from the Crown Prosecution Service within
:04:12. > :04:17.a matter of days. Keir Starmer made that clear on the Andrew Marr
:04:18. > :04:20.programme on Sunday. What is happening here is that the police
:04:21. > :04:25.watchdog is acting the man who had to resign from the Cabinet, who in
:04:26. > :04:28.effect says the police lied. They lied about what happened in a
:04:29. > :04:33.meeting, they did it deliberately, they did it to bring me down, they
:04:34. > :04:37.did it to discredit the government. That is a very serious charge
:04:38. > :04:44.indeed. You may ask where it leads to. In one sense, the answer is
:04:45. > :04:48.nowhere. Mr Mitchell could in theory now pursue a complaint against the
:04:49. > :04:53.officers involved, but I am told that he believes there is almost no
:04:54. > :04:54.point in doing so, given that the police have already investigated
:04:55. > :05:02.themselves and declared themselves to be not guilty.
:05:03. > :05:07.Nick Robinson, thank you. Now, to news of a different sort. Leading
:05:08. > :05:14.British business figures have attended a report today about red
:05:15. > :05:16.tape. The Prime Minister's business
:05:17. > :05:19.taskforce has concluded that relaxing rules on health and safety
:05:20. > :05:22.compliance alone may save ?2 billion. This is hardly a surprise,
:05:23. > :05:27.Richard Madeley, that business wants to slash red tape. I think and dream
:05:28. > :05:40.of nothing else other than EU regulation! Apparently the EU red
:05:41. > :05:43.tape has been under fire for awhile. I wonder if this is Cameron
:05:44. > :05:48.beginning to position himself for the inevitable debate on whether we
:05:49. > :05:51.should be in or out. And this will help, because you can use this as a
:05:52. > :05:56.stick to beat the European commission. As you say, there are
:05:57. > :06:02.pushing on an open door. The European commission is listening. Is
:06:03. > :06:09.that a sign of the times generally? Inevitably, legislation in Europe
:06:10. > :06:13.has become massively top-heavy and needs to be cut back, and that was a
:06:14. > :06:18.process that was inevitable, I think. But I think it puts Cameron
:06:19. > :06:24.in a useful position. He can be seen to be criticising be you, but also
:06:25. > :06:28.making tomorrow and habitable to be. Now it's time for our Daily Quiz.
:06:29. > :06:30.The question for today is: What did George Osborne claim 160 million
:06:31. > :06:45.Chinese people were fans of? Was it: Boris Johnson, expensive handbags,
:06:46. > :06:47.Downton Abbey or Glastonbury. At the end of the show, Richard will give
:06:48. > :06:54.us the correct answer. New measures to control dangerous
:06:55. > :06:57.dogs in England and Wales are being taken through Parliament today. It
:06:58. > :07:00.follows some high-profile tragedies and a vigorous campaign by postmen,
:07:01. > :07:05.among others. It's estimated that around 210,000 people are attacked
:07:06. > :07:08.by dogs in England every year. There have been 16 fatal dog attacks in
:07:09. > :07:14.homes over the last eight years, including nine involving children.
:07:15. > :07:17.The most recent death was that of teenager Jade Anderson in March this
:07:18. > :07:22.year following an attack by four dogs in the home of a family friend.
:07:23. > :07:25.Currently, the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act covers only attacks by dogs in
:07:26. > :07:32.public places and private areas from where dogs are banned, such as a
:07:33. > :07:36.neighbour's garden or a park. The Government plans to extend existing
:07:37. > :07:42.laws to cover dog attacks on private property - but not in cases where a
:07:43. > :07:45.dog attacks an intruder. And also extend laws to cover cases where
:07:46. > :07:49.dangerous dogs attack guide dogs and other assistance dogs. However,
:07:50. > :07:53.Labour says the Government proposals don't go far enough. Among other
:07:54. > :07:58.things, they want the introduction of Dog Control Notices - basically
:07:59. > :08:02.ASBOs for dogs. These could enforce the muzzling of the dog whenever it
:08:03. > :08:06.is in a place to which the public has access, and if the dog is male,
:08:07. > :08:09.neutering it. Joining me now, Shadow Home Office Minister Steve Reed and
:08:10. > :08:12.the Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell who in opposition was the party's
:08:13. > :08:15.animal welfare spokesman. And we should say that we asked the
:08:16. > :08:22.Government for an interview with a Minister on this, but none was
:08:23. > :08:25.available. Welcome to both of you. The Government is planning to
:08:26. > :08:29.toughen up regulation and legislation. That must be a good
:08:30. > :08:35.thing? They are making some movement, but they are not going far
:08:36. > :08:39.enough. I met Michael Anderson, the father of jade, the 14-year-old girl
:08:40. > :08:44.who was savaged to death by a group of dogs out of control. He came to
:08:45. > :08:47.Parliament to ask us to support the introduction of dog control
:08:48. > :08:51.notices, that would allow dogs to be muzzled, kept on a lead, the owners
:08:52. > :08:58.of the dogs to have compulsory training. The Government is refusing
:08:59. > :09:03.to do this. It exists in Scotland, where it works, it is supported by
:09:04. > :09:04.Battersea dogs home, the RSPCA, the Association of Chief Police
:09:05. > :09:13.Officers, everybody except the Government. When a child is killed
:09:14. > :09:17.by dogs mauling at them, surely legislation can't go far enough to
:09:18. > :09:22.prevent that happening again? Clearly the law at the moment is
:09:23. > :09:25.lacking tremendously, and the Government are bringing forward
:09:26. > :09:32.measures, but I have sympathy with what is being said. It doesn't go
:09:33. > :09:35.far enough. We do need dog control notices and legislation that ensures
:09:36. > :09:40.that the owners are brought to book for allowing their dogs to behave in
:09:41. > :09:46.a dangerous and irresponsible way. But every dog is different, and you
:09:47. > :09:53.need a law that can deal with a particular case rather than a
:09:54. > :09:57.broadbrush approach. Can you have a law that is that nuanced when it
:09:58. > :10:00.comes to animals that are unpredictable? You can, because
:10:01. > :10:05.there are different breeds of dog, different types of owners. Some
:10:06. > :10:09.owners are totally irresponsible and don't deserve to have a dog, but
:10:10. > :10:12.others just make one mistake and should be put in the same category
:10:13. > :10:18.as someone using a dog for illegal activities. There are breeds that
:10:19. > :10:22.are banned, but there are dog that can still attack people that are of
:10:23. > :10:27.any breed. Isn't it the people who look after them that we need to look
