12/11/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/11/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



government's changes to housing benefit. We will hear from Shadow


welfare Secretary Rachel Reeves. After Carol Vorderman, Mary Porta


San Kirstie Allsopp, who is the latest celebrity to be hired by a


party leader to head up a task force?


Are we drowning in too much data? We will discuss whether the


proliferation of smartphones and tablets is leading us to information


overload. And Yes, Statsminister! If you are a


fan of scandi-drama Borgen, you are in for a treat. The show's


screenwriter joins us to preview the return of the hit political series.


And with us for the whole programme and hit series is the author and


And with us for the whole programme Kirstie Allsopp on housing policy,


Ed Miliband has decided he will not be out done. The Labour leader


announced this morning that none other than former Tomorrow's World


presenter Maggie Philbin will be heading up a task force on digital


skills. Do we need somebody to do this? Absolutely. Think what the


world is like today. Ten years ago, there was no Facebook, no iTunes. We


are living in this age of technological advance at a speed we


can't imagine. Just this week on Twitter floated for 18 billion. We


desperately need to have these skills in this country. The geeks


will inherit the world. Our kids are definitely not skilled in the right


way. White map you think there is a gap? A huge gap.


way. White map you think there is a some extent. And there are Yids'


clubs that look at IT and technology, but in some ways, they


are not sophisticated enough. Should coding be part of the curriculum?


