12/12/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Most MPs claim they

really do not want it, not one little bit. But this morning, the

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has confirmed that it

wants to give MPs an 11% pay rise. Other public sector workers are

getting a 1% rise. The increase would take their annual salary to

?74,000. Flirting with the enemy, or not? The

new Iranian envoy to Britain is over for tea and cake with the Foreign

Secretary. It's the great British beard-off. We

will be talking to some of the runners and riders in the

parliamentary beard of the year. And the BBC has learned from

Westminster sources that hacks talk journalese, something they

vigorously deny. Dear, oh dear, crunch talks, calculated snub is. I

would never talk like this in these appalling cliches. Not on this

show, no talk of bonking boffins. I like the phrase, though.

All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is

the journalist, Melanie Phillips. Welcome to the Daily Politics. First

this morning, let's talk about something clever for a change, like

genetics, because following Boris Johnson's recent comments on IQ, new

research claims that DNA is twice as likely as your school or environment

in determining educational success. Do you buy this? Not really. This

has been around for a while, this research on the inn heritability of

intelligence, that IQ can be transmitted to your genes. It is

based on studies of twins. London University College were doing it.

Yes, and I have some scepticism. The scientific literature seems to be

disputed. There is a lot of feeling that these twin studies going back

over time are based on slightly dodgy premises. To me, the whole

notion of intelligence is a slippery concept. We know that it changes

over time, that children are more receptive to having their IQ

improved and adults. This makes it difficult to measure. So studies

which claim to measure it and studies which vary in the estimate

from 50% to 70% of IQ supposed to be good down to your genes, I don't

really buy it. I think nature and nurture go together. It is bound to

be some kind of combination. The question is what the proportion is.

I feel that when it comes to education, there are countless

examples of people with very unpromising backgrounds whose lives

have been immeasurably transformed for the better by a good education.

And conversely, bad education leaves people mired in disadvantage. The

danger of this sort of thing is that it leads people to conclude, that it

doesn't matter what we do, if these people are going to be stupid, they

will be stupid. And it gets them out of jail for saying no matter what

your background, you should get a good education. All this genetic

stuff on IQ plays to the idea of what is called determinism, the idea

that we are the helpless and passive victims of circumstances, whether it

is genes or poverty. It is the idea that we are powerless. This is like

a fashion which comes and goes. Personally, I think it is dangerous.

I think we are able to rise out of disadvantage. Our environment and

how we control our environment is terribly important, and the idea

that we are just the victims of our genes, it is the idea that we are

just a bag of bones and cells and neurons firing, and there is nothing

else inside us. It is a good recipe for keeping people in their place.

Exactly. Now, yesterday a little gremlin

sabotaged our guess the year competition, and our tape machine

refused to play. It was probably overwhelmed by our Christmas

giveaway, this one-off card of the Daily Politics team, signed by me

and Jo, the Defence Secretary and the shadow Work and Pensions

Secretary. And the editor has put her cross in

it. Rachel Reeves signed it. You won't find one of these on the high

street, for good reason! Anyway, if you are mad enough to want this and

one of these, we have fixed the tape machine, so feast your eyes on this.

We got the screwdriver out and the oil went into the machine. We gave

her a kick with a tire iron. It has been decided to permit the

establishment of a number of broadcasting stations. So, from high

above the Strand came the first voice of the British broadcasting

Company. Into Number Ten went to Conservative

cabinet. flowers.

# Still, it holds a goodly share of bliss.

The cup final was held at Stamford which the last time. And there,

Huddersfield beat Preston North End. Good music.

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug and that

wonderful card, send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address.

Melanie has already tried to half inch it! You can see the full terms

and conditions if you are a complete geek and third on the death the year

website. -- the guess the year website. It keeps people in jobs.

And viewers who entered via our website yesterday, don't panic, your

name will go forward! If you believe that, you will believe anything.

The independent body which sets MPs' salaries has put in a late bid to be

the least popular organisation of 2030. -- 2013. It confirmed today

that it inks members of Parliament should receive an 11% pay rise.