:10:28. > :10:31.at? You are right. The key problem is irresponsible dog owners, but dog
:10:32. > :10:34.control notices and allow a quick way of addressing the problems of
:10:35. > :10:40.potentially dangerous dogs before they get out of control. How would
:10:41. > :10:43.that actually work? You can be served immediately by the police or
:10:44. > :10:49.a local authority without the need to go through the courts. Is that
:10:50. > :10:54.what happened in Scotland? It is, and there is evidence that it is
:10:55. > :11:01.effective. I thought you were here to argue against dog ASBOs sometimes
:11:02. > :11:06.we do agree when it is a matter of common sense. This is about a
:11:07. > :11:11.practical way of dealing with a social problem. Micro-chipping is
:11:12. > :11:16.coming in, and I fought for that, I argued that it should come in. They
:11:17. > :11:20.can link the dogs are the owner, so it means that a dog control notice
:11:21. > :11:27.makes sense linking to that, because you can prove who owns the dog. That
:11:28. > :11:30.is not coming in until 2017. The Government are too weak to come here
:11:31. > :11:35.today to defend their position. Andrew is a Tory MP but not part of
:11:36. > :11:41.the Government. Why would they not debate this? This is not a subject
:11:42. > :11:45.we should turn into a political battle. This is about bringing
:11:46. > :11:51.sensible laws to deal with the social problem. Dangerous dogs, dogs
:11:52. > :11:56.being used in crime, dogs being used in an irresponsible way. I think the
:11:57. > :12:01.Government needs to look at this in a bit more detail and perhaps accept
:12:02. > :12:06.one or two of the changes this afternoon. It is the owner that is
:12:07. > :12:10.the problem, nine times out of ten. And some of them don't really seem
:12:11. > :12:14.to take any care or interest at all in the behaviour of their dog, and
:12:15. > :12:20.in fact some of them, they are quite proud of having an aggressive dog.
:12:21. > :12:24.And one of the issues coming up is what is the guidelines for dealing
:12:25. > :12:28.with a dog owner who allows their dog to kill. How do you make sure
:12:29. > :12:34.that all of the dogs are micro-chipped? You make it a
:12:35. > :12:40.requirement when the dog is first-born, or when you sell the
:12:41. > :12:50.dog. If you buy a dog, the person who has bred the dog... But if the
:12:51. > :12:53.dog was scanned for a microchip and there wasn't a microchip in it, they
:12:54. > :12:58.have immediately broken the law. There are lots of advantages of
:12:59. > :13:01.having a microchip system, and also lost and stolen dogs can be returned
:13:02. > :13:06.to their owners. Bruce Forsyth's daughter lost her dogs, and she got
:13:07. > :13:15.them back because the vet scanned the microchip. Why is it delayed
:13:16. > :13:19.until 2017? Enough agreement! What about harsher sentences for people
:13:20. > :13:26.who have dogs who go on to attack people? Once again, we have to be
:13:27. > :13:28.sensible about this. I own a Staffordshire bull terrier, and they
:13:29. > :13:33.can be mischievous and run after other dogs. And somebody can think
:13:34. > :13:37.that there is a dog attack when they are playing. So you do have to be
:13:38. > :13:43.very sensible about how you apply this. But people who use dogs to
:13:44. > :13:50.attack people in crime, there should be much tougher sentences for those
:13:51. > :13:54.people. The current maximum sentence for that is two years. Do you think
:13:55. > :14:00.there are some people who's just shouldn't be allowed to have dogs?
:14:01. > :14:04.Yes, I do. I did a newspaper around when I was a kid. There were three
:14:05. > :14:07.houses that I'd refuse to deliver papers to, because the dogs even
:14:08. > :14:12.throw closed front door would jump up as you you put the paper through
:14:13. > :14:18.to try to get your fingers. There was another thing that went through
:14:19. > :14:24.an idea from backbenchers that you have to put a grill over your post
:14:25. > :14:29.box if you own a dog. I totally agree with what you are saying. It
:14:30. > :14:34.is a shame the government doesn't. Thank you both very much. Should
:14:35. > :14:37.magazines with images of scantily clad women on the cover be sold on
:14:38. > :14:43.display in big supermarket chains like Tesco? Campaign is meeting at
:14:44. > :14:51.Parliament today says dads' mags like Nuts and Sue or pornography and
:14:52. > :14:54.should be withdrawn. Here's the singer Charlotte Church talking last
:14:55. > :15:09.night about young women in the music industry.
:15:10. > :15:15.to present themselves as objects, and when I was 19 or 20 I found
:15:16. > :15:19.myself in this position, being pressured into wearing more and
:15:20. > :15:23.more revealing outfits and the lines I had spun at me again and
:15:24. > :15:29.again by middle age meant was, you have got a great body, why not show
:15:30. > :15:34.off? Do not worry, it will look classy, it will look artistic. I
:15:35. > :15:41.felt deeply uncomfortable about the whole thing. Charlotte Church has
:15:42. > :15:44.in the past posed for men's magazines. Caroline Lucas is
:15:45. > :15:47.hosting this evening's meeting in Parliament and we have been joined
:15:48. > :15:52.by the writer and broadcaster Toby Young. Is the problem with the
:15:53. > :15:57.content of these magazines or the positioning of them? It is the
:15:58. > :16:03.positioning and the sense of being in a family retailer. Tesco likes
:16:04. > :16:07.to portray itself as being a family retailer and it is a family
:16:08. > :16:14.retailer that does not sell adult material. We have had a judgment
:16:15. > :16:18.that says publications like a Zoo and the Nuts are adult material.
:16:19. > :16:24.All we are asking Tesco to do is to abide by its own policy, which is
:16:25. > :16:28.not to stock it. The does not sound that drastic. I do have some
:16:29. > :16:32.sympathy for this campaign in general. I have got a daughter and
:16:33. > :16:38.I do not want her to be the victim of sexual ism. But they have got
:16:39. > :16:43.the politics of this wrong. The way to go about this is not to try and
:16:44. > :16:48.banned the sexual or objectification of women, but to
:16:49. > :16:53.persuade men not to buy them. Caroline was saying it was about
:16:54. > :16:58.the positioning of them were children could quite easily see
:16:59. > :17:02.them. We will talk about objectives Acacia in general, but would you
:17:03. > :17:08.have a problem with it being taken off the shelves at Tesco? I would
:17:09. > :17:13.say if you want to persuade men to reform their attitudes and not
:17:14. > :17:18.purchase these magazines, at the way to do it is to persuade them,
:17:19. > :17:21.not to remove the choice altogether. If people want to get hold of these
:17:22. > :17:26.magazines they can go to special shops and get them online.