Yes. Moving ahead, the government needs to be thinking about how to


give our kids the best chance in the future. These technology skills are


essential. But we must not forget some of the older skills in the


process, because we are also facing this ticking time bomb which is the


ageing population. What skills will we need to look after them? Some of


the caring skills should also be nurtured. But do you think that will


diminish as we used digital technology more? We will lose those


caring skills? It is important that we don't, because although machines


will we don't, because although machines


carers to be there. At my son's secondary school, they have been


given mini iPads. Is that a good idea? As long as the kids are using


them to actually do useful things! Yes, children should be learning how


to use new technology. This morning, another of the big six


energy companies announced its winter price rises. EDF Energy says


its average gas and electricity price will go up by 3.9%, lower than


the other power companies. It comes as the Energy Secretary Ed Davey


warns the energy companies not to treat customers ask cash cows. Let's


talk to our chief political correspondent, who is outside the


energy industry's annual conference in London. They


energy industry's annual conference hard, not just with the government,


but also with the other energy companies. They are saying, we can


keep our price rise down to 3.9%, but if you, the government, don't


strip out some of those nasty green bits and pieces in energy bills, we


may put up our prices. So we'll hardball on the chancellor to ensure


that in the Autumn statement, he strips out some of those obligations


such as the energy business obligation, which they regard as


crucial in lowering bills. But they are also playing hardball with the


other companies, because EDF are saying wholesale prices have hardly


gone up at all, when the other energy companies are blaming the big


price hikes they have introduced on the rise in wholesale prices. EDF


are saying they only account for 0.1% of their price rise. So in


are saying they only account for rises? I expect that is what will be


the demand now. Just in competitive terms, it seems to place the other


companies in a difficult position if they are having to say to customers,


here is a 10% rise, and another energy company is only putting them


up by 3.9%. The real key is what happens in the autumn statement. Can


the chancellor strip out some of these green obligations? If he


can't, then EDF are in effect trying to put the blame on the government,


saying, this is what we could do if we did not have these nasty bits and


pieces piled on us by the government. We could keep prices


low. But if you don't deliver, we have to put prices up. They are


trying to turn the tables in this debate were so far, all the heat has


been on the energy companies. debate were so far, all the heat has


David Dimbleby? At the end of the show, Noreena has the honour of


giving us the correct answer. Now, what is the difference between


a bedroom tax and a spare room subsidy? It depends which side of


the green benches you are sitting on. Today, Labour, who argued that


it is a welfare tax, have tabled an opposition Day debate on the


subject. Neither side refers to it by its real name of the


under-occupancy penalty, but what is it and what are the arguments around


it? In his first budget in 2010, George Osborne announced a number of


welfare reforms. One of them was to reduce housing benefit by 14% for


those with one spare bedroom and a 25% reduction for those with two or


more spare bedroom is. The idea behind this was to encourage some


people whose children have left home to downsize and free


the scheme by the University of York found that the savings were likely


to be as much as ?160 million less than the government projected for


the first year. The study found that the Department for Work and Pensions


calculation is assumed that none of the 660,000 households would want to


move. In fact, over a fifth want to downsize, with many looking to move


into the private rented sector, which can end up costing the


taxpayer more. The government say their policy will have the effect of


encouraging people to make up their shortfall in rent by moving into


work, but Labour say there are not the smaller properties for people to


move into. Labour have already pledged to scrap it if they get


elected. Even some Liberal Democrats are rocking the coalition boat over


this, with four of their MPs describing it as unfair and a


mistake. They argue that no one should be subject


mistake. They argue that no one it is a tax on people who, through


no fault of their own in many cases, live in a bigger house than they


need. You take the housing benefit away without offering them any


alternative suitable accommodation. That is unfair. It is actually a


reduction in benefits, which is supported by 54% of people in a


recent opinion poll. It may be supported, but if there is nowhere


for people to go, is that fair? Is it fair that we have 375,000 people


in overcrowded accommodation that Labour have nothing to say about?


There are many options for people to take. They can do more work, they


can swap with other people in social rented accommodation, which is a


growing area. They can take in a lodger, or there is a


people affected are disabled, so it is disingenuous to say they can go


to work. Many have chronic long-term conditions. And many do not have a


spare bedroom. They have a room where a carer comes to stay


sometimes at the weekends. Some of them have grandparents or children


coming to stay. Many of those affect it have had specific adaptations


done to their home to make it possible for them to live there. It


would cost millions more to have those adaptations done on a new


property. So this policy is unfair and unworkable, because there just


aren't those properties. Councils in Liverpool are looking to demolish


larger properties because people cannot afford to live in them.


Charlie, do you think this policy now may have looked great on paper,


and why should people live in a house that is too big


and why should people live in a hours and families who are


overcrowded. -- 400,000 families. Is it right that we should have


children growing up doing homework in the hallway, and say it is OK for


others to have spare rooms? They are not spare rooms. Rachel Reeves,


these are rooms that are not always being used and people can be sitting


properties that are way too big for them. Charlie knows that two thirds


of people affected by this are disabled. It is not feasible for


many of them to move. But you don't disagree with the principle of, if


there were properties available, of moving into a smaller property? Many


would like to move to a smaller property to pay a lower gas and


electricity property to pay a lower gas and


policy is premised on nobody moving home. That is the only way to earn


money. At what is happening is that people are turning to food banks and


payday lenders because they can't afford the bedroom tax. Has that


been a problem? It will not make the savings that the Department


calculator because of the scenario outlined by Rachel Reeves. People


would like to move they could, but they can't come up with the money?


It is not about saving money. That was part of the welfare programme,


to say, we are going to make savings. Rachel Reeves, we will talk


to you about how Labour would make savings to the whopping welfare


bill, but it will not make the savings you thought. It is more


about social justice for overcrowded families


about social justice for overcrowded Rachel, your counsel -- you could


encourage swapping in your counsel. Then you could have at allocation of


our social housing in this country. You are so out of touch. We have


more than 400 thousand people who are disabled and affect it. We have


ads who now can't have their children to come and stay because


they will only have a one-bedroom policy. This policy targets the most


vulnerable and disabled people in our community. There is a hardship


fund for them. Tyre two thirds of the discretionary housing payments


in Leeds have already been used in the first six months, despite the


fact that Leeds council top it up by another quarter of a million. Before


I ask Noreena about it, four of your coalition partners also


I ask Noreena about it, four of your and housing associations, you need


to take more of the responsibility in ensuring there is a fair


allocation of our housing resources. They have been asleep at the wheel


for years. The housing benefit bill has doubled. We ought to have that


conversation with housing authorities. This policy has been


made without a any real thought about how it is going to work. The


mismatch between demand and supply is immense. There is only 3% of


one-bedroom homes are available to the people who would want to move.


