:00:45. > :00:50.government's changes to housing benefit. We will hear from Shadow
:00:51. > :00:53.welfare Secretary Rachel Reeves. After Carol Vorderman, Mary Porta
:00:54. > :00:57.San Kirstie Allsopp, who is the latest celebrity to be hired by a
:00:58. > :01:01.party leader to head up a task force?
:01:02. > :01:04.Are we drowning in too much data? We will discuss whether the
:01:05. > :01:05.proliferation of smartphones and tablets is leading us to information
:01:06. > :01:20.overload. And Yes, Statsminister! If you are a
:01:21. > :01:24.fan of scandi-drama Borgen, you are in for a treat. The show's
:01:25. > :01:34.screenwriter joins us to preview the return of the hit political series.
:01:35. > :01:54.And with us for the whole programme and hit series is the author and
:01:55. > :01:56.And with us for the whole programme Kirstie Allsopp on housing policy,
:01:57. > :02:01.Ed Miliband has decided he will not be out done. The Labour leader
:02:02. > :02:04.announced this morning that none other than former Tomorrow's World
:02:05. > :02:08.presenter Maggie Philbin will be heading up a task force on digital
:02:09. > :02:15.skills. Do we need somebody to do this? Absolutely. Think what the
:02:16. > :02:20.world is like today. Ten years ago, there was no Facebook, no iTunes. We
:02:21. > :02:24.are living in this age of technological advance at a speed we
:02:25. > :02:30.can't imagine. Just this week on Twitter floated for 18 billion. We
:02:31. > :02:39.desperately need to have these skills in this country. The geeks
:02:40. > :02:43.will inherit the world. Our kids are definitely not skilled in the right
:02:44. > :03:04.way. White map you think there is a gap? A huge gap.
:03:05. > :03:08.way. White map you think there is a some extent. And there are Yids'
:03:09. > :03:12.clubs that look at IT and technology, but in some ways, they
:03:13. > :03:18.are not sophisticated enough. Should coding be part of the curriculum?
:03:19. > :03:25.Yes. Moving ahead, the government needs to be thinking about how to
:03:26. > :03:30.give our kids the best chance in the future. These technology skills are
:03:31. > :03:33.essential. But we must not forget some of the older skills in the
:03:34. > :03:37.process, because we are also facing this ticking time bomb which is the
:03:38. > :03:42.ageing population. What skills will we need to look after them? Some of
:03:43. > :03:47.the caring skills should also be nurtured. But do you think that will
:03:48. > :03:55.diminish as we used digital technology more? We will lose those
:03:56. > :03:56.caring skills? It is important that we don't, because although machines
:03:57. > :04:16.will we don't, because although machines
:04:17. > :04:22.carers to be there. At my son's secondary school, they have been
:04:23. > :04:34.given mini iPads. Is that a good idea? As long as the kids are using
:04:35. > :04:40.them to actually do useful things! Yes, children should be learning how
:04:41. > :04:44.to use new technology. This morning, another of the big six
:04:45. > :04:48.energy companies announced its winter price rises. EDF Energy says
:04:49. > :04:54.its average gas and electricity price will go up by 3.9%, lower than
:04:55. > :04:59.the other power companies. It comes as the Energy Secretary Ed Davey
:05:00. > :05:02.warns the energy companies not to treat customers ask cash cows. Let's
:05:03. > :05:06.talk to our chief political correspondent, who is outside the
:05:07. > :05:23.energy industry's annual conference in London. They
:05:24. > :05:26.energy industry's annual conference hard, not just with the government,
:05:27. > :05:33.but also with the other energy companies. They are saying, we can
:05:34. > :05:37.keep our price rise down to 3.9%, but if you, the government, don't
:05:38. > :05:43.strip out some of those nasty green bits and pieces in energy bills, we
:05:44. > :05:47.may put up our prices. So we'll hardball on the chancellor to ensure
:05:48. > :05:51.that in the Autumn statement, he strips out some of those obligations
:05:52. > :05:55.such as the energy business obligation, which they regard as
:05:56. > :06:00.crucial in lowering bills. But they are also playing hardball with the
:06:01. > :06:02.other companies, because EDF are saying wholesale prices have hardly
:06:03. > :06:06.gone up at all, when the other energy companies are blaming the big
:06:07. > :06:12.price hikes they have introduced on the rise in wholesale prices. EDF
:06:13. > :06:16.are saying they only account for 0.1% of their price rise. So in
:06:17. > :06:39.are saying they only account for rises? I expect that is what will be
:06:40. > :06:44.the demand now. Just in competitive terms, it seems to place the other
:06:45. > :06:47.companies in a difficult position if they are having to say to customers,
:06:48. > :06:52.here is a 10% rise, and another energy company is only putting them
:06:53. > :06:58.up by 3.9%. The real key is what happens in the autumn statement. Can
:06:59. > :07:03.the chancellor strip out some of these green obligations? If he
:07:04. > :07:07.can't, then EDF are in effect trying to put the blame on the government,
:07:08. > :07:12.saying, this is what we could do if we did not have these nasty bits and
:07:13. > :07:15.pieces piled on us by the government. We could keep prices
:07:16. > :07:19.low. But if you don't deliver, we have to put prices up. They are
:07:20. > :07:22.trying to turn the tables in this debate were so far, all the heat has