:17:27. > :17:31.Persuading people not to buy them is part of saying it is not an
:17:32. > :17:35.everyday piece of consumption. Putting these magazines between
:17:36. > :17:40.grocery and detergents gives the impression these are normal,
:17:41. > :17:46.everyday items and they are not. It would have not to have them in
:17:47. > :17:51.retailers. Are they more every day? They contain pictures of topless
:17:52. > :17:55.women, that the editor has news features and sport. We are
:17:56. > :17:59.persuaded by the industry to see them as every day, but they are not
:18:00. > :18:05.every day, they are soft pornography. I believe in the top
:18:06. > :18:10.shelf as a concept. How do you persuade your average bloke, who
:18:11. > :18:17.likes this kind of stuff, to stop buying it? You persuade them up by
:18:18. > :18:22.appealing to them in the first instance as brothers and husbands
:18:23. > :18:27.and fathers of women. The problem with setting out with such a
:18:28. > :18:30.draconian attitude is you are automatically going to alienate the
:18:31. > :18:35.group you are trying to persuade to change their behaviour. Banning it
:18:36. > :18:39.is not going to work because these images will always be available on
:18:40. > :18:44.the Internet will start the question is how best to reform
:18:45. > :18:49.men's behaviour and persuade them these sorts of images are wrong?
:18:50. > :18:54.You do not do that by setting out with the censorious attitude. The
:18:55. > :18:59.only person who is talking about being censorious is Toby. All we
:19:00. > :19:05.are asking is for Tesco to implement his own policy. How would
:19:06. > :19:11.you feel if the cheap executive of Tesco, a man, issued a statement as
:19:12. > :19:17.a husband and a father of saying I had taken the decision on
:19:18. > :19:24.principle? It is not as if it is an isolated incident. Why they cannot
:19:25. > :19:29.do it all? One of the reasons Tesco are going in that direction is not
:19:30. > :19:33.just because they have been subjected gentle persuasion, but
:19:34. > :19:40.because they have been threatened with legal action. A is that
:19:41. > :19:44.censorship? That seems to be using the authority of the state to track
:19:45. > :19:49.and prohibit behaviour of which you disapprove. It is not the right way
:19:50. > :19:53.to persuade men to change. We have got a statement from Tesco. I want
:19:54. > :19:59.to come back to the idea of disapproval. The position many of
:20:00. > :20:06.us are coming from is one that is rooted in concern about violence
:20:07. > :20:11.against women. What we are saying is there is something wrong when we
:20:12. > :20:16.have a situation where one in three girls think there are some times
:20:17. > :20:21.when it is appropriate for a man to force a girl to have sex. When a
:20:22. > :20:26.girl talks about unwanted sexual contact at school. We have a
:20:27. > :20:31.concern about the daily diet where it says this kind of stuff is
:20:32. > :20:35.normal, accessible and fine and a continuum that means violence
:20:36. > :20:39.against women is more likely. I am not saying somebody goes out and
:20:40. > :20:46.raised one of these magazines and commits violence. Of course not. Is
:20:47. > :20:50.there not a defence between those magazines and what is in them and
:20:51. > :20:55.the scenario you have described? There is no evidence prohibiting
:20:56. > :20:59.the sale of lads mags, banning paged treatment clear it out
:21:00. > :21:04.Twitter, and all these campaigns are lent, there is no evidence that
:21:05. > :21:09.prohibiting the sale of these kinds of things is going to decrease
:21:10. > :21:14.violence against women. If you look at the societies in which women are
:21:15. > :21:19.most at risk, does our societies in which these sorts of materials are
:21:20. > :21:25.already prohibited. You heard from Charlotte Church to herself regrets
:21:26. > :21:30.posing in an overtly sexual eyes away, she felt exploited. The
:21:31. > :21:35.market out there made money out of her, that is what she is claiming.
:21:36. > :21:41.Taking that away would take away some of the interest. This is a
:21:42. > :21:47.fringe issue. The real issue in terms of the effect of pornography
:21:48. > :21:52.is on the internet. That is an absolutely huge issue, but I would
:21:53. > :21:56.challenge the issue that because of that that makes this fringe. This
:21:57. > :22:01.is where you go and get your groceries. This is what you are
:22:02. > :22:07.picking off the shelf, this is something about day-to-day
:22:08. > :22:11.normality. Even if you did put it on the top shelf, does it make it
:22:12. > :22:16.normal or is it pornography which is what the campaign groups are
:22:17. > :22:25.saying? It is soft porn if you want to graduate this. But, yes, you are
:22:26. > :22:30.right, it makes it normal. It gives its a skene of respectability. Do
:22:31. > :22:36.you think it is pornography? I would be happy to call its soft
:22:37. > :22:40.porn, that is not the issue. The problem in the way the campaign is
:22:41. > :22:46.being waged is there is more than a trace of snobbery. This is a point
:22:47. > :22:51.George Orwell made. He said there was a streak within the British
:22:52. > :22:57.working class which was fairly hedonistic. They liked gambling,
:22:58. > :23:03.they liked bawdy postcards and drinking. The left-wing
:23:04. > :23:08.intellectuals have campaigned against gambling and drinking and
:23:09. > :23:14.postcards. You are getting more desperate. A You are not going to
:23:15. > :23:18.persuade people to come over like this morally censorious school
:23:19. > :23:22.mistress. I do not think I have been sitting here like a
:23:23. > :23:27.schoolmistress, not that I had anything against school mistresses.
:23:28. > :23:33.We want Tesco to implement their own policy, which is to say they do
:23:34. > :23:40.not stop adult magazines. What if they do not? Continue to campaign.
:23:41. > :23:45.The Co-op has already done it. If there is a case for legal action,
:23:46. > :23:49.but not to take legal action. Tesco's say they only sell it to
:23:50. > :23:54.over eight teams and they are on the shelf. Is that not enough? If
:23:55. > :23:59.they stayed on the top shelf, it would be better, but they do not.