Controversial? Not half. So why does the Independent Parliamentary

Standards Authority, known as IPSA, think they should get the extra

cash? Well, at the moment, if you are an average backbencher with no

extra jobs, you get ?66,400 a year. IPSA, set up after the expenses

scandal, compared MPs' wages to other professions and found that

they get less than head teachers, police chief superintendents and

senior civil servants, so they are below other big public sector jobs.

They are also paid less than legislators in other countries

including Japan, Australia, the US and Germany. But they are paid more

than members of Parliament in vans and Spain. But then Spain has 60%

use an opponent. So exercise that after two years of careful thought,

it has decided that they should rise to ?74,000 in 2015. Conveniently,

after the election. IPSA says it will offset the cost of the rise by

squeezing MP Rumack generous pensions and various other perks. It

says it will not cost any more in the round and warns that if it is

not allowed to act, there could be a repeat of the expenses scandal, more

duck houses going up all over the country. The plan risks going down

like a bucket of cold sick with the public. David Cameron, who helped

set IPSA up, has threatened to scrap the body if it goes ahead with the

rise. Here are Ed Miliband and David Cameron at PMQs yesterday. Does the

prime minister agree that given the crisis families are facing in their

living standards, MPs should not be awarded a pay rise many times above

inflation in 2015? The idea of an 11% pay rise in one year at a time

of pay restraint is unacceptable. A complete, it is a need to think

again. Unless they do, I don't think anyone will want to rule anything

out. No one wants to go back to MPs voting on their own pay, but we need

an outcome that can build public confidence. You may have noticed

that MPs were unusually quiet during that exchange. The man who runs IPSA

is called Ian Kennedy. He gets a fair whack for doing his job. He did

not want to speak to us, but he did give an interview to another part of

the BBC. What we have announced is a package of reforms long overdue.

Part of those reforms has to do with reducing pensions which were

overgenerous by cutting back on old and did eyes, cutting down on

expenses -- cutting back on old goodbyes. The other side is that we

have got to catch up after it boring recommendations for decades as to

what MPs should be paid. We have arrived at a figure of ?74,000 after

the most authoritative study ever carried out. And that is what we are

going to implement. With us now, Joe Twyman, director of the little

research at YouGov, which has carried out some polling for IPSA.

The Labour MP John Mann. We did phone up a host of MPs who we hoped

might stand up in support of a pay rise, but alas, no one said yes. But

we have got Bono. Joe Twyman, -- we have got you to. Job one, did MPs

want a pay rise? Only 2% of the MPs we spoke to thought they were due a

pay rise. The majority thought a pay rise was suitable. They thought an

average of ?85,000 would be the most suitable salary. But they would not

say that in public. Well, they have not said that yet. What about the

public? Do they have a view as to what a proper MP's salary should be?

That is an interesting question, because we also ask that, and we

found out in comparison to 80,000, the public thought 40,000 was a more

reasonable amount. But was the average from them, and that is where

the trouble arises, because you have two very different views. IPSA's

position is closer to the MPs. When you set out what they are talking

about, cutting back on other benefits and revising pension

contributions, the majority of people agree with that. When you ask

them, should a ?10,000 pay rise take place, 85% of people say no matter

and it is very difficult to get as many people as that to agree. John

Mann, which figure are you closer to? It depends who you ask. If you

go on the streets of my constituency and quoted the figures, many would

say of their own MP, he does a very good job, but no, he should not be

paid more. My view is that we voted through the pay restraint on the

public sector. We need to impose that on ourselves. Is it all to do

with timing? This is at a time when the rest of the public sector is

being forced to tighten its belt. This is just a bad time to think

about an MPs' pay rise. Some would say there would never be a good time

. But it is the height of madness to do a job evaluation scheme when

there is a public sector pay freeze. You would not do it anywhere else.