:07:23. > :07:44.been on the energy companies. debate were so far, all the heat has
:07:45. > :07:49.David Dimbleby? At the end of the show, Noreena has the honour of
:07:50. > :07:52.giving us the correct answer. Now, what is the difference between
:07:53. > :07:56.a bedroom tax and a spare room subsidy? It depends which side of
:07:57. > :08:01.the green benches you are sitting on. Today, Labour, who argued that
:08:02. > :08:06.it is a welfare tax, have tabled an opposition Day debate on the
:08:07. > :08:09.subject. Neither side refers to it by its real name of the
:08:10. > :08:15.under-occupancy penalty, but what is it and what are the arguments around
:08:16. > :08:19.it? In his first budget in 2010, George Osborne announced a number of
:08:20. > :08:25.welfare reforms. One of them was to reduce housing benefit by 14% for
:08:26. > :08:30.those with one spare bedroom and a 25% reduction for those with two or
:08:31. > :08:32.more spare bedroom is. The idea behind this was to encourage some
:08:33. > :08:53.people whose children have left home to downsize and free
:08:54. > :08:58.the scheme by the University of York found that the savings were likely
:08:59. > :09:02.to be as much as ?160 million less than the government projected for
:09:03. > :09:06.the first year. The study found that the Department for Work and Pensions
:09:07. > :09:11.calculation is assumed that none of the 660,000 households would want to
:09:12. > :09:15.move. In fact, over a fifth want to downsize, with many looking to move
:09:16. > :09:18.into the private rented sector, which can end up costing the
:09:19. > :09:22.taxpayer more. The government say their policy will have the effect of
:09:23. > :09:26.encouraging people to make up their shortfall in rent by moving into
:09:27. > :09:32.work, but Labour say there are not the smaller properties for people to
:09:33. > :09:36.move into. Labour have already pledged to scrap it if they get
:09:37. > :09:41.elected. Even some Liberal Democrats are rocking the coalition boat over
:09:42. > :09:45.this, with four of their MPs describing it as unfair and a
:09:46. > :10:02.mistake. They argue that no one should be subject
:10:03. > :10:05.mistake. They argue that no one it is a tax on people who, through
:10:06. > :10:08.no fault of their own in many cases, live in a bigger house than they
:10:09. > :10:14.need. You take the housing benefit away without offering them any
:10:15. > :10:18.alternative suitable accommodation. That is unfair. It is actually a
:10:19. > :10:23.reduction in benefits, which is supported by 54% of people in a
:10:24. > :10:31.recent opinion poll. It may be supported, but if there is nowhere
:10:32. > :10:36.for people to go, is that fair? Is it fair that we have 375,000 people
:10:37. > :10:40.in overcrowded accommodation that Labour have nothing to say about?
:10:41. > :10:47.There are many options for people to take. They can do more work, they
:10:48. > :10:53.can swap with other people in social rented accommodation, which is a
:10:54. > :11:12.growing area. They can take in a lodger, or there is a
:11:13. > :11:18.people affected are disabled, so it is disingenuous to say they can go
:11:19. > :11:22.to work. Many have chronic long-term conditions. And many do not have a
:11:23. > :11:26.spare bedroom. They have a room where a carer comes to stay
:11:27. > :11:32.sometimes at the weekends. Some of them have grandparents or children
:11:33. > :11:36.coming to stay. Many of those affect it have had specific adaptations
:11:37. > :11:41.done to their home to make it possible for them to live there. It
:11:42. > :11:45.would cost millions more to have those adaptations done on a new
:11:46. > :11:49.property. So this policy is unfair and unworkable, because there just
:11:50. > :11:53.aren't those properties. Councils in Liverpool are looking to demolish
:11:54. > :11:59.larger properties because people cannot afford to live in them.
:12:00. > :12:05.Charlie, do you think this policy now may have looked great on paper,
:12:06. > :12:23.and why should people live in a house that is too big
:12:24. > :12:28.and why should people live in a hours and families who are
:12:29. > :12:31.overcrowded. -- 400,000 families. Is it right that we should have
:12:32. > :12:36.children growing up doing homework in the hallway, and say it is OK for
:12:37. > :12:49.others to have spare rooms? They are not spare rooms. Rachel Reeves,
:12:50. > :12:53.these are rooms that are not always being used and people can be sitting
:12:54. > :12:57.properties that are way too big for them. Charlie knows that two thirds
:12:58. > :13:04.of people affected by this are disabled. It is not feasible for
:13:05. > :13:09.many of them to move. But you don't disagree with the principle of, if
:13:10. > :13:13.there were properties available, of moving into a smaller property? Many
:13:14. > :13:15.would like to move to a smaller property to pay a lower gas and
:13:16. > :13:33.electricity property to pay a lower gas and
:13:34. > :13:40.policy is premised on nobody moving home. That is the only way to earn
:13:41. > :13:44.money. At what is happening is that people are turning to food banks and
:13:45. > :13:51.payday lenders because they can't afford the bedroom tax. Has that
:13:52. > :13:55.been a problem? It will not make the savings that the Department
:13:56. > :13:59.calculator because of the scenario outlined by Rachel Reeves. People
:14:00. > :14:05.would like to move they could, but they can't come up with the money?