:24:00. > :24:03.The placing of it within the shop is still not getting away from the
:24:04. > :24:08.fact that we are sending out a message that this is normal and
:24:09. > :24:12.acceptable. If you look at this issue in the round, coming back to
:24:13. > :24:19.what you can do to persuade men not to buy these, you are on a hiding
:24:20. > :24:23.to nothing. I still cannot see what evidence you have to show that you
:24:24. > :24:28.could persuade men in large numbers not to buy these magazines. The
:24:29. > :24:35.extraordinary decline in the sales of lads mags. But has the Internet
:24:36. > :24:40.not taken that place? We do not know. The point you make about the
:24:41. > :24:45.internet is a good one, but you cannot prohibit this kind of sexual
:24:46. > :24:50.imagery. Trying to prohibit it is not the right way to go about it,
:24:51. > :24:53.you have to persuade people it is wrong. What do you think about
:24:54. > :25:03.newspapers that have pictures of naked girls? That is in the
:25:04. > :25:07.mainstream. I do not think page three, again it is about making it
:25:08. > :25:12.normal, and a paper that is supposed to be about news, and the
:25:13. > :25:16.thing about it is it is being presented to young children, two
:25:17. > :25:21.people of all ages as something that is normal and that is
:25:22. > :25:26.dangerous. This is symptomatic of a liberal, puritanical attitude of
:25:27. > :25:29.the left. If they do not like something, rather than persuade
:25:30. > :25:35.people not to engage in it, they try and ban it. If you were
:25:36. > :25:39.watching yesterday, you will know that election fever is engulfed in
:25:40. > :25:45.Parliament this week. Tomorrow MPs will elect a new deputy speaker.
:25:46. > :25:50.All MPs can vote, but only MPs on the Government's side can stand.
:25:51. > :25:55.Seven Conservative MPs are vying for position. We spoke to two
:25:56. > :26:00.yesterday and Charles is in the lobby with three more.
:26:01. > :26:05.This is round two of the look at the titanic struggle for the big
:26:06. > :26:10.chair. I am not so sure it is engulfed in Parliament, but we have
:26:11. > :26:15.three candidates taking part, Brian Binley, Nadine Dorries and Gary
:26:16. > :26:19.Streeter. You have to give a 32nd pitch to the wider constituency.
:26:20. > :26:26.The opposition parties want to hear what you have got to say. I am
:26:27. > :26:32.going to be strict with this. Brian, why should you be Deputy Speaker? I
:26:33. > :26:37.have been in business almost 40 years and have learned the
:26:38. > :26:39.importance of personal relationships for a successful
:26:40. > :26:48.business. That knowledge will help me in the chair. You did not even
:26:49. > :26:56.need 30 seconds. The Hang on. You are very eager. Fire away. There is
:26:57. > :27:00.not a day when I am here when I do not feel privileged and I love the
:27:01. > :27:06.tradition of the house of Commons and the processes, but I am a
:27:07. > :27:11.moderniser as well. I voted to reduce the Tuesday late night and
:27:12. > :27:15.normal business hours to not make the house of Commons normal. I
:27:16. > :27:24.speak out often on behalf of other backbenchers and I had served as a
:27:25. > :27:29.committee chairman. Well done. We have reset the clock. They are
:27:30. > :27:35.eager this morning. My picture is simple. There is a job description.
:27:36. > :27:39.The Deputy Speaker should be a good chair of meetings, should have a
:27:40. > :27:42.wide knowledge of the House of Commons, should be a good team
:27:43. > :27:46.player and should be a serving member of the chairmen's Panel and
:27:47. > :27:52.I would like to think that I'd take pot of those boxes. When you are
:27:53. > :27:57.sitting in the chair, if you get elected, you need various bits of
:27:58. > :28:04.knowledge about the procedure. We are going to give you a couple of
:28:05. > :28:09.questions. How did short of money, the annual amount given to
:28:10. > :28:20.opposition parties, get its name? After a former Labour minister.
:28:21. > :28:25.Which one? Len short? Edward Short. Which holy books are available to
:28:26. > :28:35.members at the table when they take their earth? The Bible, the
:28:36. > :28:40.courante, what is the...? There is also a book if you are a humanist
:28:41. > :28:48.or an atheist. What is the Jewish boat? The Old Testament in Hebrew.
:28:49. > :28:55.There is a Welsh Bible and a Gaelic Bible.
:28:56. > :29:00.What is a money belt? It is where we pass a measure to spend money.
:29:01. > :29:06.That may not be right, but it is the best thing I can come up with
:29:07. > :29:11.at the time. It is a bill that deals with national taxation, but
:29:12. > :29:17.it is only considered to be a money bill if the speaker says it is. He
:29:18. > :29:24.has to sign a certificate. Exactly what I said. Had you look at my
:29:25. > :29:29.piece of paper. When was the phrase father of the house first use? I
:29:30. > :29:37.have no idea, although I am old enough to have been there. In the
:29:38. > :29:43.19th century. They asked for her experience much sooner than that.
:29:44. > :29:57.When in the 19th century? It does not say it. 100 years. What is the
:29:58. > :30:02.Cranborne deal? Viscount Cranborne. This is the arrangement whereby 92
:30:03. > :30:12.hereditary Peers remained in Parliament... Yes. It was known as
:30:13. > :30:17.the medical amendment. What are Henry VIII clauses? They allowed
:30:18. > :30:22.the Secretary of State a great deal of discretion to pass powers and
:30:23. > :30:28.make decisions after the Act of Parliament has passed. 10 out of 10.
:30:29. > :30:33.There was one last one for you. What is the procedure on a member
:30:34. > :30:44.asking the chair on whether they can go to Australia? Go and see the
:30:45. > :30:47.chief whip. Are you excited or can you wait for it to be all over? I
:30:48. > :31:00.cannot wait for it to be over. Our next guest is a journalist who's
:31:01. > :31:03.a big fan of statistics. Well, aren't we all. But unlike me, he's
:31:04. > :31:06.written a new book with the professor of risk from Cambridge
:31:07. > :31:09.University, showing how little we really understand probability,
:31:10. > :31:12.danger and risk. Because very few of us, it turns out, can really
:31:13. > :31:16.understand the likelihood of falling under a bus or being hit by an
:31:17. > :31:18.asteroid, they've come up with a new measurement called the MicroMort.