When you think it is the most vulnerable in society who are


worried about eviction, potentially having to live away from their


social support networks, geographically, it really smacks of


a policy that cannot be justified. geographically, it really smacks of


policies. I just don't buy this idea that some of these are a spare


bedrooms. You have not answered the question. There is not the social


housing available because Labour did not build enough and got rid of some


when in power. To some extent, the party created this problem. What


would you do to cut the welfare bill? Annus horribilis


house-building under this government is at the lowest level since 19 --


house-building under this government is at the lowest level since the


1920s. Let me and to the question about how Labour would reduce the


Social Security Bill. -- answer. First of all, for example, building


housing First of all, for example, building


than a living wage. If you reduce the number is paid less than the


living wage, you would be paying less out in housing benefit and less


out in... They are tackling the bill. They are tackling the overall


figure. They are not. It is by 9 billion. The benefit bill is


rising. You have more people in part-time work, low paid work. If we


can get more people into better paid jobs, if we can build social


housing, that is a real way to reduce the bill. How much would you


want to see come off? I would like to see it come down. I will not put


a number on it. to see it come down. I will not put


paid enough in their jobs. Charlie Elphicke, do you accept the benefit


bill has increased because of some of your policies? To no, I don't. We


are reforming welfare. Labour opposed ?81 billion worth of


benefits savings. They opposed what we are talking about today, they


opposed Universal Credit. They now say they supported. They oppose


every single reform we have been putting through. They let the


welfare bill get out of control. That is why we have been taking


tough decisions. They have opposed them. The welfare bill is rising


under the Conservatives because you are not building houses and people


are in low paid work. are not building houses and people


People with more disabilities are disproportionately housed. To take


that protection away from some of the most vulnerable people, that is


unjust. What would you do to cut the bill? What needs to be done is a


complete evaluation of the affordable housing needs for this


country in general. It is estimated we need 1 million more houses by


2021 if we're going to make this country's needs. This needs to be


part of a whole package of thinking about how people in this country are


going to be able to afford homes. Thank you both very much. Now stop


it, just stop it. Stop looking at that email when you're meant to be


listening to me. Put down that iPhone. You can finish that text


later. And checking out your Facebook account can definitely be


left until after the programme, because you need to concentrate.


left until after the programme, Open, where she offers tips on


wading through the deluge of information out there - and which


bits to trust. Noreena says studies show that we can only hold seven


pieces of information in our minds at once. As much as seven! But we


make more than 10,000 decisions every day. And 227 of them are just


about food. Yes, that I can understand! Although email can make


life easier, it can also be our enemy - last year, more that 200


million emails were sent every minute of every day. On average we


change windows and check email or other programmes 37 times an hour.


That's a lot of interruptions to the working day. And we've also been


joined by Tom Cheshire, associate editor of Wired magazine, who has


written about what's been called the hyperstimulation of our


touchscreen-based lives. Welcome to the Daily Politics.


touchscreen-based lives. Welcome to hunter gatherers, and go direct to


the source without the spin of politicians or companies, or


journalists. That is a huge opportunity that should be embraced.


On the other hand, we are drowning in data. It is estimated that one


edition of the New York Times has as much information in it as somebody


would have been exposed to in their entire lifetime in the 17th century.


Technology is racing ahead faster than our bodies are able to evolve


and catch up with. There is a challenge. A challenge navigating


who to trust, who to believe, what to do. That is what we are not


taught about, how to sit -- sift through that information? Exactly.


The reason is it is all so new to us.