:14:06. > :14:09.It is not about saving money. That was part of the welfare programme,
:14:10. > :14:14.to say, we are going to make savings. Rachel Reeves, we will talk
:14:15. > :14:17.to you about how Labour would make savings to the whopping welfare
:14:18. > :14:24.bill, but it will not make the savings you thought. It is more
:14:25. > :14:42.about social justice for overcrowded families
:14:43. > :14:48.about social justice for overcrowded Rachel, your counsel -- you could
:14:49. > :14:55.encourage swapping in your counsel. Then you could have at allocation of
:14:56. > :14:59.our social housing in this country. You are so out of touch. We have
:15:00. > :15:05.more than 400 thousand people who are disabled and affect it. We have
:15:06. > :15:10.ads who now can't have their children to come and stay because
:15:11. > :15:14.they will only have a one-bedroom policy. This policy targets the most
:15:15. > :15:21.vulnerable and disabled people in our community. There is a hardship
:15:22. > :15:24.fund for them. Tyre two thirds of the discretionary housing payments
:15:25. > :15:28.in Leeds have already been used in the first six months, despite the
:15:29. > :15:33.fact that Leeds council top it up by another quarter of a million. Before
:15:34. > :15:52.I ask Noreena about it, four of your coalition partners also
:15:53. > :15:56.I ask Noreena about it, four of your and housing associations, you need
:15:57. > :15:59.to take more of the responsibility in ensuring there is a fair
:16:00. > :16:02.allocation of our housing resources. They have been asleep at the wheel
:16:03. > :16:07.for years. The housing benefit bill has doubled. We ought to have that
:16:08. > :16:17.conversation with housing authorities. This policy has been
:16:18. > :16:21.made without a any real thought about how it is going to work. The
:16:22. > :16:26.mismatch between demand and supply is immense. There is only 3% of
:16:27. > :16:32.one-bedroom homes are available to the people who would want to move.
:16:33. > :16:36.When you think it is the most vulnerable in society who are
:16:37. > :16:38.worried about eviction, potentially having to live away from their
:16:39. > :16:42.social support networks, geographically, it really smacks of
:16:43. > :17:04.a policy that cannot be justified. geographically, it really smacks of
:17:05. > :17:11.policies. I just don't buy this idea that some of these are a spare
:17:12. > :17:15.bedrooms. You have not answered the question. There is not the social
:17:16. > :17:19.housing available because Labour did not build enough and got rid of some
:17:20. > :17:26.when in power. To some extent, the party created this problem. What
:17:27. > :17:31.would you do to cut the welfare bill? Annus horribilis
:17:32. > :17:38.house-building under this government is at the lowest level since 19 --
:17:39. > :17:46.house-building under this government is at the lowest level since the
:17:47. > :17:51.1920s. Let me and to the question about how Labour would reduce the
:17:52. > :17:53.Social Security Bill. -- answer. First of all, for example, building
:17:54. > :18:12.housing First of all, for example, building
:18:13. > :18:15.than a living wage. If you reduce the number is paid less than the
:18:16. > :18:22.living wage, you would be paying less out in housing benefit and less
:18:23. > :18:32.out in... They are tackling the bill. They are tackling the overall
:18:33. > :18:40.figure. They are not. It is by 9 billion. The benefit bill is
:18:41. > :18:44.rising. You have more people in part-time work, low paid work. If we
:18:45. > :18:49.can get more people into better paid jobs, if we can build social
:18:50. > :18:59.housing, that is a real way to reduce the bill. How much would you
:19:00. > :19:01.want to see come off? I would like to see it come down. I will not put
:19:02. > :19:21.a number on it. to see it come down. I will not put
:19:22. > :19:26.paid enough in their jobs. Charlie Elphicke, do you accept the benefit
:19:27. > :19:35.bill has increased because of some of your policies? To no, I don't. We
:19:36. > :19:40.are reforming welfare. Labour opposed ?81 billion worth of
:19:41. > :19:45.benefits savings. They opposed what we are talking about today, they
:19:46. > :19:52.opposed Universal Credit. They now say they supported. They oppose
:19:53. > :19:56.every single reform we have been putting through. They let the
:19:57. > :19:59.welfare bill get out of control. That is why we have been taking
:20:00. > :20:07.tough decisions. They have opposed them. The welfare bill is rising
:20:08. > :20:08.under the Conservatives because you are not building houses and people
:20:09. > :20:30.are in low paid work. are not building houses and people
:20:31. > :20:36.People with more disabilities are disproportionately housed. To take
:20:37. > :20:41.that protection away from some of the most vulnerable people, that is
:20:42. > :20:47.unjust. What would you do to cut the bill? What needs to be done is a
:20:48. > :20:52.complete evaluation of the affordable housing needs for this
:20:53. > :20:56.country in general. It is estimated we need 1 million more houses by
:20:57. > :21:01.2021 if we're going to make this country's needs. This needs to be
:21:02. > :21:06.part of a whole package of thinking about how people in this country are
:21:07. > :21:10.going to be able to afford homes. Thank you both very much. Now stop
:21:11. > :21:13.it, just stop it. Stop looking at that email when you're meant to be
:21:14. > :21:18.listening to me. Put down that iPhone. You can finish that text
:21:19. > :21:20.later. And checking out your Facebook account can definitely be
:21:21. > :21:23.left until after the programme, because you need to concentrate.