:31:19. > :31:25.One MicroMort is equivalent to a one-in-a-million chance of death.
:31:26. > :31:28.That's roughly the risk we all run of something horrible and fatal
:31:29. > :31:31.happening to us on an average day in Britain. That leads to some
:31:32. > :31:34.interesting comparisons. For example: the risk of death from a
:31:35. > :31:37.general anaesthetic in a non-emergency operation is about ten
:31:38. > :31:39.micromorts. That's the same risk as one sky-diving jump, or two shifts
:31:40. > :31:48.working down a mine. Giving birth exposes the mother to
:31:49. > :31:52.about 120 MicroMorts of risk. That's the same risk as riding a motorbike
:31:53. > :31:55.from London to Edinburgh and back. And it's about the same as two
:31:56. > :32:00.and-a-half days of active service during the most dangerous period of
:32:01. > :32:03.the Afghanistan War. Well, to talk about those and other statistics I'm
:32:04. > :32:15.joined now by one of the book's authors Michael Blastland. It seems
:32:16. > :32:20.incredible that it is so dangerous to give birth, it is like being at
:32:21. > :32:25.the height of the Afghanistan war. Well, there are two debates, as to
:32:26. > :32:28.whether that risk is talking about the birth exacerbated an existing
:32:29. > :32:36.condition, or just from the birth. Globally, the risk is enormous.
:32:37. > :32:41.These are just UK figures. It is one of the worst risks a woman can face
:32:42. > :32:45.in her lifetime globally. Some of the risks in developing countries,
:32:46. > :32:54.they are stratospheric, it is about one in a hundred. Something like
:32:55. > :32:57.40,000 MicroMorts. Generally, it seems that we are frightened of
:32:58. > :33:02.things that will almost certainly not happen to us. Most of the big
:33:03. > :33:08.risks that we worry about have diminished enormously. I clutch my
:33:09. > :33:12.child's hand when we cross the road, but the chance of an 11-year-old
:33:13. > :33:16.falling under the wheels of something is probably less now than
:33:17. > :33:21.the chance of a two-year-old being caught in the blind cord on your
:33:22. > :33:27.windows, for example. It has gone right down. There were no fatalities
:33:28. > :33:33.in that category last year. Because of driver safety and speed bumps? A
:33:34. > :33:40.lot of reasons. We can't say why it is happening necessarily. It may not
:33:41. > :33:48.be that the roads are safer. It may be that the roads are so dangerous
:33:49. > :33:51.that we never go anywhere near them. Is there something that you are
:33:52. > :33:56.frightened of irrationally that is something unlikely to occur? Flying
:33:57. > :34:01.is the one that a lot of people have a lot of trouble with, and air
:34:02. > :34:05.travel is relatively safe. Fantastically safe. Not quite so
:34:06. > :34:09.safe in light aircraft. Keep out of the little ones. Commercial ones are
:34:10. > :34:13.safe. I'm fascinated by the statistics. But life is for living,
:34:14. > :34:20.not endlessly calculating your chances of not getting to the end of
:34:21. > :34:25.the day. There is an American book, the never list, and they are too
:34:26. > :34:29.young American girls living their lives by calculating risk and not
:34:30. > :34:32.doing things. The never list is things that they never do. And by
:34:33. > :34:39.chapter three, catastrophe engulfed them. Sitting down is pretty bad for
:34:40. > :34:47.you. There are risks associated with being sedentary. And they are
:34:48. > :34:51.surprisingly high. If you add up all the damage that is done to everybody
:34:52. > :34:56.and divided between us. And there is a risk of falling off the toilet and
:34:57. > :34:59.breaking your neck! I will be careful the next time I go. The
:35:00. > :35:03.interesting thing is how you apply it to politics, and I'm sure that
:35:04. > :35:08.politicians are fascinated by the risks of campaigns and certain other
:35:09. > :35:12.things. Vaccination was difficult for a lot of parents when the MMR
:35:13. > :35:16.scandal happened, and parents clearly weighed up in their mind,
:35:17. > :35:21.was it worse not to vaccinate your child, or vaccinating and having a
:35:22. > :35:26.potential side-effect that proved not to be a threat after all. Do you
:35:27. > :35:29.think those things are difficult for politicians when devising campaigns,
:35:30. > :35:34.or should they look at probability and risk? Phenomenally difficult.
:35:35. > :35:40.Because people are not just talking about the odds. You can say that the
:35:41. > :35:44.chance of that happening is remote, and your belief that it is a serious
:35:45. > :35:48.risk is misplaced, but that is not what we are talking about. They
:35:49. > :35:54.might say, this is an unnatural risk, so they might worry about
:35:55. > :35:59.somebody may be having too much power or too much money, or it is a
:36:00. > :36:04.big corporation or a big government. So they say, natural risks can be as
:36:05. > :36:15.severe as human made risks, man-made risks. Why this fear of an unnatural
:36:16. > :36:18.risk, like a vaccination. And drugs is another area where people talk
:36:19. > :36:22.about risks, decriminalising them and how dangerous it would be if
:36:23. > :36:26.certain drugs were decriminalised when you think about the effects of
:36:27. > :36:31.alcohol. Politics makes it difficult to make those decisions. Even if you
:36:32. > :36:34.look at the risk analysis. When I was doing regular television, I have
:36:35. > :36:36.lost count of the number of government ministers who would come
:36:37. > :36:41.in and argue against the decriminalisation of drugs, and then
:36:42. > :36:46.say, afterwards, that they are in favour but can't argue it. It is
:36:47. > :36:50.politically impossible. Do you think they should take more notice of
:36:51. > :37:01.possibility? It should certainly be departed the debate. David nuts
:37:02. > :37:03.compared the risks of ecstasy with the risks of horse riding and found
:37:04. > :37:08.that they were comparable. That is when it gets politically difficult,
:37:09. > :37:15.because they start to say things like, may be people think that horse
:37:16. > :37:20.riding is wholesome and taking ecstasy isn't. You are not looking
:37:21. > :37:25.at the risks when you say that, you were making judgements on other
:37:26. > :37:27.values. And because we criminalise drug taking and drug dealing in this
:37:28. > :37:34.country, there is violence associated with it. Do you take
:37:35. > :37:37.these things into account or not? Yes, the association with the
:37:38. > :37:42.criminal underworld and the lifestyle it may encourage. These
:37:43. > :37:45.things are not resolved simply by the probabilities, unfortunately.