The concept is fundamentally wrong. Of course you have got to have a

living. And it needs to be sufficient for people to manage, and

perhaps a bit more than manage, in order to ensure that people stay and

do not get caught off the moment they are there. But it is not a job,

it is a vocation. We are elected to do it, and therefore, job evaluation

is a contradiction in terms. Your job evaluation comes from the ballot

box. MPs love to compare with journalists and head teachers and

people who they perceive as being better paid. They don't like to

compare with cleaners, for example. And yet it seems that that is an

equally valid comparison. But that would lead you to begin division

that MPs should be on the average wage. The conclusion is that it is

not a job. There needs to be enough to do it. There are hidden costs,

and the public will not be aware of them, but we are not impoverished. I

am one of the average MPs you mentioned. I get the actual amount

and nothing more, and I survived perfectly well. We actually asked

about a whole host of different jobs, and whether people thought

they were overpaid or underpaid, and very few came higher but fared worse

than MPs. Bankers, television presenters, they were that those who

were felt to be more overpaid. What is your take? Parliament says we

cannot possibly determine our pay, but it is perverse that when IPSA

turns round and says that there is something that the MPs don't like,

the MPs say, we can't have that. So where is its independence? And they

have only just done it. IPSA is new. But the problem with pushing through

a pay rise at this time, I agree with John Mann. The fundamental

problem is that MPs regard what they do was a job. I absolutely agree

that it is a vocation. A lot of the problems in politics because it has

become a job, and MPs have become cannon fodder for the Whips because

they depend so much for the entire livelihood and Korea on this job

being member of armament. It is all very well to say that it is not a

job, but it doesn't stop many of your colleagues taking other jobs.

No, but the key to me on that is transparency. If people are spending

their time not doing the job, they should be voted out. But what is

critical is transparency. If someone wants to come and be a presenter

alongside you, I don't care about that. But what I do care about is

that people can see what is happening and how they are getting

paid. They can make a judgement for better or worse. You have been

prepared to come on and give a point of view. We were saying that MPs

don't want to speak about this in public. So far, nine or ten MPs have

signed a statement saying that they think the pay rise should be 1%. I

think they are keeping quiet and hoping they will get the pay rise. I

can assure you I am in a minority. You don't have to assure me. I have

seen the figures! What I note is quite a lot of people seem to fail

to see that I am there as they walk past. There is a silence. It must be

something I did in the past. It is hard to see a way out of this. There

was a time when MPs set their own pay. Then they did this thing called

the comparison thing, where they tried to benchmark themselves with

senior grades in the civil service. Now they have outsourced it all the

IPSA. Nothing seems to work. It is a matter of perception. Look at the

context, it is in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, when trust in

politicians is low and falling, and the guy from IPSA himself said that

if we don't do this, we might have another expenses scandal. He is

saying, you can't trust them enough to be fair dealing on this. If you

don't give me enough money, I will cheat. We often argue that we need

to get more good people in the parliament, the best and the

brightest should be going in. And to do that, don't you have to pay a bit

more? The salary hasn't gone up relatively over the last 20 years.

Whether the quality has improved in a similar way is debatable. It

really is a myth that there are all these people out there who would be

better than, say, the industrial workers we don't get, the cleaners

we don't get, the nurses that we don't get, and many more. That is

what Parliament is lacking. There are not a shortage of professional

wealthy people in Parliament, in fact exactly the opposite. There are

more of them than they used to be. When you look back into the past,

when it was much more of the tradition of a gentleman or lady

doing it as a second job, it was better quality. It wasn't

scrutinised like it is now. They seem to be people of rather more

intelligence and flair and creativity and wisdom. I will let

that hang in the wind and see what people think, because I am not

convinced. I have seen Andrew Bonar Law's Cabinet. Anyway, . Now

yesterday a little gremlin sabotaged our guess the year competition, and

our tape machine refused to play. How to reduce child poverty? It's an

issue that MPs have been wrestling with for decades,and yet one in six

children in the UK still live in very poor households, according to

the latest Government figures. In fact, experts predict the target to

end child poverty by 2020 is likely to be missed unless more is done to

address inequality. The Labour MP Frank Field has long been a

campaigner on the issue, and he argues the first three years of a

child's life are the most important. Here's his soapbox.

I was appointed by the current government to lead a review into

child poverty and life chances. Poor areas in Birkenhead are like poor

areas anywhere else in the country. Around half the children grow up in

poverty, and almost one in ten are born with a low birth weight. One in

five young people from the poorest areas of Birkenhead are found not to

be in employment or in training or education. Once you lock those

figures together, you see the real link between poverty and stunted

life chances. I am striving with colleagues from all sides of the

House of Commons to bring greater political focus into supporting

families. The first 1000 days of a child's life are the most

important, and what we now need is a commitment from all three party

leaders that they will act on this knowledge in the next Parliament.

The home start centre here in my constituency does just this. It

gives support to people, and aids parents to give their children the

best start in life. Good to see you. Evidence shows that the earliest

emotional experiences of a baby from at least one of their parents will

have a major impact on the development of that child's brain,

and subsequently its life chances. Parents coming here really value the

support on offer. If you are isolated at home, you can feel that

things are getting on top of you, but if you get out and about with

others sharing similar experiences, it is a way to help yourself and

your child. You meet other parents, children that have also been in

special care for various reasons, and that is a great community

support for you, to know that you are not the only one. Services like

this are brilliant, and of course we need to do more. We want to ensure

that all vulnerable families have the most help in promoting that link

between themselves and their babies. Young people want to learn

how to be good parents. Likewise, sure start centres should offer

worth registration, child benefit forms and welcoming ceremonies to

ensure that all families engage with sure start. If we can secure a

commitment to this vision, we will ensure that no child falls behind.

But to prevent poor children now from becoming poor adults in the

future, we need to start acting now. That was Frank Field in his

constituency. And Frank Field joins me now.

You heard Melanie Oudin I talking at the start of the show on this nature

and nurture thing, about whether intelligence is genetic. What is

your take? I thought you both struck the right balance. There is the

question of nature and nurture, but nurture can affect nature. The big

findings today, we know that 42% is not decided by genetics. Tests on

monkeys have shown that good nurturing mothers switch off the

effects of bad genetics, and then nurturing switches off the effect --

switches on the effect of good genetics. So how you nurture your

child has a really good effect on how you get on in life, on things

like violence, aggression, lack of social skills, and so on. So it is

not predetermined? Let me come on now to the subject of your film. Can

I begin with a basic question, and I have been told in the social

sciences, that if you want to get rid of something, you have to

measure it first. How should we measure child poverty? Income is the

traditional way. I did the report in the film for the Prime Minister to

say, if we're going to get out of this debate which hasn't got us

very, 30 years, we need to try to measure life opportunities, and that

certainly by the age of three, one begins to see these divisions which

appear to be based on class, which are reinforced at five, and however

good schools are, they don't close those gaps. Children's abilities go

up, but they don't narrow. So it would suggest that all this emphasis

by politicians that if we beat up the schools enough, we will get at

the end of this process young people who will be able and ready for

work, who have the skills for work, that is misconceived. Because the

damage is done before? Before they even enter school. It can make the

difference between struggling into the job market. But these big

changes have almost been set in concrete already. But what one can't

do, the big boys as they like to think of themselves in politics,

they need to address their minds, why is it, and in 1870 we had

compulsory schooling, why do these age-old divisions remain? What we

were seeing in that film was just how effective it can be in

supporting mothers, and letting them know, often when they have not had a

good up being themselves, what the key things are that they should be

doing the feed that brain. Do you agree with that, that the early

years are crucial? I think they are crucial. Notwithstanding the

terrible difficulties child may present with when he she goes to

school, a good school can make a considerable difference, but they

are battling against great odds. Frank alludes to the definition of

poverty being much more than financial. I have always longed for

that, that there is emotional poverty, psychological poverty. But

the crucial thing in this whole debate which goes back 20 or 30

years is that the most important thing that Skype is a child's life

chances is family disintegration # That destroys a child's life

chances. It is the mother bringing up a child alone in a broken

family, and she very often has been brought up herself by a mother

alone. So you have several generations where the idea of a

committed father is virtually unknown, and all of the research

overwhelmingly shows that even though lone parents do a heroic

job, and very often can succeed in mitigating the worst effects of a

child not having a father, fatherless , being fatherless brings

a great economic disadvantage. It can bring an inability to function

as a human being. I agree with a lot of that, but if you just look at the

crude poverty figures, if you don't want your child to be poor, it is

crucial to have two wage earners. That doesn't guarantee that you

won't be poor, but we now have an economy that you need two earners.

And this has a huge spin off for the well-being of most children who

don't have two parents. There are now 2.4 children in working

households who live in poverty. So even if the parents are working, and

that may well provide a better environment than a workless

household, it doesn't get these 2.4 million out of poverty. One of the

problems we have had is that we have subsidised low wages. That now comes

to 20,000 million pounds. If some of that effort had gone into getting a

labour force which could in a fit from real wages, it would be

different. It is not adequate. This will go on for ever... Benefits

themselves, crucial as they maybe, other long-term solution to these

massive structural problems. We saw with that homes. Roddick in

Birkenhead that there are a lot of willing takers who want to do well

by their children. It is ignoring that wish that is so terrible. Thank

you. We will come back to this in the new year.

It has been two years since Iranian diplomats were expelled from the UK

after the British embassy in Tehran was launched during anti-sanction

protests. But following last month's agreement with Iran, their

envoy is making his first visit to London today, to drop in on Mr

Hague, the Foreign Secretary, at the Foreign Office, for a cup of tea or

a biscuit. Here is the Foreign Secretary, talking about the

importance of the thaw in relations when that Iranian-West deal was

announced. The fact that we have achieved, for the first time in

nearly a decade, an agreement that rolls back Iran's nuclear programme

should give us heart that this work can be done and that a comprehensive

agreement can be obtained. On an issue of such complexity, and given

the fact that to make any diplomatic agreement worthwhile to both sides,

it must involve compromises. Such an agreement is bound to have critics

and opponents, but we are right to test Iran's readiness to act in good

faith, to work with the rest of the international community and enter

into international agreements. If they do not abide by their

commitments, they will bear a heavy responsibility. If we did not take

the opportunity to attempt such an agreement, we would be guilty of a

grave error. We are joined now by the former Liberal Democrat leader

Ming Campbell, who specialises in foreign affairs. You are in favour

of the talks, as I understand it. We have six months to come to an

agreement. How hope for are you? Well, we have to see if the

sentiment is supported by action. The fact that there is an agreement

at all is enormously significant. When you have Paddy Ashdown and

William Hague and John Kerry all on the side of it, this is something

worthwhile. You need the point in your introduction little while ago.

There are still the outstanding issue of the storming of the British

embassy, and the diplomatic exchange which is taking place is not a full

return to diplomatic relations. It is an exchange of Sharjah affaire --

charged affair, who are below ambassadors. You think we are being

played? Absolutely. I can't believe the extent to which written, America

and the EU are being played for suckers, and not for the first time.

The Iranians are rightly crowing about this, because the terms of

engagement have now been changed by this deal, in exchange for the most

cosmetic improvement, a slight increase in the amount of time

before Iran can break out its nuclear capability. Iran has got

what it wanted, which is the tacit agreement that it will continue to

produce uranium indefinitely. We used to have a situation where the

world agreed that the bottom line from the world, because Iran is such

a threat, number one rogue state, the idea that it could become a

nuclear state was so unthinkable for world security that the aim of the

world was to make it impossible or to to enrich uranium, and now they

can. Let me welcome viewers from Scotland who were watching First

Minister 's questions from Holyrood. We are discussing the prospect of a

deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions with money Phillips --

Melanie Phillips. Some of you may recognise her. Well, Iran is a

signatory of the nonproliferation treaty. It is entitled to develop a

nuclear policy for peaceful purposes. And this agreement has

provided that there will be a reduction. Of course it is not

perfect. Are we right to be sceptical? Of course. William Hague

has gone out of his way to say that. But we have got a moment at which

people sat around a table and reached an agreement. If you look at

the alternatives to an agreement they are pretty horrific. For

example, like the possibility of nuclear action either by Israel on

its own, or by Israel with support from the United States. If you think

of the impact that could have on the fragility of the situation, you have

to go as far as you can before that remains the only option. That is a

perverse inversion of reality. The really horrific respect for the

world is Iran getting the bomb, firstly because of what it might do

with it and secondly because of the effect on the arms race in the

Middle East. But we have now got ourselves in a situation in which

bombing Iran is worse than Iran getting the bomb . But I don't agree

with Ming Campbell that that is the only alternative. The alternative,

which was one we painfully arrived at, what sanctions, which were

beginning to bite. But we have given away the sanctions. They are still

in place. No, the Americans are increasingly agreeing to give up on

sanctions. One of the difficulties that the Obama Administration will

have is that this carefully constructed agreement could be

undermined if Congress declines. The Middle East is always an issue in

the United States. How it seems that the argument will be resolved one

way or the other in six months' time. The danger for the West is

that under the existing arrangement, after six months, we have to come to

a comprehensive arrangement in which the sanctions go, but there will be

test and inspections to check that it can only enrich uranium for

peaceful purposes. The danger will be that Tehran will see, let's have

another interim agreement. Surely that is the test? But you would not

want to create a cliff edge on a matter as significant as this.

Stopping the clock is not unknown in these matters. The OECD stopped the

clock so that a deadline never expired. But if Iran does not come

to an agreement after stopping the clock, wouldn't Melanie Phillips is

in thinking they never meant to have one? B I don't think you can make

that judgement. This is a country which does not have a vertical

system of government, it has a horizontal system in which there are

many centres of power. Hassan Rouhani is different from those who

have gone before. The question is, can we test the sincerity of what is

being said with actions? We will see in six months' time what happens.

Merry Christmas. Sing to you. -- same to you.

And we are two Glasgow graduates, praising St Andrews.

They are worth more than ?19 billion to the economy and 950,000 jobs

depend on them, but last year, 1100 pubs closed across the country. The

industry's decline is being blamed on people buying cheap Argyle in

supermarkets and pubs often being bought and turned into supermarkets.

Reporter, Bhavani Vadde. Reporter, Bhavani Vadde.

# Closing time. It is a great British institution,

and the heart of many a community, but the pub is under threat on many

fronts. Whether that is from cheap alcohol sold at supermarkets or from

being turned into a supermarket, which is an increasing problem.

Locals at the Royal Oak intemperate wells are fighting to keep their pub

the way it is. There are many reasons why this should remain a

pub. E-fit was to be turned into a supermarket, it would destroy the

area. It is not just a building, it is a home away from home. The best

weapon communities have to stop developers buying a pub and

converting it is by listing it as an asset of community value, something

they have achieved here. That means local people have the power to

postpone the sale for six months to give them enough time to raise the

funds to buy the pub for themselves. That in itself is of putting for

developers. It means they can't just come in, grab a piece of body and

take it away. They would have to contest with us. We get first

choice, if you like. We have seen it in quite a few pubs in Tunbridge

Wells where Tesco or someone has taken over, and good community pubs

all over the country are going that way. The government says it is doing

all it can to safeguard community pubs from closure. Nearly 200 pubs

have now been listed as assets of community value. But some fear that

this detection does not go far enough. If developers did buy a pub

like this, they would not need planning permission to convert it

into a supermarket or a betting shop. Campaigners want the

government to plug that loophole. We believe that pubs, because of the

unique but should be shown they bring to society and the economy,

should be in a category so that any change in use of a pub should

require planning permission and community consultation. We are

asking councils to put together a proposal to central government to

achieve that. The pub and brewing industry lay a significant role in

the UK's economy. It brings in ?19.4 billion, 950,000 dished jobs depend

on the sector. But 1125 pubs closed down across the country last year.

But another industry audience does not believe changing planning rules

will help save pubs, and points to other solutions. Beer duty went up

42% in four years. We have just had a 2% cut . We need more. If you go

to a supermarket tonight, you can buy a meal to dine at home . You

don't pay VAT on that, but you do in the pub. We have a campaign about

this rates. Local businesses have a right to be offered additional help.

The Royal Oak is one example of how a valuable resource to the community

may have been lost if left to market forces, so shouldn't we be calling

time on the lack of detection for our neighbourhood pubs? -- lack of

protection. We are doing now by Mark Littlewood

from the Institute of Economic Affairs and Tim Martin, the founder

of Wetherspoon. You are businessman, therefore. Shouldn't these matters

be determined by market forces? To a point, yes. It is trying to shut the

stable door. The question is, what is the underlying economic reason

that is causing the problem in the first place? It was touched upon by

the spokesperson for the pub industry. It is the fact that

supermarkets pay no VAT on food sales, and pubs pay 20%. That is the

kiss of death for pubs. But restaurants pay 20%. And it is the

kiss of death for many restaurants. In less well off areas of the

country, you will find very few restaurants, coffee shops at Tetra.

-- et. No sane person would give supermarkets a VAT advantage over an

institution such as a pub today. So your case is that the playing field

is not level? It is very un-level, especially on VAT rates. It is a

good point, there is not a level playing field. The problem is not

market forces, it is government forces, the amount of tax taken.

Whether it is VAT, I think we got 1p off a pint of beer from George

Osborne in the last Budget. Trivial difference when you see how much tax

has gone up. Over the last three years, you have seen the average

profit a pub makes drop by about 12%, but you have seen the average

tax take up a pub has to hand it to the government go up by nearly 20%.

And that is because? VAT, business rates. Excise duty. David Cameron

says it is not a tax, it is a late-night levy, and so on. Pubs

have been milked for things like binge drinking issues, for ten or 20

years. Binge drinking is an issue, so the easy way is to tax a pub out

of existence, but it does not solve it. We are agreed that the

government is not going to introduce 20% VAT on food in supermarkets.

Unless it wants to commit mass suicide. But I would also suggest

that the alternative, which is to cut VAT in pubs, that would be a

hard sell as well because you would have to do it in restaurants as

well. You will have to do it in restaurants as well. A supermarket,

per pint of beer, gives half as much tax as a pub, but one tenth of the

jobs. We pay 43% of our sales, ?600,000 per pub per year in tax, we

are a tax generated machine. The Chancellor should give you a night

would! Immediately after the programme. I will put a word in for

you. Do you have a view? I have make views -- mixed views. I never going

to pubs, I see them as places where people do a lot of drinking and

throw up outside. I'm sure that is a terrible slur on your trade. She

lives in a rough part of London! But if an institution plays a valuable

part in the life of the nation and is a community resource, I have

never been a believer in market forces. We should preserve these

things. There is to me the difference between a picturesque pub

such as we saw in your clip where people are playing snooker and

having a bit to eat and the heavy drinking ones, spit and sawdust, and

people getting off their faces. And it troubles me that it is part of

British culture, we are drinking culture. People drink to get drunk.

The question is, is the public has a valuable community resource which

needs to be preserved or a bit of a blight? I can see where the

community resource thing comes from, but too often community

resources used to describe something that people are quite fond of but

not willing to spend enough money in the render viable. A final word for

you, Tim. The underlying emotions about the issue are is that the

reason that pubs are taxed so heavily, and everyone agrees that

pubs and customers which misbehave should be dealt with. It will be

less supervised and social if pubs break down. Certain brilliant

companies will always do well. But not whether Spain! Just joking!

Now, regular viewers of this programme might think we're a little

obsessed about facial hair. And you're right! We enjoy shaving off

MPs' moustaches, and have an in-house barber on our books. Your

licence fee can't be better spent than that. And frankly, viewers,

we're proud of it. However, we fess up to neglecting the mighty beard.

But fear not, you lovers of the mutton chop, the goatee and the

stashburn, Giles is on hand. I am indeed, and just to empathise,

I haven't shaved, just for you this morning. But not since Jeremy Paxman

sported his face fungus has the beard got so much attention. I have

three gentlemen with me who are ideally Hersey hirsuted to discuss

this. How long have you had a beard? Since I was old enough to

grow on. So what is it about the beard? The leader of the beard

liberation front quoted me as saying, I wear my beard is my

opposition to new Labour. But that doesn't really work when John

himself wears a beard. There are contradictions within the movement.

Those who are eagle eyed will spot that you are all Labour politicians.

The Tories don't really support beards. Mrs Thatcher said that only

men with weak chins sport beards. She was wrong about 70 things. There

is evidence that there are more beards around during times of

recession. And are you always winning? The voting is still going

on. It is still open to the public to decide who is to be the

Parliamentary beard wearer of the year. Do you think yours is better

than his? When you asked me earlier whether I had ever thought of taking

it off, we would have to change all the posters. The voters recognise

that, in this constituency, with a substantial seat population, and I

have never found a beard to be an electoral problem. I am the only

member of the short list who is in the House of Lords, so there is an

air of continuity being offered to this important competition. I am

pleased to say that none of you have ever suffered what is known in the

trade as pognophobia, a hatred of beards. These guys love them.

Thanks, Giles! That's your lot. Time for us to go. But wait! Breaking

news. Hold the front page immediately, because a furious row

has broken out over the use of journalese. It's spinning out of

control and could hemorrhage the heart of Government. We are good on

the cliches. Beleaguered hacks of the Westminster village fear they

could be shamed into a climb-down following a chorus of criticism that

appears to be spinning out of control. In the smoke-filled rooms

of the Red Lion pub, a cosy consensus has emerged that hacks use

silly words to baffle the public. Surely not!

The public sector's answer to achieve. Like their Russian

namesake, nominally in charge of things they don't really control

such as drugs or anti-social behaviour. And there ultimate fate

is likely to be a firing squad and burial.

Senior backbenchers, backbenchers who returned our call. We can also

use rising star. Some of them are not terribly senior.

Eccentric is defined here as mad. I find myself using this word all the

time. For obvious reasons. And I often get MPs coming up to me and

saying, what did you mean? I tell them I consider it to be the highest

compliment. But now they might know the truth.

My least favourite bit of journalese is when you hear that it is the

timing of the statement that makes it so significant. What that means

is there is nothing particularly significant about it at all, but I

am so desperate to get in the paper or on the air that I will ham it up.

It has emerged that... What that really means is, I read it in the

papers but I don't want to tell you. The BBC has learned that... It

sounds so academic, Sosa read all, so not like the other networks.

Crunch talks, calculation is, appalling cliches.

This is a giant riles brew blown of the political establishment, and yet

tonight we stand on the brink. Do you agree with the Chancellor that

the glass is half full? They have rocked Westminster and are

making all the other political parties think hard.

He is never going to come onto PMQs again! I can't believe we stitched

him up like that. And the author of "Romps, Tots and Boffins: the

Strange Language of News", Robert Hutton, is here. Is it simply

repetition that creates journalese? Phrase goes into the language and we

milk it for all it is worth? I think we find things that we like, and we

often like them because they are short, especially in print

journalism. Or they are PC. We saw this with omnishambles last year. It

was a word at all, and then the Daily Mail started using it all the

time, and suddenly it took off. We all loved it. It is a great word.

But it has kind of faded now. Other things, . Is there a difference

between journalese and cliche? Journalese is a subset of cliche.

This all came about because we were sitting on a trip trying to come up

with a list of words that you only see in newspapers, and boffin was

the word that came to mind, people used to use it but now you only see

it in newspapers to define someone a bit clever. These would creep in and

then we hang on to them. Is it true that were we say, the BBC has

learned... It means we have but watching Sky? Somebody from Sky took

me aside when I made reference to sky sources and said, it doesn't

mean us, it means Twitter. It means we have checked out the story on the

front page of The Times, and you can run with it. So somebody puts it

into one of their reports, and then all of the other correspondents say,

the BBC has learned. The only defence of journalese is that people

understand what you talking about, it fades. A lot of it goes, and new

journalese comes in. It is ever-changing. Part of it in a

feeble attempt to excuse my trade, part of it is because of the need

for brevity, especially in headlines. You have so few words to

play with. Particularly in tabloid headlines, and you need small words.

Politicians in vent the cliche into the sound bite in order that they

can have their perfect cliche in an interview. I love Robert's

definition here of a wide-ranging speech, a leadership aide. The

reason may earlier this year made a wide-ranging speech. And she put

down a marker! My favourite hate thing which I hope I haven't been

guilty of myself, is when journalists don't know what they are

talking about, they will end their report by saying, time alone will

tell. There is a certain amount of journalese, and I am a working

journalist and I use these phrases, I found myself using rebuff this

week. Sometimes you use it because you try to smooth over the fact that

you don't know everything about the story, so you are trying to create a

clear sounding pitch. Upset at the polls. We called this one wrong. A

stocking filler for my stocking here.

Now, there's just time to put you out of your misery and give you the

answer to Guess The Year. The clue was the first ever radio broadcast

by the BBC and the general election won by Andrew Bonar Law's

Conservatives. I was giving new clues as well. Yes, it was 1922! I

remember it well. Melanie, hit that big red button there.

Frank Jones of Kendal, he has one. That's all for today. Thanks to our

guests. The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now. I'll

be back tonight on This Week at 11.35. The most trending programme

on British television! We will have Kate Nash. Goodbye.