:21:24. > :21:42.left until after the programme, Open, where she offers tips on
:21:43. > :21:47.wading through the deluge of information out there - and which
:21:48. > :21:51.bits to trust. Noreena says studies show that we can only hold seven
:21:52. > :22:00.pieces of information in our minds at once. As much as seven! But we
:22:01. > :22:06.make more than 10,000 decisions every day. And 227 of them are just
:22:07. > :22:09.about food. Yes, that I can understand! Although email can make
:22:10. > :22:13.life easier, it can also be our enemy - last year, more that 200
:22:14. > :22:18.million emails were sent every minute of every day. On average we
:22:19. > :22:22.change windows and check email or other programmes 37 times an hour.
:22:23. > :22:25.That's a lot of interruptions to the working day. And we've also been
:22:26. > :22:29.joined by Tom Cheshire, associate editor of Wired magazine, who has
:22:30. > :22:32.written about what's been called the hyperstimulation of our
:22:33. > :22:50.touchscreen-based lives. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:22:51. > :22:55.touchscreen-based lives. Welcome to hunter gatherers, and go direct to
:22:56. > :22:57.the source without the spin of politicians or companies, or
:22:58. > :23:02.journalists. That is a huge opportunity that should be embraced.
:23:03. > :23:08.On the other hand, we are drowning in data. It is estimated that one
:23:09. > :23:12.edition of the New York Times has as much information in it as somebody
:23:13. > :23:17.would have been exposed to in their entire lifetime in the 17th century.
:23:18. > :23:23.Technology is racing ahead faster than our bodies are able to evolve
:23:24. > :23:28.and catch up with. There is a challenge. A challenge navigating
:23:29. > :23:34.who to trust, who to believe, what to do. That is what we are not
:23:35. > :23:41.taught about, how to sit -- sift through that information? Exactly.
:23:42. > :24:02.The reason is it is all so new to us.
:24:03. > :24:04.The reason is it is all so new to themselves a little bit. They are
:24:05. > :24:10.slightly less frazzled by it than we are. Generation worry about the
:24:11. > :24:13.amount of screen time, about losing traditional skills in terms of
:24:14. > :24:20.reading and writer with pen and paper. But actually, recently there
:24:21. > :24:23.has been more written about the advantages of having an agile mind
:24:24. > :24:28.able to deal with these electronic gadgets. Do you think there is
:24:29. > :24:38.something in that? Yes, the way the world is going, we will manage
:24:39. > :24:45.things. The default this will always be there. You lose the ability to
:24:46. > :24:47.concentrate and unless you have the stimulation of flickering lights and
:24:48. > :25:09.everything moving quickly, you lose interest. Our
:25:10. > :25:12.had before. That is our generation versus the digital natives, the kids
:25:13. > :25:20.who have been brought up by your son on the iPad, watching telly and text
:25:21. > :25:25.thing at the same time. These kids are probably, and it is too early to
:25:26. > :25:33.know definitively, they may well be developing skills that are about --
:25:34. > :25:36.very useful. Digital natives is a problematic term because they still
:25:37. > :25:40.have to learn their stuff. And they learned mainly from their parents. I
:25:41. > :25:48.think what would be really good is if Peter started bringing digital
:25:49. > :25:55.media into the classroom and teach them best practice. -- people. One
:25:56. > :25:59.thing that I am concerned about is that the kind of research skills
:26:00. > :26:21.that we had are being lost. digital literacy. That is about
:26:22. > :26:28.making the right decisions. If you are trusting one piece, if you are
:26:29. > :26:32.using random reason, then you are not going to make the right decision
:26:33. > :26:37.necessarily when it comes to choosing a hospital or a school, or
:26:38. > :26:43.a new vacuum cleaner. How do you know who to trust? We need to be
:26:44. > :26:49.cautious. Up to a third of online reviews are estimated to be fake,
:26:50. > :26:53.false. We need to be cautious navigating this space. The kind of
:26:54. > :26:58.research skills that journalists are taught, are not what kids are being
:26:59. > :27:04.taught today about how you cooperate material, how you research, how you
:27:05. > :27:09.test whether it is potentially reliable are valid. Are people
:27:10. > :27:30.everything put out there. Everything everything put out there. Everything
:27:31. > :27:36.design lead. It is great people want to do that. Because there is so much
:27:37. > :27:40.out there, people realise that. At least they are getting the
:27:41. > :27:44.information they may not have had in the first place. Do you think there
:27:45. > :27:47.is too much information on things like education when it comes to
:27:48. > :27:50.league tables, when it comes to looking at the performance of
:27:51. > :27:56.doctors and consultants? Is that a good thing? There is a danger we
:27:57. > :28:11.succumb to the cult of the measurable. Not everything can be so
:28:12. > :28:13.easily measured. But I think our opportunity to become more informed,
:28:14. > :28:15.not only through these official channels, but by reaching out on
:28:16. > :28:18.Facebook to your network and asking a question, by sharing symptoms of a
:28:19. > :28:21.rare condition that your doctor has not been able to identify, we have
:28:22. > :28:40.the opportunity to become not been able to identify, we have
:28:41. > :28:48.knowledge. Is that potentially a dangerous thing? Yes, I think it is
:28:49. > :28:55.potentially. It is interesting, this social side of it is really good.