:37:46. > :37:48.Thank you very much. Now, after the expenses scandal it
:37:49. > :37:52.was suggested that the public should be given more say over how they
:37:53. > :37:56.could possibly get rid of their MP if they felt they were no longer up
:37:57. > :38:00.to the job. The coalition agreed and have proposed a system whereby an MP
:38:01. > :38:03.can be referred to the Parliamentary Standards committee where their fate
:38:04. > :38:05.is decided. But one Conservative MP feels this doesn't go far enough -
:38:06. > :38:31.here's Zac Goldsmith's soapbox. In the wake of the expenses
:38:32. > :38:36.scandal, all three political parties went into overdrive. The one
:38:37. > :38:40.meaningful promise all of them made was to introduce a system of recall
:38:41. > :38:44.into British politics. This would allow voters to get rid of unwanted
:38:45. > :38:48.representatives at any time. If enough people sign a petition, a
:38:49. > :38:52.recall referendum is held, and people are asked if they want their
:38:53. > :38:58.MP to be recall. If enough people say yes, a by-election is triggered.
:38:59. > :39:02.It is extraordinary that currently if an MP would ignore the voters
:39:03. > :39:07.from the day of their election and break every promise they made and
:39:08. > :39:10.disappear on holiday or even switched to an extremist party,
:39:11. > :39:14.there is nothing the voters can do until the next general election.
:39:15. > :39:19.They would probably have to vote for a party they don't even support. In
:39:20. > :39:22.safe seats, that would be unlikely to remove an underperforming MP.
:39:23. > :39:28.Another system I propose, voters could sack their MP at any time,
:39:29. > :39:33.select a replacement candidate and then vote in a by-election. CU could
:39:34. > :39:39.still have areas that were safe a party, but all MPs are kept on their
:39:40. > :39:43.toes. And the recall could change the dynamic here in Parliament, so
:39:44. > :39:48.once elected, you were pressured by the party hierarchy to toe the line
:39:49. > :39:53.and take the whip, so an MP's task is to hold the executive to account,
:39:54. > :39:56.and under a system of recall, MPs would always know that the most
:39:57. > :40:00.important three line whip is the one imposed by constituents. Last year,
:40:01. > :40:07.the government produced its draft recall Bill, but the proposals don't
:40:08. > :40:09.merely fall short of genuine recall. They are not in any meaningful sense
:40:10. > :40:18.recall at all. Perversely, they will hand power to
:40:19. > :40:24.a parliamentary committee, not to voters, up not down. So once someone
:40:25. > :40:29.complains about the behaviour of an MP, that committee on standards must
:40:30. > :40:31.then decide if the MP has engaged in serious wrongdoing. But how do you
:40:32. > :40:37.even begin to define serious wrongdoing?
:40:38. > :40:46.Recall is not a new concept. It happens all over the world already.
:40:47. > :40:49.Altima -- ultimately it is about democracy and trusting our
:40:50. > :40:53.constituents. I think they need more say.
:40:54. > :40:57.And Zac Goldsmith joins us now. And I should say we ask the Government
:40:58. > :41:03.for an interview on this, but no Minister was available. Not doing
:41:04. > :41:09.very well on those today! If voters don't like their MP, they can get
:41:10. > :41:13.rid of them at the general election. That doesn't work in safe seats. If
:41:14. > :41:19.you have a 20,000 majority, the only way you will get rid of your sitting
:41:20. > :41:26.MP is if everyone votes for someone else. In ironing town, where
:41:27. > :41:31.traditionally people would never vote Conservative, it is too much to
:41:32. > :41:37.suggest that people might switch to voting for the Conservatives to get
:41:38. > :41:42.rid of a candidate they don't like. And for the five years in between
:41:43. > :41:46.elections, there is no method at all where local people can hold their MP
:41:47. > :41:51.to account. But isn't what you are suggesting similar to a kangaroo
:41:52. > :41:56.court? It is not, unless you regard your constituents is forming a
:41:57. > :41:59.kangaroo court. Under recall, any eligible voter is involved in that
:42:00. > :42:05.process, so it is not a tiny bunch of people. But the people who would
:42:06. > :42:08.be able to get a cohort together would be those who are always
:42:09. > :42:11.campaigning, always involved. I'm not saying that there is anything
:42:12. > :42:17.wrong with that, but would you be getting the legitimate views and
:42:18. > :42:21.opinions of your constituents? Lets take my constituency. If 20% of the
:42:22. > :42:23.people signed a petition that would trigger the recall, which involves
:42:24. > :42:31.absolutely everyone, you would need about 16,000 people. My opposition
:42:32. > :42:36.in Richmond are Lib Dems. They would need to get 16,000 people to sign a
:42:37. > :42:41.petition to say that I am so useless, and must be recalled. And
:42:42. > :42:45.then you would need a referendum for everyone to take part in, and over
:42:46. > :42:51.half of them would have to recall me, and so this is not a kangaroo
:42:52. > :42:55.court. Do you think that there is a risk of MPs thinking, particularly
:42:56. > :42:58.in marginal seats, I just won't support something that might be
:42:59. > :43:02.unpopular, because they will kick me out. That is the big and obvious
:43:03. > :43:06.risk. The fact is, in real politics, MPs often have to do
:43:07. > :43:09.things, follow the party whip, which goes against the interests of their
:43:10. > :43:15.constituents or what their constituents would like them to do.
:43:16. > :43:17.That cannot change. If I were an MP under this scheme, I would be
:43:18. > :43:21.petrified that any day the phone was get a ring and I would have to go
:43:22. > :43:26.down and face, if not a kangaroo court, an extremely difficult
:43:27. > :43:29.meeting. And that is the fear that MPs have in relation to recall. But
:43:30. > :43:37.that doesn't happen around the world. I can't find a single example
:43:38. > :43:42.of a successful vexatious campaign. If you are a halfway decent MP, you
:43:43. > :43:48.have nothing to fear through this. You can take a different view to
:43:49. > :43:51.your constituents. I disagree with a lot of my constituents on equal
:43:52. > :43:58.marriage, for example. It is rare for one issue to be a deal-breaker.