The reason is it is all so new to themselves a little bit. They are


slightly less frazzled by it than we are. Generation worry about the


amount of screen time, about losing traditional skills in terms of


reading and writer with pen and paper. But actually, recently there


has been more written about the advantages of having an agile mind


able to deal with these electronic gadgets. Do you think there is


something in that? Yes, the way the world is going, we will manage


things. The default this will always be there. You lose the ability to


concentrate and unless you have the stimulation of flickering lights and


everything moving quickly, you lose interest. Our


had before. That is our generation versus the digital natives, the kids


who have been brought up by your son on the iPad, watching telly and text


thing at the same time. These kids are probably, and it is too early to


know definitively, they may well be developing skills that are about --


very useful. Digital natives is a problematic term because they still


have to learn their stuff. And they learned mainly from their parents. I


think what would be really good is if Peter started bringing digital


media into the classroom and teach them best practice. -- people. One


thing that I am concerned about is that the kind of research skills


that we had are being lost. digital literacy. That is about


making the right decisions. If you are trusting one piece, if you are


using random reason, then you are not going to make the right decision


necessarily when it comes to choosing a hospital or a school, or


a new vacuum cleaner. How do you know who to trust? We need to be


cautious. Up to a third of online reviews are estimated to be fake,


false. We need to be cautious navigating this space. The kind of


research skills that journalists are taught, are not what kids are being


taught today about how you cooperate material, how you research, how you


test whether it is potentially reliable are valid. Are people


everything put out there. Everything everything put out there. Everything


design lead. It is great people want to do that. Because there is so much


out there, people realise that. At least they are getting the


information they may not have had in the first place. Do you think there


is too much information on things like education when it comes to


league tables, when it comes to looking at the performance of


doctors and consultants? Is that a good thing? There is a danger we


succumb to the cult of the measurable. Not everything can be so


easily measured. But I think our opportunity to become more informed,


not only through these official channels, but by reaching out on


Facebook to your network and asking a question, by sharing symptoms of a


rare condition that your doctor has not been able to identify, we have


the opportunity to become not been able to identify, we have


knowledge. Is that potentially a dangerous thing? Yes, I think it is


potentially. It is interesting, this social side of it is really good.


Because everybody now has got a specific ailment, they are talking


with each other. That is really great. That is not hypochondriacs


talking about it. What the social web 's letters do is take the first


step on which is pure information. We are still finding our way. Are


people at risk of being socially excluded that they are not into all


of the social networks, or even some of them? Some people spend so much


time on them. Could you be socially excluded if you are not part of the


Twitter Facebook Brigade? I excluded if you are not part of the


Glasses that Google has created when you can get information. And what I


discovered is that I have bad eyesight in my left eye. The glasses


on your left eye discriminated against me. I couldn't actually get


any of the information. Or will it stop? You -- You may not be on


Twitter or Facebook and have dodgy eyesight. If you are not accessing


the information, you may be at a disadvantage. Is there anything we


can do as the adult generation to cope with the deluge, to try and


control it and not get overwhelmed? It is about managing your attention.


There is a It is about managing your attention.


just being aware of it can help. You can think much should I go in and


reply to a rural one and have a fun time? It is a discipline. President


Obama told David Cameron that the most useful thing you can do in your


day is to actively carve out thinking time. There is the allure


of checking your Twitter feed or Facebook, and it is even more


important to actively carve out 30 minutes a day to think. I can manage


that. Over the years, there have been some


classic battles across the dispatch box in the House of Commons. Tony


Blair versus Michael Howard, John Prescott versus William Hague, David


Cameron versus Gordon Brown. But now there was a new game in town. Look


at this, from yesterday's education questions. Can the Secretary of


State his GCSE reforms, because he has


introduced the soft ego tree of low expectations into our education


system. He might have enjoyed studying the works of Jane Austin


and Wilfred Owen, but the Education Secretary is denying England's


pupils the same access to our great national canon if they only take the


English language GCSE. If it was all right at him on at Robert Gordon's


College, why is it not okayed the kids in Harlow and Blackpool today?