:28:56. > :29:00.Because everybody now has got a specific ailment, they are talking
:29:01. > :29:05.with each other. That is really great. That is not hypochondriacs
:29:06. > :29:11.talking about it. What the social web 's letters do is take the first
:29:12. > :29:16.step on which is pure information. We are still finding our way. Are
:29:17. > :29:19.people at risk of being socially excluded that they are not into all
:29:20. > :29:26.of the social networks, or even some of them? Some people spend so much
:29:27. > :29:28.time on them. Could you be socially excluded if you are not part of the
:29:29. > :29:49.Twitter Facebook Brigade? I excluded if you are not part of the
:29:50. > :29:56.Glasses that Google has created when you can get information. And what I
:29:57. > :30:01.discovered is that I have bad eyesight in my left eye. The glasses
:30:02. > :30:10.on your left eye discriminated against me. I couldn't actually get
:30:11. > :30:17.any of the information. Or will it stop? You -- You may not be on
:30:18. > :30:25.Twitter or Facebook and have dodgy eyesight. If you are not accessing
:30:26. > :30:30.the information, you may be at a disadvantage. Is there anything we
:30:31. > :30:35.can do as the adult generation to cope with the deluge, to try and
:30:36. > :30:39.control it and not get overwhelmed? It is about managing your attention.
:30:40. > :30:58.There is a It is about managing your attention.
:30:59. > :31:03.just being aware of it can help. You can think much should I go in and
:31:04. > :31:12.reply to a rural one and have a fun time? It is a discipline. President
:31:13. > :31:15.Obama told David Cameron that the most useful thing you can do in your
:31:16. > :31:19.day is to actively carve out thinking time. There is the allure
:31:20. > :31:24.of checking your Twitter feed or Facebook, and it is even more
:31:25. > :31:30.important to actively carve out 30 minutes a day to think. I can manage
:31:31. > :31:34.that. Over the years, there have been some
:31:35. > :31:39.classic battles across the dispatch box in the House of Commons. Tony
:31:40. > :31:43.Blair versus Michael Howard, John Prescott versus William Hague, David
:31:44. > :31:47.Cameron versus Gordon Brown. But now there was a new game in town. Look
:31:48. > :31:50.at this, from yesterday's education questions. Can the Secretary of
:31:51. > :32:12.State his GCSE reforms, because he has
:32:13. > :32:14.introduced the soft ego tree of low expectations into our education
:32:15. > :32:20.system. He might have enjoyed studying the works of Jane Austin
:32:21. > :32:25.and Wilfred Owen, but the Education Secretary is denying England's
:32:26. > :32:30.pupils the same access to our great national canon if they only take the
:32:31. > :32:35.English language GCSE. If it was all right at him on at Robert Gordon's
:32:36. > :32:39.College, why is it not okayed the kids in Harlow and Blackpool today?
:32:40. > :32:49.Will he now urgently review the changes doing this GCSE, or will he
:32:50. > :32:53.continue to dumb down our syllabus? Tragically, when I was a student in
:32:54. > :32:57.Aberdeen, I was not able to take English GCSE because I was in
:32:58. > :32:58.Scotland, and GCSEs were not on offer at that time. As they hissed
:32:59. > :33:20.Dorian, it offer at that time. As they hissed
:33:21. > :33:24.be the case that English will not count unless students study both
:33:25. > :33:28.English language and literature, and the English baccalaureate, which he
:33:29. > :33:32.supports, will only be conferred on students if they study both the
:33:33. > :33:35.English-language and English literature. He talks about Jane
:33:36. > :33:40.Austin. One of the tragedies at the moment is that fewer than 1% of
:33:41. > :33:44.students who sit there GCSE actually read a word of Jane Austin. I
:33:45. > :33:48.recommend to him one text of Jane Austin's before he asked another
:33:49. > :33:52.question in this house. Pride And Prejudice. A knowledge of both would
:33:53. > :33:59.help him be a more effective opposition spokesman. Ooh! That was
:34:00. > :34:01.the new shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt, tacking Michael Gove
:34:02. > :34:06.across the dispatch box yesterday. We have been joined by the
:34:07. > :34:08.Guardian's sketch writer and assistant editor, Michael White. How
:34:09. > :34:29.did Tristram Hunt do? He assistant editor, Michael White. How
:34:30. > :34:39.do. He is a drop-dead gorgeous looking fella. I can say that
:34:40. > :34:42.because I am a bloke. I was not the only one who likened him to Mr Darcy
:34:43. > :34:47.after that, but Michael Gove dropped him off at the knees. Jane Austin
:34:48. > :34:53.would have been proud. That was a tough baptism of fire. It was
:34:54. > :34:57.Tristram Hunt's first time. This will be great material for the
:34:58. > :35:03.sketch writer. If you have got Mr Darcy, who is Michael Gove 's some
:35:04. > :35:08.caddish vigour. It was the fellow who ran off with Jane's sister? Took
:35:09. > :35:13.her to Brighton and was forced to make an honest woman of her? Why am
:35:14. > :35:19.I saying this about Michael Gove 's I take it all back. At some more
:35:20. > :35:38.caddish fellow out of the Jane Austin can. We will
:35:39. > :35:43.caddish fellow out of the Jane historian. This guy may have
:35:44. > :35:46.potential. He is bright and energetic and he has come into
:35:47. > :35:50.politics when he could have done less demanding things. He is no
:35:51. > :35:56.friend of mine, but you wish him well. You want politics to be run by
:35:57. > :36:00.people who know what they are doing. Do you think it is enlightening?