:43:59. > :44:08.But would it have cost the expenses scandal? A lot of MPs didn't break
:44:09. > :44:11.the rules, but abuse the system, and a lot of voters would have taken a
:44:12. > :44:18.dim view. One of the reasons people are very rarely recall in systems
:44:19. > :44:21.where recall exists is because you don't make flamboyant, crazy
:44:22. > :44:24.promises before an election, and when you do make promises, you try
:44:25. > :44:30.to keep them, and when you can't, you explain why, and you don't do
:44:31. > :44:35.things that will trigger the ire of your constituents, like paying for
:44:36. > :44:38.duck houses. What is the problem with the Government's plans? It is
:44:39. > :44:42.one of the worst piece of political manoeuvring is I have ever seen in
:44:43. > :44:47.my short career as a politician. It is not recall in a sense that there
:44:48. > :44:50.is no recall vote. There is a small committee of parliamentarians, a
:44:51. > :44:56.kangaroo court imposed by the whip, which decides whether or not MPs
:44:57. > :44:59.qualify for recall. It is only on financial or serious misconduct
:45:00. > :45:04.grounds. The effect is that if you are a maverick, a George Galloway,
:45:05. > :45:08.those kinds of MPs would be thrown to the wolves very easily by this
:45:09. > :45:13.committee, and once qualifies you for recall, you are out. There is no
:45:14. > :45:21.defence at all. What I'm proposing is a genuine system to protect MPs
:45:22. > :45:27.from the 70,000 voters or so in your constituency rather than a few
:45:28. > :45:33.people on a whip. What is it for you? I think a halfway decent MP
:45:34. > :45:39.would not have anything to fear under recall. I hope I am a halfway
:45:40. > :45:42.decent MP. I resent the fact that when I turn on the radio and listen
:45:43. > :45:46.to discussions about politics, when people can call in, the machines
:45:47. > :45:51.fizz with rage. People detest politicians. Under a system of
:45:52. > :45:56.recall, I would have an implied mandate. I would be able to say to
:45:57. > :46:02.anyone in my constituency, found that bad, trigger a recall. If 20%
:46:03. > :46:18.of people want to sign, then I am doing something OK.
:46:19. > :46:23.the standing of Parliament. You could stand in the central lobby
:46:24. > :46:29.this afternoon and asked the first 10 MPs what have you voted on?
:46:30. > :46:35.There was a rebellious intake in 2010. I do not think it is true to
:46:36. > :46:41.say that MPs have not stood on their own platforms. Look at the
:46:42. > :46:46.issue of high-speed rail. If an MP was to say it is a good thing, even
:46:47. > :46:51.though it goes through their constituency, they would be kicked
:46:52. > :46:55.out through recall. The same it would be through in my constituency
:46:56. > :47:03.in relation to Heathrow. But I am one of 650 MPs. If one MP takes a
:47:04. > :47:08.different view, it will not have much of an impact. The backbenchers
:47:09. > :47:12.have been more rebellious and they have been doing their job.
:47:13. > :47:17.Parliament pushes through whatever it was virtually without any
:47:18. > :47:22.scrutiny. Were it not for the fact that we had the house of Lords, our
:47:23. > :47:26.legislation would be full of holes. There is a difference between an MP
:47:27. > :47:33.who is a maverick, like George Galloway, and an MP who has done
:47:34. > :47:37.something wrong. We use the expenses scandal as an example.
:47:38. > :47:43.Would this right to recall differentiate between them? An MP
:47:44. > :47:50.who has committed a crime or has done something illegal... There is
:47:51. > :47:54.machinery in place. You can be summoned, you can be charged within
:47:55. > :48:01.the parliamentary system and you can be forced to stand as an
:48:02. > :48:05.independent. At the moment without breaking any rules at all I could
:48:06. > :48:10.break every promise I made before the election or go on holiday for
:48:11. > :48:15.five years and there is nothing anyone can do. I would be
:48:16. > :48:19.deselected, but I would be the MP for five years with all-expenses
:48:20. > :48:25.paid. In terms of the triggers, at the moment unless you go to jail
:48:26. > :48:29.for more than 12 months, you are still entitled to be an MP. They
:48:30. > :48:34.are going to bring it that threshold down, but that is
:48:35. > :48:39.difficult. MPs have gone to jail, but there have been loved by their
:48:40. > :48:45.constituents. For example Terry Fields, where he thought going to
:48:46. > :48:51.jail was in the interest of his constituents, it should be down to
:48:52. > :48:56.local constituents to decide. Which is the most prominent democracy
:48:57. > :49:04.that uses recalls? Switzerland is the purest one, but the most famous
:49:05. > :49:08.one his Californian -- California and the most famous recall was are
:49:09. > :49:13.not Schwarzenegger and it was the most famous success I can think of.
:49:14. > :49:21.01 Paterson said the opponents of GM foods are wicked. That will be
:49:22. > :49:29.you. You can discuss it forever, but the rice issue he is talking
:49:30. > :49:34.about is a red herring. Regulators in the Philippines had decided not
:49:35. > :49:39.to regulate. The people behind it say it is not ready to be issued to
:49:40. > :49:43.the market yet. The idea that campaigners in the US have got
:49:44. > :49:49.anything to do with slowing the process is in describable a stupid,
:49:50. > :49:55.and it is based on misinformation or ignorance. The moment you have
:49:56. > :50:03.been waiting for. Back to the final two MPs hoping to be elected Deputy
:50:04. > :50:07.Speaker tomorrow. I am surprised we have got them at all because it its
:50:08. > :50:13.bring your constituents to work today. Now it is empty and it is
:50:14. > :50:19.all quiet on the Western Front. You get 30 seconds. Make your pitch.