Will he now urgently review the changes doing this GCSE, or will he


continue to dumb down our syllabus? Tragically, when I was a student in


Aberdeen, I was not able to take English GCSE because I was in


Scotland, and GCSEs were not on offer at that time. As they hissed


Dorian, it offer at that time. As they hissed


be the case that English will not count unless students study both


English language and literature, and the English baccalaureate, which he


supports, will only be conferred on students if they study both the


English-language and English literature. He talks about Jane


Austin. One of the tragedies at the moment is that fewer than 1% of


students who sit there GCSE actually read a word of Jane Austin. I


recommend to him one text of Jane Austin's before he asked another


question in this house. Pride And Prejudice. A knowledge of both would


help him be a more effective opposition spokesman. Ooh! That was


the new shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt, tacking Michael Gove


across the dispatch box yesterday. We have been joined by the


Guardian's sketch writer and assistant editor, Michael White. How


did Tristram Hunt do? He assistant editor, Michael White. How


do. He is a drop-dead gorgeous looking fella. I can say that


because I am a bloke. I was not the only one who likened him to Mr Darcy


after that, but Michael Gove dropped him off at the knees. Jane Austin


would have been proud. That was a tough baptism of fire. It was


Tristram Hunt's first time. This will be great material for the


sketch writer. If you have got Mr Darcy, who is Michael Gove 's some


caddish vigour. It was the fellow who ran off with Jane's sister? Took


her to Brighton and was forced to make an honest woman of her? Why am


I saying this about Michael Gove 's I take it all back. At some more


caddish fellow out of the Jane Austin can. We will


caddish fellow out of the Jane historian. This guy may have


potential. He is bright and energetic and he has come into


politics when he could have done less demanding things. He is no


friend of mine, but you wish him well. You want politics to be run by


people who know what they are doing. Do you think it is enlightening?


Would you ever watch this sort of debate? I think Tristram Hunt is a


catch for Labour. If Labour is to have a serious chance of winning the


next election, it needs these charismatic people we can


recognise. And he fits very well. Will he be wounded by that exchange?


They are always wounded. If your name


They are always wounded. If your to check. What about the language? I


was there in the House of Commons to listen to some of this debate. The


language was quite emotive. Tristram Hunt said the soft bigotry of low


expectations. Sounded poetic. It is a bit ground, but he is trying to


throw back at the Tories the charge they constantly make against Labour,


which is that they lowered expectationss and had grade


inflation and all that. There is enough truth in it to stick, but it


is mean, because the whole comprehensive system also raised


expectations for a lot of people. I am a grammar school boy myself. It


was an attempt to throw back at the Tories some class warfare. It was


not the only bit of entertainment in the House of Commons yesterday,


because we also had an apology from the


because we also had an apology from information. I wish to apologise to


the house fully for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the


rules, which I have sought to comply with. She said the media went nuts


over this inadvertent breach. Did they? Lee well, they had a good time


from it. Nadine Dorries is good business for sketch writers. I don't


want to sound snooty about it, but she is a gift, and she has tripped


up. She made a bad mistake. How bad was it? Not declaring a high income


of that kind? It was a bad mistake. The public don't like it. Do you


think she should have been more humble about it? She said


got a line there in the small print, but she was caught out. She loves


celebrity, let's not pretend she does not relish it. What did she say


about Dave and George? Posh boys who don't know the price of a pint of


milk. She said that on this programme. It is a good line, and


they will not forgive her for it. Now, there is no Prime Minister's


Questions tomorrow, because Parliament is in recess. It is just


a short break. MPs will be back in action next Monday. At inevitably,


the fact that politicians are heading home early this week raises


questions about the amount of holiday MPs get. In a moment, we


will discuss what politicians get up to during recess, but first, here is


Quentin Letts of the Daily Mail, with his A to Z guide to Parliament.


R is for They have several recesses a year.