:36:01. > :36:09.Would you ever watch this sort of debate? I think Tristram Hunt is a
:36:10. > :36:14.catch for Labour. If Labour is to have a serious chance of winning the
:36:15. > :36:22.next election, it needs these charismatic people we can
:36:23. > :36:30.recognise. And he fits very well. Will he be wounded by that exchange?
:36:31. > :36:30.They are always wounded. If your name
:36:31. > :36:50.They are always wounded. If your to check. What about the language? I
:36:51. > :36:54.was there in the House of Commons to listen to some of this debate. The
:36:55. > :37:02.language was quite emotive. Tristram Hunt said the soft bigotry of low
:37:03. > :37:05.expectations. Sounded poetic. It is a bit ground, but he is trying to
:37:06. > :37:10.throw back at the Tories the charge they constantly make against Labour,
:37:11. > :37:13.which is that they lowered expectationss and had grade
:37:14. > :37:17.inflation and all that. There is enough truth in it to stick, but it
:37:18. > :37:20.is mean, because the whole comprehensive system also raised
:37:21. > :37:31.expectations for a lot of people. I am a grammar school boy myself. It
:37:32. > :37:37.was an attempt to throw back at the Tories some class warfare. It was
:37:38. > :37:40.not the only bit of entertainment in the House of Commons yesterday,
:37:41. > :37:40.because we also had an apology from the
:37:41. > :38:02.because we also had an apology from information. I wish to apologise to
:38:03. > :38:05.the house fully for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the
:38:06. > :38:13.rules, which I have sought to comply with. She said the media went nuts
:38:14. > :38:25.over this inadvertent breach. Did they? Lee well, they had a good time
:38:26. > :38:31.from it. Nadine Dorries is good business for sketch writers. I don't
:38:32. > :38:36.want to sound snooty about it, but she is a gift, and she has tripped
:38:37. > :38:43.up. She made a bad mistake. How bad was it? Not declaring a high income
:38:44. > :38:48.of that kind? It was a bad mistake. The public don't like it. Do you
:38:49. > :38:50.think she should have been more humble about it? She said
:38:51. > :39:11.got a line there in the small print, but she was caught out. She loves
:39:12. > :39:16.celebrity, let's not pretend she does not relish it. What did she say
:39:17. > :39:20.about Dave and George? Posh boys who don't know the price of a pint of
:39:21. > :39:25.milk. She said that on this programme. It is a good line, and
:39:26. > :39:30.they will not forgive her for it. Now, there is no Prime Minister's
:39:31. > :39:35.Questions tomorrow, because Parliament is in recess. It is just
:39:36. > :39:39.a short break. MPs will be back in action next Monday. At inevitably,
:39:40. > :39:42.the fact that politicians are heading home early this week raises
:39:43. > :39:46.questions about the amount of holiday MPs get. In a moment, we
:39:47. > :39:50.will discuss what politicians get up to during recess, but first, here is
:39:51. > :39:59.Quentin Letts of the Daily Mail, with his A to Z guide to Parliament.
:40:00. > :40:32.R is for They have several recesses a year.
:40:33. > :40:36.The longer is in the summer, which tends to be about seven weeks. Then
:40:37. > :40:40.they have another for the party conference season. They used to go
:40:41. > :40:46.to the seaside for those. These days, it is more like town centres
:40:47. > :40:50.such as Manchester and Birmingham. Christmas is next, for about three
:40:51. > :40:53.weeks. Then you get a week during February for half term and a couple
:40:54. > :40:58.of weeks for Easter, maybe ten days for the Whit holiday at the end of
:40:59. > :41:01.May, and if you are lucky, a couple of days just before the State
:41:02. > :41:07.Opening of Parliament. It is about 14 weeks in all. Elements may halt,
:41:08. > :41:10.but MPs, as they never tire of telling us,
:41:11. > :41:29.but MPs, as they never tire of government gave very little notice
:41:30. > :41:34.of when the house was going to be in recess. Information was power. The
:41:35. > :41:36.lawmaking process is uncertain, and to let an opposition no far in
:41:37. > :41:39.advance when the house was going to be breaking up gave them an
:41:40. > :41:45.advantage. But the government has become more reasonable now. It
:41:46. > :41:48.allows MPs to get those cheap deals on the package holidays. It is
:41:49. > :41:55.possible for Parliament to be recalled if ministers ask them to do
:41:56. > :42:00.that. This happens every two years. In 2011, after the summer riots, it
:42:01. > :42:03.happened. And it happened after the Falkland Islands were invaded and it
:42:04. > :42:06.happened after 911. One good on about the house not sitting is that
:42:07. > :42:11.it stops those MPs passing too many laws. By the way, if you happen to
:42:12. > :42:14.be in London on holiday yourself and the MPs are on recess, don't worry,
:42:15. > :42:15.you can still go into and have a look around Parliament. Mind you,
:42:16. > :42:38.the place might be a bit deserted. Michael White is ill here. We did
:42:39. > :42:42.not manage to get rid of you after the last item. Peter Bone, what are
:42:43. > :42:45.you going to do with recess? If people come to Parliament tomorrow,
:42:46. > :42:50.they can see me, because I will be working on constituent is Miss. On
:42:51. > :42:54.Thursday, I am meeting constituents in the morning and I have a school
:42:55. > :42:57.visit in the afternoon. On Friday, I have a surgery in the morning and a
:42:58. > :43:00.factory visit in the afternoon and a constituent meetings in the evening.