:50:20. > :50:24.The main job is that of a speaker, the one of deputy is a supporting
:50:25. > :50:30.role, but it is important. I had been a member since 1983, I have
:50:31. > :50:36.been on the chairmen's Panel since 2001 and I fancied having a go at
:50:37. > :50:39.the job of Deputy Speaker. I have served a long apprenticeship and
:50:40. > :50:44.most people in the House have become used to my style which his
:50:45. > :50:53.firm, fair and order with a good sense of humour. Excellent. You do
:50:54. > :50:59.not need to use the full 30. I am competent. I came in in 1983 and
:51:00. > :51:03.have been on the front bench for 10 years and many years as a
:51:04. > :51:08.backbencher. You need somebody who is a master of detail and I have
:51:09. > :51:12.been a barrister. Somebody who is courteous to colleagues is
:51:13. > :51:16.essential. Also you need somebody who is going to have a constructive
:51:17. > :51:22.engagement in a relationship with the Speaker. I have never known
:51:23. > :51:27.anyone in the position who has not been courteous. Maybe you can think
:51:28. > :51:35.of somebody. I can, but not in recent years. You have both been
:51:36. > :51:41.here for a long time, so you should know this these things. An MP must
:51:42. > :51:49.take their oath initially in English, but which languages can
:51:50. > :52:00.they followed this oath with? Well, they could... OK, Henry what is the
:52:01. > :52:07.answer? Greek. Gaelic. It is Scottish and Welsh. I have been
:52:08. > :52:15.there to listen to it. Aside from English, which language can also be
:52:16. > :52:25.used in some of the former Milan -- for realities of the bill. French.
:52:26. > :52:39.Norman French. I speak French. Excellent. You do not get bonus
:52:40. > :52:46.points. Who is the Captain of Gentlemen at Arms. It is not your
:52:47. > :52:53.question. Answer it, Henry. The Chief Whip in the house of Lords.
:52:54. > :53:00.The Government chief whip. Can I have his questions? You will have
:53:01. > :53:06.to now. If it is easy. Can you give me an example of a Command Paper?
:53:07. > :53:12.We have a Command Paper which came out to do with immigration. We had
:53:13. > :53:17.a Command Paper on care of the elderly. That is not that type. The
:53:18. > :53:24.it is on all the subjects we deal with. It is different types of
:53:25. > :53:30.papers prepared by Government and presented with the words by the
:53:31. > :53:34.command of his or her Majesty. Yes. I love it when they say yes. Your
:53:35. > :53:40.odds have shortened, are you pleased by that? Now I am four-to-
:53:41. > :53:46.one behind Eleanor Laing. I think the dark horse is running well on
:53:47. > :53:50.the inside. Are you 100-1 on the outside? I never made predictions
:53:51. > :53:55.about Basildon, so I am not going to make predictions about my
:53:56. > :54:01.chances of becoming Deputy Speaker. I will do my best, it is down to my
:54:02. > :54:10.colleagues. Those are the runners and riders. Has the intrigue got
:54:11. > :54:18.you going? Yes, that is politics as fun with a nice bit of sadism as
:54:19. > :54:22.well. What is the best grounding for wannabe MPs? Should aspiring
:54:23. > :54:28.politicians spend a few years practising law or a bit of banking?
:54:29. > :54:33.Judging by the recent reshuffles it might be best to become a TV
:54:34. > :54:38.presenter first. The new Defence Minister estimate they used to
:54:39. > :54:43.front GMTV. Tristram Hunt is better known as a TV historian. There is
:54:44. > :54:47.Gloria de Piero also on the Labour frontbenchers who was GMTV's
:54:48. > :54:54.political correspondent. They are not the only ones. Hello and Good
:54:55. > :55:02.morning this fine Monday morning. If you fancy... Later on we will
:55:03. > :55:08.talk about inheritance tax. Let's get started with our first subject.
:55:09. > :55:14.Giles. Those closest to Tony Blair have been troubled by the events of
:55:15. > :55:17.last week. Days when the BBC and ITV scheduled Songs of Praise at
:55:18. > :55:23.the same time on Sunday have long gone. 10 years after being sent to
:55:24. > :55:34.Broadmoor, Graham Young poisoned again. Why? A teddy bear is for
:55:35. > :55:39.life, not just for Christmas. There are no hooligans, only citizens
:55:40. > :55:47.defending their lives and property. All it has done is enraged the
:55:48. > :55:53.educational establishment. The hero is tall and handsome, strong and
:55:54. > :55:58.mysterious with a touch of moody. His mother wanted him to take over
:55:59. > :56:02.the running of the estate. A profit of more than ?1 million was in
:56:03. > :56:06.prospect, and all before the Scottish Office had been paid the
:56:07. > :56:19.original purchase price for the land. The train is leaving from
:56:20. > :56:30.Platt from one on the railway carriage game. Fascinating. Can I
:56:31. > :56:34.make a correction, Anna Soubry has gone into defence and Esther McVey
:56:35. > :56:41.is in the work and pensions department. What about you? Not a
:56:42. > :56:45.chance. Would you go into politics? You answer the questions. That is
:56:46. > :56:52.where I can go if it goes horribly wrong. Have you ever thought about
:56:53. > :56:57.it? Not for a heartbeat. They make good MPs because they add telegenic
:56:58. > :57:01.and they are good communicators and there are politicians because they
:57:02. > :57:07.have worked in television. You know what television is like. It is a
:57:08. > :57:14.hotbed. It is not dissimilar to the politics over the road. There are
:57:15. > :57:19.so many parallels in one's daily lives. You have to watch your back,
:57:20. > :57:24.you have to make friends with the right people and steered clear of
:57:25. > :57:29.others. To stay at the top in television is a political balancing
:57:30. > :57:36.act. I can see why they have been attracted, mostly women. Can you
:57:37. > :57:41.see why they are attracted? I bumped into Anna Soubry about 10
:57:42. > :57:47.days ago and she is uniquely gifted to do that job. She will do very
:57:48. > :57:53.well. You must have seen her on Question Time. Has she been on the
:57:54. > :57:58.show? Yes, there are telegenic and good communicators. But it is less
:57:59. > :58:02.glamourous than television, certainly the transition. That is
:58:03. > :58:08.why I would not dream of going into it because it is such a slog and a
:58:09. > :58:14.better job and it ages you horribly. Look at Barack Obama. That man
:58:15. > :58:19.really has aged before our very eyes. I do not want to see you
:58:20. > :58:26.applying for a seat. I promise you, it is not going to happen. And the
:58:27. > :58:34.answer to our quiz. What did George Osborne claimed 160 million Chinese
:58:35. > :58:39.people were fans of? Boris Johnson, expensive British handbags, Downton
:58:40. > :58:46.Abbey, or Glastonbury? I would love to say Downton added. And I think
:58:47. > :58:52.you will find you are right. You are joking. They are is no prize.
:58:53. > :58:58.Thank you to Richard Madeley.