The longer is in the summer, which tends to be about seven weeks. Then


they have another for the party conference season. They used to go


to the seaside for those. These days, it is more like town centres


such as Manchester and Birmingham. Christmas is next, for about three


weeks. Then you get a week during February for half term and a couple


of weeks for Easter, maybe ten days for the Whit holiday at the end of


May, and if you are lucky, a couple of days just before the State


Opening of Parliament. It is about 14 weeks in all. Elements may halt,


but MPs, as they never tire of telling us,


but MPs, as they never tire of government gave very little notice


of when the house was going to be in recess. Information was power. The


lawmaking process is uncertain, and to let an opposition no far in


advance when the house was going to be breaking up gave them an


advantage. But the government has become more reasonable now. It


allows MPs to get those cheap deals on the package holidays. It is


possible for Parliament to be recalled if ministers ask them to do


that. This happens every two years. In 2011, after the summer riots, it


happened. And it happened after the Falkland Islands were invaded and it


happened after 911. One good on about the house not sitting is that


it stops those MPs passing too many laws. By the way, if you happen to


be in London on holiday yourself and the MPs are on recess, don't worry,


you can still go into and have a look around Parliament. Mind you,


the place might be a bit deserted. Michael White is ill here. We did


not manage to get rid of you after the last item. Peter Bone, what are


you going to do with recess? If people come to Parliament tomorrow,


they can see me, because I will be working on constituent is Miss. On


Thursday, I am meeting constituents in the morning and I have a school


visit in the afternoon. On Friday, I have a surgery in the morning and a


factory visit in the afternoon and a constituent meetings in the evening.


Saturday morning, the listening campaign is out all over


Wellingborough, listening to people, talking, shaking hands. On Sunday, I


go to church and have a constituency meeting in the afternoon. So I am


not sure where the recess is getting in. It is useful for all that


constituency work. Yes, there is a need to let MPs get back to their


constituency and do the proper job of representing, rather than being


stuck in the Westminster bubble, of representing, rather than being


quick break to Majorca to take advantage of the winter sun. I don't


know anyone doing that. I would say lazy voters deserve to be


represented in parliament and have a few lazy MPs. If they were all


working like Peter Bone all the time, it would be less interesting.


There are some who work all the time. One of them always puts the


boot in on MPs despite working all the time. But he is consistent in


his criticism. Do you want MPs working all the time, or would you


like to hear that sort of schedule from every MP? I would like that


level of transparency I now feel I have with your diary. That is the


problem. There is a public perception


a diary like yours. I don't know about that, but maybe I should


tweet. People who tweet, I am just getting on a bus, we have better


things to do. But you have to justify that you are doing things.


Most people know what they're MPs are like. It is MPs in general that


they don't like. How do you get rid of that perception? We do things


like this. A lot of stuff is perception. I did not get back to


the flat in Westminster until after one o'clock this morning because we


sat late and I did some more work afterwards. People see the


chancellor on at eight in the morning Intellivision and see a vote


at 11 in the evening, and do not put the two things together, but the guy


has been working the two things together, but the guy


many people, it is a sacrifice. It is a miserable job. Everybody hates


you. You used to work as a lawyer in the city and got three times more


pay. Do you think David Cameron could not make more than the Prime


Minister's salary? They just love it. They are addicted to politics. I


am quite addicted to it. Do you think they should do other things,


have more rounded MPs? Do more things outside the remit of


politics? I am also concerned about, is there enough time to give


legislation the due emphasis it has two have with the current structure.


I think that is a real concern. Why is the chamber so often empty, or so


empty during debates, when Parliament is


empty during debates, when are right. Traditionally there were


lots of MPs who did not go to education and health debates,


because they were more interested in defence and foreign affairs. There


are still a few MPs who have a lot of outside interests and do not do


the job properly. That is the minority. Yes, you should have other


outside interests. I have only been an MP for eight years. I think this


parliament is made up of a lot more people who are interested in


Parliament. We are beginning to move power back from the executive. The


fact that Andrew Tyree is chairman of the select committee, giving


bankers a hard time. That is a good thing. The odd thing about TV,


voters can see the empty benches and reporters, we stay out of the


gallery too, because we can watch it on TV in our


gallery too, because we can watch it are doing ten other things. We don't


know what they are doing. If you go onto the Parliament channel, you can


watch the lot. Giving bankers a hard time in committee is a better use of


your time than making speeches. Where does the power life a


backbench MP? Is it not worth sitting in on those debates? Is it


better to go with trying to quiz vested interest? Michael is quite


right. The select committee is really getting hold. Keith Vaz does


an excellent job. Quizzing witnesses is a big part of the job. But we


still have a long way to go. Parliament is to have more power


back from the executive. Happy holiday. Thank you.