:43:01. > :43:05.Saturday morning, the listening campaign is out all over
:43:06. > :43:10.Wellingborough, listening to people, talking, shaking hands. On Sunday, I
:43:11. > :43:13.go to church and have a constituency meeting in the afternoon. So I am
:43:14. > :43:21.not sure where the recess is getting in. It is useful for all that
:43:22. > :43:26.constituency work. Yes, there is a need to let MPs get back to their
:43:27. > :43:27.constituency and do the proper job of representing, rather than being
:43:28. > :43:46.stuck in the Westminster bubble, of representing, rather than being
:43:47. > :43:52.quick break to Majorca to take advantage of the winter sun. I don't
:43:53. > :43:56.know anyone doing that. I would say lazy voters deserve to be
:43:57. > :44:01.represented in parliament and have a few lazy MPs. If they were all
:44:02. > :44:10.working like Peter Bone all the time, it would be less interesting.
:44:11. > :44:19.There are some who work all the time. One of them always puts the
:44:20. > :44:25.boot in on MPs despite working all the time. But he is consistent in
:44:26. > :44:30.his criticism. Do you want MPs working all the time, or would you
:44:31. > :44:34.like to hear that sort of schedule from every MP? I would like that
:44:35. > :44:38.level of transparency I now feel I have with your diary. That is the
:44:39. > :44:38.problem. There is a public perception
:44:39. > :45:05.a diary like yours. I don't know about that, but maybe I should
:45:06. > :45:11.tweet. People who tweet, I am just getting on a bus, we have better
:45:12. > :45:18.things to do. But you have to justify that you are doing things.
:45:19. > :45:23.Most people know what they're MPs are like. It is MPs in general that
:45:24. > :45:28.they don't like. How do you get rid of that perception? We do things
:45:29. > :45:33.like this. A lot of stuff is perception. I did not get back to
:45:34. > :45:36.the flat in Westminster until after one o'clock this morning because we
:45:37. > :45:40.sat late and I did some more work afterwards. People see the
:45:41. > :45:43.chancellor on at eight in the morning Intellivision and see a vote
:45:44. > :45:47.at 11 in the evening, and do not put the two things together, but the guy
:45:48. > :46:05.has been working the two things together, but the guy
:46:06. > :46:10.many people, it is a sacrifice. It is a miserable job. Everybody hates
:46:11. > :46:15.you. You used to work as a lawyer in the city and got three times more
:46:16. > :46:20.pay. Do you think David Cameron could not make more than the Prime
:46:21. > :46:27.Minister's salary? They just love it. They are addicted to politics. I
:46:28. > :46:32.am quite addicted to it. Do you think they should do other things,
:46:33. > :46:38.have more rounded MPs? Do more things outside the remit of
:46:39. > :46:44.politics? I am also concerned about, is there enough time to give
:46:45. > :46:53.legislation the due emphasis it has two have with the current structure.
:46:54. > :46:57.I think that is a real concern. Why is the chamber so often empty, or so
:46:58. > :47:15.empty during debates, when Parliament is
:47:16. > :47:17.empty during debates, when are right. Traditionally there were
:47:18. > :47:20.lots of MPs who did not go to education and health debates,
:47:21. > :47:26.because they were more interested in defence and foreign affairs. There
:47:27. > :47:30.are still a few MPs who have a lot of outside interests and do not do
:47:31. > :47:34.the job properly. That is the minority. Yes, you should have other
:47:35. > :47:39.outside interests. I have only been an MP for eight years. I think this
:47:40. > :47:43.parliament is made up of a lot more people who are interested in
:47:44. > :47:49.Parliament. We are beginning to move power back from the executive. The
:47:50. > :47:57.fact that Andrew Tyree is chairman of the select committee, giving
:47:58. > :48:03.bankers a hard time. That is a good thing. The odd thing about TV,
:48:04. > :48:06.voters can see the empty benches and reporters, we stay out of the
:48:07. > :48:07.gallery too, because we can watch it on TV in our
:48:08. > :48:31.gallery too, because we can watch it are doing ten other things. We don't
:48:32. > :48:36.know what they are doing. If you go onto the Parliament channel, you can
:48:37. > :48:42.watch the lot. Giving bankers a hard time in committee is a better use of
:48:43. > :48:45.your time than making speeches. Where does the power life a
:48:46. > :48:53.backbench MP? Is it not worth sitting in on those debates? Is it
:48:54. > :48:58.better to go with trying to quiz vested interest? Michael is quite
:48:59. > :49:04.right. The select committee is really getting hold. Keith Vaz does
:49:05. > :49:08.an excellent job. Quizzing witnesses is a big part of the job. But we
:49:09. > :49:12.still have a long way to go. Parliament is to have more power
:49:13. > :49:15.back from the executive. Happy holiday. Thank you.
:49:16. > :50:06.Now, if you're a fan of That was a clip from the new series
:50:07. > :50:10.of the Danish TV series Borgen, which returns on BBC Four this
:50:11. > :50:23.Saturday night. And we've been joined by the writer of Borgen, Adam
:50:24. > :50:26.Price. I loved it. I absolutely love it. I
:50:27. > :50:45.cant wait I loved it. I absolutely love it. I
:50:46. > :50:49.not travel. They thought perhaps the Swedes and Norwegians would buy it.
:50:50. > :50:54.But that would be it. If you were a commissioning editor, would you
:50:55. > :51:03.consider five years ago buying a Danish drama about politics? Why has
:51:04. > :51:08.it been such a hit here? We are very grateful for the killing for paving
:51:09. > :51:13.the way. Then, I think, the characters. When you scratch the
:51:14. > :51:17.surface of the politics, when you get beneath the Danish coalition
:51:18. > :51:25.politics stuff, then you actually get to something which is a
:51:26. > :51:30.universal thing. The dynamics of power, the mechanics of power. It is
:51:31. > :51:36.pretty much the same. What about the fact that Birgitte Nyborg, the
:51:37. > :51:56.woman, is appealing in her role? Do you
:51:57. > :52:03.we don't consider that particular thing as exotic as you probably do
:52:04. > :52:07.here. No. We have had a female Prime Minister but not that quite recently
:52:08. > :52:14.-- not that recently. People speculated that the Denny 's was
:52:15. > :52:23.elected because of the programme. Do you think that is true? -- Danish
:52:24. > :52:27.Prime Minister. Definitely not. That was a coincidence. One of the things
:52:28. > :52:31.as a criticism is, having watched both series, I got the impression in
:52:32. > :52:36.the end you are saying that women just cannot have it all will stop
:52:37. > :52:38.that actually she became Prime Minister but only because her
:52:39. > :52:43.marriage collapsed and her home life was destroyed, if you like. Is that
:52:44. > :53:04.what you are trying to say? That is the price you have to pay? There
:53:05. > :53:06.what you are trying to say? That is we obviously cannot. The series is
:53:07. > :53:14.about that conflict you have to choose all the time. Sometimes those
:53:15. > :53:19.choices bear consequences. She had been a man, would you have given her
:53:20. > :53:28.the same outcome? It would not have been as painful to watch. We have
:53:29. > :53:34.gotten used to men. Men have 10,000 years of practice of letting down
:53:35. > :53:40.their wives and their families. What can you tell us about what is going
:53:41. > :53:45.to happen in this series? She is no longer Prime Minister. No, she is
:53:46. > :53:51.not. That was the big challenge we gave ourselves. What if she loses
:53:52. > :53:55.the election? That was the first question. Then, we meet are doing
:53:56. > :54:15.something completely different. it first started, that I am going to
:54:16. > :54:22.be a little bit narcissistic year, I used it for a piece. We used
:54:23. > :54:31.Birgitte Nyborg. Do you think that is a good rendition of organ? It is
:54:32. > :54:41.perfect! If you do another series, can I be in it? Very noncommittal!
:54:42. > :54:45.We thought it had so much impact, that it was taken up by Sony people
:54:46. > :54:50.here. I wonder if I am going to be disappointed by this third series? I
:54:51. > :54:56.hope not. We really challenge ourselves and our audience. Has
:54:57. > :55:05.reignited a passion for politics in Denmark? According to a survey, it
:55:06. > :55:24.has. Are you surprised it has taken off the way it has?
:55:25. > :55:26.has. Are you surprised it has taken you have got great stories, people
:55:27. > :55:31.trying to get their bit of power is very intriguing for us as viewers. I
:55:32. > :55:37.am looking forward to watching the box set. What about political drama
:55:38. > :55:43.in the UK? What about some kind of programme you could spearhead here?
:55:44. > :55:48.Well, I am working on a project. That is all I can say. Together with
:55:49. > :55:59.Michael Dobbs. We are having great fun. When will you be able to talk
:56:00. > :56:05.about it? Time will tell. To quote the house of cards, I could not
:56:06. > :56:12.possibly comment. You are definitely not going to do another series of
:56:13. > :56:35.Morgan? No. Morgan has ended now. -- organ. We do
:56:36. > :56:41.Morgan? No. Morgan has ended now. -- of its run? I would much rather
:56:42. > :56:45.ended, hopefully, on a mountaintop, hopefully as good as the series can
:56:46. > :56:52.possibly be, instead of letting it died out. What about the characters?
:56:53. > :56:56.They have hit the big-time in Denmark. The advantage of being
:56:57. > :57:04.Scandinavian is that most people can speak English, so travel, too. What
:57:05. > :57:07.happens to their careers? Some of them are developing international
:57:08. > :57:13.careers. Sidse Babett Knudsen has done several things internationally.
:57:14. > :57:25.Will it put Danish TV or drama ahead? I hope it will go further.
:57:26. > :57:46.There are more shows coming. Despite the fact they do not do much
:57:47. > :57:50.There are more shows coming. Despite teamwork. We have been very
:57:51. > :57:55.influenced by the directors, by the actors, obviously. Sidse Babett
:57:56. > :58:02.Knudsen had a great say in her own part. I did learn a bit of Danish by
:58:03. > :58:06.watching it but I have forgotten it now. There's just time before we go
:58:07. > :58:09.to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: Who of the
:58:10. > :58:24.following doesn't have a tattoo? Cheryl Cole is got one on her
:58:25. > :58:30.bottom. Samantha Cameron has got one on her ankle. David Dimbleby has a
:58:31. > :58:34.scorpion on his shoulder. So it must be Andrew Neil. I'm not sure I could
:58:35. > :58:57.prove it. be Andrew Neil. I'm not sure I could
:58:58. > :59:03.Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon. Goodbye.