Now, if you're a fan of That was a clip from the new series


of the Danish TV series Borgen, which returns on BBC Four this


Saturday night. And we've been joined by the writer of Borgen, Adam


Price. I loved it. I absolutely love it. I


cant wait I loved it. I absolutely love it. I


not travel. They thought perhaps the Swedes and Norwegians would buy it.


But that would be it. If you were a commissioning editor, would you


consider five years ago buying a Danish drama about politics? Why has


it been such a hit here? We are very grateful for the killing for paving


the way. Then, I think, the characters. When you scratch the


surface of the politics, when you get beneath the Danish coalition


politics stuff, then you actually get to something which is a


universal thing. The dynamics of power, the mechanics of power. It is


pretty much the same. What about the fact that Birgitte Nyborg, the


woman, is appealing in her role? Do you


we don't consider that particular thing as exotic as you probably do


here. No. We have had a female Prime Minister but not that quite recently


-- not that recently. People speculated that the Denny 's was


elected because of the programme. Do you think that is true? -- Danish


Prime Minister. Definitely not. That was a coincidence. One of the things


as a criticism is, having watched both series, I got the impression in


the end you are saying that women just cannot have it all will stop


that actually she became Prime Minister but only because her


marriage collapsed and her home life was destroyed, if you like. Is that


what you are trying to say? That is the price you have to pay? There


what you are trying to say? That is we obviously cannot. The series is


about that conflict you have to choose all the time. Sometimes those


choices bear consequences. She had been a man, would you have given her


the same outcome? It would not have been as painful to watch. We have


gotten used to men. Men have 10,000 years of practice of letting down


their wives and their families. What can you tell us about what is going


to happen in this series? She is no longer Prime Minister. No, she is


not. That was the big challenge we gave ourselves. What if she loses


the election? That was the first question. Then, we meet are doing


something completely different. it first started, that I am going to


be a little bit narcissistic year, I used it for a piece. We used


Birgitte Nyborg. Do you think that is a good rendition of organ? It is


perfect! If you do another series, can I be in it? Very noncommittal!


We thought it had so much impact, that it was taken up by Sony people


here. I wonder if I am going to be disappointed by this third series? I


hope not. We really challenge ourselves and our audience. Has


reignited a passion for politics in Denmark? According to a survey, it


has. Are you surprised it has taken off the way it has?


has. Are you surprised it has taken you have got great stories, people


trying to get their bit of power is very intriguing for us as viewers. I


am looking forward to watching the box set. What about political drama


in the UK? What about some kind of programme you could spearhead here?


Well, I am working on a project. That is all I can say. Together with


Michael Dobbs. We are having great fun. When will you be able to talk


about it? Time will tell. To quote the house of cards, I could not


possibly comment. You are definitely not going to do another series of


Morgan? No. Morgan has ended now. -- organ. We do


Morgan? No. Morgan has ended now. -- of its run? I would much rather


ended, hopefully, on a mountaintop, hopefully as good as the series can


possibly be, instead of letting it died out. What about the characters?


They have hit the big-time in Denmark. The advantage of being


Scandinavian is that most people can speak English, so travel, too. What


happens to their careers? Some of them are developing international


careers. Sidse Babett Knudsen has done several things internationally.


Will it put Danish TV or drama ahead? I hope it will go further.


There are more shows coming. Despite the fact they do not do much


There are more shows coming. Despite teamwork. We have been very


influenced by the directors, by the actors, obviously. Sidse Babett


Knudsen had a great say in her own part. I did learn a bit of Danish by


watching it but I have forgotten it now. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: Who of the


following doesn't have a tattoo? Cheryl Cole is got one on her


bottom. Samantha Cameron has got one on her ankle. David Dimbleby has a


scorpion on his shoulder. So it must be Andrew Neil. I'm not sure I could


prove it. be Andrew Neil. I'm not sure I could


Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles