17/12/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/12/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics. Our top story today - at


the last election, he opposed airport expansion in the South-East,


but a government-backed report out today suggests David Cameron will


eventually support a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.


Fracking for gas could create 30,000 jobs - if the industry is allowed to


develop to its full potential. We will debate the controversial new


source of energy. Lawrence of Arabia, The Usual


Suspects or King Fu Panda - what does a politician's favourite movie


say about them? And how much do looks affect


political success? Labour might lose out on their majority in the next


election, simply because a lot of people cannot vote for Ed Miliband,


because, and I quote, he looks like a human platypus, unquote.


I am saying nothing. All that in the next hour - and with us for the


whole programme today is the actor, comedian and writer David Schneider.


Today's report on airport capacity has narrowed down the options from


an initial field of 58 to just three, although Sir Howard Davies


has not ruled out building a brand-new airport in Kent. The


commission admitted in October that extra runway capacity is needed in


the south-east, but they have now approved three options for where the


extra runway could go. Two of the proposals involve expanding Heathrow


in west London. The first option would be to build a new 3,500-metre


third runway, constructed to the north-west of the existing airport.


third runway, constructed to the north-west of the existing The


second option at Heathrow is a fairly radical proposal to extend


the airport's existing northern runway to the west to at least 6,000


metres - this would allow it to be used for both take-offs and


landings. The third option that has been short listed is a brand new


runway at Gatwick Airport to the south of London. The Davies


Commission haven't ruled out building a brand new hub airport in


the Isle of Grain, which is favoured by London Mayor Boris Johnson. The


Commission says they will look at it in detail next year before deciding


whether to rule it in or out. Of course the issue of airport


expansion has been kicked into the long grass for political reasons,


and no final decisions will be made until after the next election.


Speaking on the BBC this morning, Howard Davies said the UK was crying


out for more airport capacity. We have tried to look at it from a


passenger perspective, and the fact is that British business people need


to travel to overseas business markets, people need to visit


friends and relatives abroad, and people need to go on holiday, and I


think we need to allow people to do that if they wish, as long as the


overall environmental obligations can be matched. This is not about


airports competing with other airports, it is about responding to


the demands of a growing economy. Howard Davies there. Meanwhile,


Mayor of London Boris Johnson says he is glad the option of a brand new


hub airport to the east of the city remains on the table. There is a


tough decision that has to be taken. I hope that it will be the brave,


the right decision, for the long-term. This is the greatest city


on earth, the place everybody wants to come to. I am fed up to the back


teeth with having to circle over Heathrow. Everybody understands


that. How do you solve that? You cannot expand Heathrow in my view,


because you are going to create a monster in West London. We need now


to go for the right option. With us now is Zac Goldsmith, the


Conservative MP for Richmond Park, who has campaigned against Heathrow


expansion. We're also joined by Baroness Valentine, whose London


First group campaign on behalf of London's business community, and the


former Transport Minister Simon Burns. Welcome to you all. First of


all, Zac Goldsmith, at what point will you consider your position as a


Conservative MP? I said clearly before the election, on the back of


a promise made by David Cameron directed towards my constituents in


West London, which was that if my party changes its position on


Heathrow expansion, I will automatically trigger a by-election.


Except that it now looks impossible for the Conservatives to go into the


next election being able to rule out expansion at Heathrow. Is that when


you say, game is up? I am applying maximum pressure, and I know a lot


of other backbenchers, even those who support Heathrow expansion, are


putting pressure on the Government to get off the fence. In fact, the


only real news today I think is that the pressure on all three leaders to


get off the fence this side of the election has massively escalated. It


is no longer tenable to imagine any of them going into the election with


ambiguity. And on that basis, if the Conservative manifesto does not roll


out Heathrow expansion, is that the point at which you say... ? Then I


would have to repeat my pledge, which, after the election, if there


is a U-turn, then I would trigger a by-election. But the position has


changed, we now know that Heathrow would be on the table. As you say,


the interim report has come out with a Heathrow bias anyway. And I think


from day one, that was always going to be the case. If you listen to Sir


Howard Davies in any of the interviews he has been doing today,


he is using the language of the AA, he has adopted their line, hook,


line and sink, in a very impressive PR operation, and he has managed to


substitute whatever thoughts he may have had with their own thoughts,


and completely bought into the Heathrow argument. Would you be


prepared to stand as an independent? Absolutely, but this is not


something I have worked out and I hope I will not have to. If my party


does a U-turn on this issue, I will trigger a by-election. I remain


clear on that. What happens after that, I hope I do not have to deal


with that. It is going to be a political nightmare from now until


the election, with this interim report. You are not going to be able


to go into the election, as a party, without clearly setting out what


your favoured option would be? No, I do not think that is the case. We


made it clear when the commission was set up that here is an


independent body which is set with the task of, once and for all,


trying to sort out what is the best option for the expansion of our


capacity, and something that we can seek to get consensus about amongst


the political parties. Heathrow is the favoured option here. It is not


the favoured option, it is one of 3.5 options. It leans very much


towards Heathrow as an option. That is your interpretation. The fact is,


there are two options in this short list for Heathrow. There is the


third option of a second runway at Gatwick, and there is a kind of half


measure at the moment, and we will have to wait until June next year,


where the commission is going to look in greater detail at the Isle


of grain proposal, because that will also be coming into the mix. We do


not know at the moment, and we will not know, until the final


recommendations are made in the summer of 2015, exactly what the


commission believes is the right solution to airport capacity. I


understand that, but the timing of the report was set by politicians,


not by Howard Davies. I do not think there is anyone who believed that it


was anything other than a political decision. It was time to conclude


after the election, -- it was timed to conclude after the election, so


that the party leaders would not have to grapple with the issue


before the election. That is not true, because I was part of the


reason that was given was because this is a horrendously complex


issue... That you do not want to make. It is not that at all. It has


got to be looked at properly and thoroughly. If you put an


unrealistically short timetable, anyone who did not like whatever the


final decision was would turn around and say, you cannot deal with such


complexes issue in such a short period of time. But you would think


that Heathrow will be on the table, not, as David Cameron has said in


the past, off the table in 2015 average it will, insofar as it is


one of the final recommendations on the short list. What do you say


about the argument of those who say that the case for Heathrow is not


there? As a business community, I am hugely depressed by this


conversation. We should have taken a decision maybe 50 years ago. We have


had lots of plans and thoughts for more than 50 years and we are still


waiting for political consensus. What we need is political


consensus, and we are just seeing one bit of the fractious nature of


this. What would your option B? We want to be able to get to global


markets as soon as possible. We want people in China to be able to get to


us. China is building 82 airports. Where are all of those aeroplanes


from China going to land? We are open-minded about the solution to


this. We need to be able to get to and from the global economies. I


sympathise with some of the issues around Heathrow. There are more


people exposed to noise around Heathrow than anywhere else in


Europe, and we are advocating a noise ombudsman, because I do think


there has been a breach of trust in residence and the aviation industry.


And we need to get better data, and a better trade-off. This is all


about trade-offs. No solution will make everybody happy. But which will


be the best for competitiveness? You say this is a PAA case, and it is a


very plausible case, when you look at the figures, and you look at an


airport which has to be seen around the world as the place to fly into,


not just for the UK, but from around the world. There are so many


arguments. There is a quality of life argument, which we know. It has


a disproportionate impact. Increasing that impact around


Heathrow would be intolerable. But there is an economic argument as


well. My party is a free party, who believes in taxpayers paying for


this fast thing on one edge of the city, when we have three perfectly


good airports... Why are you saying taxpayer funded, I would've thought


estuary airport would be far more taxpayer funded than Heathrow? I


oppose the expansion of Heathrow very strongly. It is a monopoly. I


am very much in favour of Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow competing, as


well as they possibly can, in the interests of the customer. Gatwick


has become a good airport in the last few years because of


competition. Absolutely, we have got to make the rail links better to


both Gatwick and Stansted to allow them to compete, and we have got to


deregulate them and let them compete with Heathrow. Heathrow is 98% full.


Other airports are at about 75%. We cannot pretend there is not a


problem at Heathrow. So we are nearly at full capacity, and this


decision is going to be delayed. A party which says it is pro growth is


going to go into the next election saying, we don't know. We're going


to wait until just after the election, conveniently, so that you


conduct the issue? That is a simplistic approach. Which bit of it


was not true? What Davies has said in this interim report is that


capacity is not critical yet, so we do have some time... How long does


it take to build a runway or a new airport? I would think from start to


finish about ten years. That is if you can get consensus amongst all of


the political parties, as we have got with HS2. We have said that we


want a thorough and proper investigation of what is a highly


complexes and difficult issue, and we do not want to curtail the time


to an unreasonably short time span, so that people would be able to


accuse us of trying to fix it. How much business have we lost to other


cities? There are numbers thrown around, and ?14 billion is one of


them. So, a lot of money. You know if you work in London that people


are coming in and coming out to do business. It is absolutely vital, as


one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world, to be able to get to


and from our markets. It is a lot of money that we have lost. You can


pluck these figures out of midair. There are only two countries in the


world with more extensive aviation networks, and one of those is the


United States, the other is China. We are third in the world, despite


being a very small country. More people fly in and out of London than


any other city on earth. The idea that we are languishing behind is a


lot of nonsense. Is a question about where we go in the future, which is


what this discussion is about, but the idea that we are shrivelling up


because of this discussion is complete and utter PAA Brother


Gander. What do you say to that? -- propaganda. Yes, we can muddle along


with our existing links to the old Commonwealth economies and ignore


the emerging economies for the next ten years, I think it is pretty


self-evident! I would agree. We have modelled along for far too long,


under successive governments. That is why we have set up this


commission to seek a solution once and for all, to be able to move


forward in what is in the best interests of aviation, business and


the local communities. So, whatever he comes up with, after the


election, you will do it? Provided it is not off the wall, I would


accept. The estuary airport will be dropped next year, won't it? Do you


think it is a credible idea? Is it bonkers? It is visionary. I think


this is another trade-off which the commission needs to think about


because it costs a lot of money but it is a solution to reducing


congestion at Heathrow. Which one do you favour? I really do not


think... For London business, all we care about is that somebody does


something. We need that global market. I think this commission is


the best shot we have. It is complicated. There are economic


arguments and social arguments. To be honest, Simon, you have done your


U-turn. By not ruling out Heathrow in the commission, rightly or


wrongly, you have done a U-turn. Why not make the decision ahead of the


election? Conservative backbenchers would say it is better to take the


hits now than later on. It seems bizarre to call it a U-turn when you


set up an independent commission with a full three minutes to look at


all the options and come up with a final decision. It is not a U-turn


at all. It is a comprehensive enquiry to get the right decision to


solve the problem. It is not technically a U-turn but is a big


step towards a potential U-turn. What would it do to trust? I think


it would be catastrophic for the Conservative party. David Cameron


went to every single constituency affected by this expansion. He came


to Richmond. A U-turn of this magnitude would break the


relationship between the Prime Minister and West London. People


would notice and wonder what else would be broken. It should be taken


with a pinch of salt. The discussion is about the South East and London,


but what about other airports? What about expanding regional airports?


Yellow there is expansion at Manchester. Birmingham has ambition


to expand its airport. It will not address completely the whole issue


of capacity and demand in the South East, and that is what we cannot


affect and we need to address. Heathrow is full up and Gatwick is


nearly full up. Stansted has some slack with capacity. Let's leave it


there. Thank you. It's often said that "politics is showbiz for ugly


people". Present company excepted! But in an increasingly televisual


age, even politics can be a challenge if you have. How can we


put this delicately? An "aesthetically-challenged


physiognomy". Anyway, our guest today, David Schneider, has railed


against what he describes as the "scourge of uglyism" in our


political system. We gave him a day out at London Zoo to make his point.


I was shocked to read in an opinion poll that 78% of voters said they


would be likely to vote Labour if Ed Miliband changed his face. Actually,


I made that up, but it would not surprise me if the lead shot into


double figures if he changed his face for someone else is's, properly


his brother's. We know looks are important but in a scientific


survey, it was revealed that Labour might lose out because many people


would not vote for Ed Miliband because, and I quote, he looks like


a human platypus. Is it really all about looks now? What do people


want? A Labour manifesto that guarantees above inflation taxes or


an elimination of the mono brow? Was the struggle to get elected is in


the 80s and 90s about moving from elderly leaders struggling to get


elected towards someone who was reasonably hot? As an actor, I have


profited from being funny looking but as a politician it can be a


problem. I am not voting for you! There have been times when I have


been frustrated by Ed Miliband. I wanted him to stand up straight and


look prouder, but I am appalled by people who would never judge a


person by the colour of their skin or sexuality, judges someone because


he looks like he has his lips pressed up against the window. Let's


make sure we judge someone on policies and not look because we


might as well replace the leadership debate with a swimsuit competition.


I do not want to see politicians in their swimming costumes! Can you


tell me about your policies? ! House-building? Will you build more


houses? What do you think of the welfare cap? Will there be one? Can


you guarantee more police on the streets? I am not sure you are going


for the right topics there, David. Sadly, we're still waiting for the


penguins to give us a response to David's questions. But David is


still with us - and we've been joined by the broadcaster Nick


Ferrari. David, well done, you got here in the end. I got here through


the traffic! At least you were not trying to fly into one of the


airports! What about looks? Is it that much of a worry to you that


people are actually being sidelined because they are not good looking


enough? I think I was just shocked. People who seem very fashionable and


who would never say they are not voting for that person because they


are black, they would say of Ed Miliband that, because of this human


platypus look, they could not imagine him at Number Ten, and


therefore could not vote for him. It did not matter what his policies


were. Is that the level of discourse that the television age has brought


us do? Are talented politicians being put beyond where they can


reach? David is blessed because he has the looks of George Clooney and


has had them since the beginning of his career! I disagree with David on


a couple of runs. Firstly, we select most things in life by looks.


Whether it be a House, a partner of a car. The idea that people have


been held back, I do not think that is strictly true. Look at the last


couple of politicians who were like. The late Mo Mowlam or Ann


Widdecombe. And Widdecombe was loved by the people. I think you know


different people from me! And Widdecombe is complicated because


there is a patronising, Leicester, kind of looked to have. I think that


supports my argument. -- bless her. Look at Angela Merkel! If you have


talent it will come out. It is harder to come out. It is


interesting that you compare choosing a wife and a card to


someone who is running the country. That is exactly my point. We should


not be choosing people to run the country in the same way we choose a


wife. These people will feature in our lives so much, why can they not


be decent to look at? You are saying that in your ideal world, you would


have better looking people running the country? Oh, yes, absolutely!


Does it matter if they are good-looking? Let's Jesse... Let's


make it simple and have a swimsuit competition. We do, to certain


extent. There must be brains as well. If they are that good then I


would point you again to Angela Merkel. It is about personality, is


it not? It is about the whole package. People become more


attracted to the leaders by the character they are. Angela Merkel is


the mother figure. People trust, she is wrong. She has run with the looks


and has understood what the image is, and presented it. You should not


judge her on her looks and judge her on her policies. It is a truism that


we are judging people in this television age but Ed Miliband is a


perfect example. He is handicapped by the fact people do not like what


he looks like. Baby they cannot look past it. If you look at the demotic


type of politicians like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, it is


true. There was charisma. Charisma is not just about looks. It is


important and I am not saying we should have all openly politicians


or anything like that! Some would say we already do! I think we need


to listen more carefully. Let's do it like The Boys. If you like it,


the policies, hit the Red Button. -- The Boys. They laughed at William


Hague to some extent. They laughed at Neil Kinnock. Iain Duncan Smith,


he was challenged. Is that not unfair? Was it to do with the way


they looked? Not just that. You could look at all three of them and


said there were glaring problems with their policies. It is not just


that they needed a wig! Would Winston Churchill get elected now?


Sadly, properly not. He was old, walked with a stick, he had a funny


way of talking. He is not very televisual. What about Gordon Brown?


He is not ugly but was seen as being quite awkward. That speaks more of


charisma. Whatever you say about Tony Blair, there was a charisma. He


was fairly comfortable in his own skin which is possibly a product of


being good-looking. With Gordon Brown, that was not there. Both of


you are quite successful. Is that because of your looks? I am on the


radio! Being funny looking has been great for me! I was described once


as being grotesque and it was a compliment! I took it as such! I am


lucky where I can be in a career where I can make something out of my


looks! I hope people hear what I have to say rather than inking I am


a funny looking bloke! Thank you very much. Now it's time for our


daily quiz. The question for today is... Google has published its


annual list of top internet searches for the UK in 2013. So which


politician has seen the biggest increase in people looking them up


online? Was it a) Theresa May b) Stella Creasy c) Boris Johnson or d)


Barack Obama? At the end of the show, David will give us the correct


answer. Fracking, a way of extracting shale gas from the


ground, is heating up as an issue once again. It did not cool down!


The chief executive of Total says he hopes Britain will become a major


source of his firm's shale gas production in Europe. We've learnt


this morning that David Cameron has written to Brussels to protest


against new EU legislation which he fears will delay the development of


the industry. And the energy minister Michael Fallon says today


that thousands of new jobs could be created if fracking is allowed to


reach its full potential. The report shows there is far more potential


for shale gas than we originally thought. There could be 30,000 jobs


created in this industry. The highest scenario is that there could


eat enough shale gas to satisfy three times our gas demand. So, we


are sitting on a lot more shale gas than we thought. We do not yet know


if we can get it out as easily as they have got it out in the United


States, but it has huge potential for our economy. And we've been


joined by the Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt and the Conservative Peter Lilley.


Welcome to you both. First of all, what is your objection to this,


after all, it is going to create thousands of jobs, Tessa Munt? My


contention is that this appears to be cutting down on a completely


front bases to what was done in America, where methane is clearly


the unwanted by-product, methane, butane and propane, the feedstock


for the petrochemical industry. You are not against it in principle? I


think we have to be very careful. Does that mean you do not want it to


happen at all? No, I do not think that is the case. A number of my


coalition colleagues are very keen for this to happen, but I sit in a


seat in Somerset, which is the Mendip Hills, surrounding it, and it


is completely inappropriate. This is the basis of our business, in


tourism, and we have little else that is going on. 26,000 jobs in


Somerset depend on tourism. To have a landscape which is covered with


oil drilling wells, effectively, gas trilling, nobody can say that will


enhance the beauty of Somerset. It is not appropriate in the Mendip


Hills. Where would you put it? Wherever the shale gas is. Including


the Mendip Hills? Including the Mendips, if it is available. Are you


against windmills on the Mendips? We have one, which is absolutely fine.


These gas rigs can be easily hidden by trees and bushes. I have got a


picture somewhere of a wind farm, interspersed with gas wells. They


are invisible, compared with the windmills. It is not a serious


problem. I agree you should do it seriously, you should be worried


about visual appearance, as well as every other aspect, but it is


actually marvellous technology. And it could transform, according to


people like Peter, the country, in terms of gas. The US has gas imports


by 50%, that would be transformational, for your


constituents this is being done on a completely different premise. What


we are looking at is drilling for methane. In the US, they are using


the butane, methane, protein, as part of the feedstock for the


petrochemical industry. We only have ten pet or chemical sites as far as


I know in the UK, and methane is an unwanted by-product. They flare it


off, or now they have found that they can supply that. Our area is


very dependent on quality water, and we have to be very careful. Let's


talk about the gas itself. Gas is three times as valuable here as it


is in the States, because the price is three in the states, they use it


primarily for generating electricity, as they have been


phasing out coal stations. But methane is an unwanted product. No,


it is hugely important. They are not allowed to flare it off, normally.


You only do that until you connect up to the mains. The purpose of


drilling for gas is defined gas. We are in porting those extra products


now into Aberdeen. -- importing. If there is a by-product here, we will


be able to produce it legally, as well as methane. Ought about the big


concern about water, that when you are fracking, you could affect the


water table? They have fractured 2 million wells in North America, not


a single person has suffered poisoning from the water supply. We


have actually done nearly 200 wells in this country. There was no fuss


about it until there was concern among the extreme environmentalists


that it might be terribly successful and discover lots of gas, and they


do not like fossil fuels, so they have engineered every kind of fear


and scaremongering. Are you scared? I am very wary. ABI am an extreme


environmentalist, I do not know. I think there are quite a few extreme


ones, in that case. Because it is an unknown. How long has fracking been


around? Since 1949. In what quantity? Rowing quantity, over the


years. I feel there are worries about the water, worries about Earth


tremors, we do not really know the effects. That is true, isn't it? It


is still a politically unknown quantity. It is very we had in this


country a study prepared by the royal society, and it's opening


words are, the health, safety and environment or risks associated with


hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas can be managed effectively


in the UK... Why have France and Bulgaria bandit, then? France,


because they have got blocked as of nuclear electricity, and because of


the antinuclear vote. Wasn't this government meant to be the greenest


government ever? Because I do not know what has happened with all of


the green stuff. There are other solutions which have been massively


neglected. I do not know how long fracking will keep us going. We need


to look at and infrastructure and the plan, renewables which are


definitely safe. There is a legitimate argument, which I share,


that you should keep all fossil fuels in the ground. If you take


that view, fair enough. Those people take that view, they then cannot


persuade other people to go along with it, so they invent worries


about earthquakes and water pollution. Why is it invented? The


earthquakes are a fact. I would accept that it is shown that there


are Earth tremors at various times for various reasons, and I


completely accept that you might not want to get completely hysterical


about earthquakes, but I cannot have faith in the Environment Agency. Its


processes at the moment, its practices say that they should call


ahead one week in advance, or at least 24 hours, before they


inspect. At that point, anyone who is running the company in a way in


which we would not want has the opportunity to close everything down


and make sure everything is in order by the time the Environment Agency


terms up. We need to have a completely different regime to make


sure we can test whether these companies are behaving. There have


been a number of incidents, you know, where things have been pretty


poor on fracking. The other thing is, the fracking process which has


been proposed for my area and for some other areas is different from


what has been going on in this country for the last 40-50 years,


and that modernisation process needs a new at how we do this. Nour party


colleague said it would not contaminate water supplies. I am


glad Ed Davey has said that, because we are totally dependent on the


water in the Somerset levels, which is a patchwork of waterways, and we


need to be absolutely certain that if anything is going to happen on


the Mendips, and I do not believe it should, but if it should, then we


have to make sure we have got completely rigorous testing. Thank


you very much. Lemurs, lorises. Gibbons, gorillas.


Chimps, capuchins. It's estimated that 3,000 rare primates are being


kept as pets in homes across the UK. Now a Conservative MP has called for


an end to the sale of primates, condemning it as "outdated and


cruel". Mark Pritchard has introduced a ten-minute rule bill to


Parliament. He has warned that "time is running out" for the world's apes


and monkeys.The bill comes at a time when primates are diminishing in


numbers because of climate change, deforestation, and being hunted for


bush meat. A study by the International Union for Conservation


of Nature has reported that 48% of primate species face extinction if


no action is taken by governments. Mark Pritchard believes that the UK


can help tackle the problem by reducing the number of primates


being caught and sold on for exotic pets. Mark Pritchard joins us now.


What are you hoping to achieve? First of all, I am glad that the


DEFRA select committee are going to hold an inquiry into the keeping of


primates as pets in the UK. Any people that I speak to are shocked


to learn that the numbers range from 3000 to 7000. That seems to be an


incredible number of people, are you surprised by that? I am surprised,


yes. And this has cross-party support. I introduced a bill in the


last Parliament, and my colleague from Cornwall introduced a bill last


year. I think the law is outdated. Gone are the days where people


needed to have a particular animal in their possession to understand


nature. We have great BBC programmes, we have online, people


travel more. And this is an outdated practice, and I hope what the


Government -- and I hope the Government will support this. Do you


want to ban the sale of the primates or the ownership, or both of which


there are about 32,000 plus primates being sold into the international


pet market. These are wild primates, the fathers of the forest. The


Government says it supports I/O diversity and the ecosystem, and one


way of protecting the forests, just one way, is protecting primates,


because when they are taken out of the wild, that actually does not


help the ecosystem. I would like to CNN and to the sale of primates, and


also the keeping of primates. We would have a sunset clause so that


people who currently have them, either they could put them into


sanctuaries, or eventually, when the primates dies, that would be the end


of them keeping primates. I have to say, primates do live a long time.


Many people that take them on, whether they are movie stars or


singers, they can live 35-45 years. On 24th of December two years ago,


Tarzana's chimpanzee, Cheater, died at the age of 80. Not wanting to be


too cynical, but with climate change and deforestation, your ten minute


rule bill is hardly going to change the world, is it? Many people accuse


the coalition government of not being animal welfare friendly. I


disagree with that, but I do think there needs to be more evidence that


they are animal welfare friendly. There are ministers who were not


ministers in the past who backed my bill in the last element. We have


got shadow ministers supporting, we have got ministers openly and


secretly supporting a ban. Would it be popular, would it win your vote?


I am not saying it is the major issue, people are not going, it is


the primates, stupid, but yes, credit to you for doing it just I am


not going to try to strike some leftie blows about, why can't you


have more care for the poor and the disabled to being these things do


matter as well. But whether it is going to be a vote winner or not


does not matter. It seems the right thing to do. Exactly, it is not


about winning votes, it is about doing the right thing by the planet,


by the animal kingdom, by Cindy at beings like ourselves. -- by CIA


beings like ourselves. -- sentient beings. Justin Bieber had a monkey,


didn't he? In role model terms, young people might think, it is


fine. Monkeys, primates, they need to be in their own environment. They


often live in groups of up to 50. But many of these pets are kept


alone, in solitary conditions, often very small cages. In the wild, you


can roam across 130 hectares. Diet, sunlight, a whole range of issues


affecting the welfare of primates being kept in this country. That is


why we need to end keeping primates as pets.


Around one in six Brits is a pensioner. But do politicians pay


them enough attention? Our next guest thinks not - and is proposing


a new forum to get their views across. Here's Conservative MP Peter


Bottomley. As a schoolboy, I listened from the public gallery.


Now at 69, I listened in the chamber. Some people might think my


generation could be pensioned off. I think the mature, the experienced,


should be heard more clearly. The Government would do well to listen.


Mr Speaker, at the moment, the tuition fees system benefits either


the extremely rich... Youth Parliament has represented


youngsters for over ten years. Youngsters between 11 and 18 have a


chance to vote. They have shaped public debate about issues of


importance to young people. They come here to Parliament each year.


Let's create something similar for older members of our society. Some


pensioners only see Parliament on a tour. I think their views matter,


and the government could hear them more clearly if they were in the


chamber, but in their points of view across. The government would gain,


the country would gain. A Parliament was launched for pensioners in 2011


in Northern Ireland. Mr Speaker, I note the concerns and comments


expressed by members of the Parliament for pensioners and I


welcome the debate. It is time the government took into account the


views of pensioners. We want a Parliament for pensioners. When do


we want it? Now. Because you asked nicely, I am sure they will listen


to you. Do we really need it? They are very well represented. They are


more likely to vote than other sections of the population. As you


know, the information suggests they are doing well in terms of their


income versus GDP. Members of Parliament must represent all their


constituents. You can argue, yes, you are right. What harm will it do


if we gave up Parliament for one day of the year? Let's see what impact


that will have. They could raise issues that matter such as elderly


people who are claiming for their grandchildren. When the family


break-up, do the grandparents keep access to their grandchildren? Half


of elderly people overseas cannot vote. There are a whole series of


issues that could be raised and put on the public agenda by a Parliament


for pensioners. Are those issues not being dealt with already? Because


pensioners are already active themselves, we hear about these


issues quite a lot of the time. It is the other end of the scale, the


youth Parliament, the young people who cannot vote, they are the ones


who are struggling to get their issues across. Most people of some


maturity would be concerned for the young. People of my age are asking


how we can bring things into the open and avoid the mistakes we made.


How do you avoid a third of teenagers taking up smoking, for


example? One concrete example is the exploitation of leaseholders and


that was raised. If it was raised in the Parliament for pensioners, the


Ministry of Justice would take it up and you would not have elderly


people being exploited in the open. Do you think it a good idea? Why


would I say no! In the youth Parliament, both sides were


applauding the Speaker! It seemed like a strange dream! I have to


agree. We are all in this together apart from those who are older than


67 or whatever it is. Everything is fine until we talk about making


cut. I think pensioners are looked up to because they vote. Sorry,


Peter, one last point. You look at the Youth Parliament and it seems


that they are still being ignored. The danger is that the Parliament


for pensioners would be as ignored. I suspect that if we had a joint


session of the youth and pensioners Parliament you would find the same


thing. You may get some mature, experienced comedians who come onto


give us an entertainment. Would it achieve anything? Would it be a


symbolic gesture and a bit of theatre, but that is it? As we give


more people the boat, we discover that the pension system is a good


idea. As we gave more people the boat we discovered that people like


me could go to university. -- vote. Taking one person's experience,


having it expressed, I think people will be ignored less often. If you


take the people who run voluntary organisations, for them, for their


children who may be critically ill, we play our part, not because I want


to be regarded as a pensioner! Is it really necessary? Today, with the


economic situation, there may not be a great wave of support for it. The


Institute for Fiscal Studies has said the gap is even more striking


than 20 years ago. The gap is very large. We have got their, not for


pensioners, but in a way, they have achieved so much without a


Parliament for pensioners. Many have, yes. I know a woman who cared


for her dying child and had not had a boiler working for two years. She


did not have benefits, and I reckon it is the job for people like me or


a Parliament for pensioners to ask how do you fix this? I would say, on


average, pensioners are better off than they were. I would say students


often spend more money on beer than they spend on food each week! That


individual case is obviously important and all politicians should


look out for cases like this. I suspect that our focus groups for


the parties. In that case, why not get people from charities, people


from work, people who are carers? I think they could come along and they


would be immensely impressed. How would they be elected? I would have


people like you. There may be a retired forecaster! Many, many


years' time! Now, the actor Peter O'Toole died at the weekend, and


he'll perhaps best be remembered for the part that catapulted him to


fame, as the lead in the Oscar-winning epic Lawrence of


Arabia. Let's have a look. CHEERING


No criminals! No criminals! Peter O'Toole in the 1962 classic


Lawrence of Arabia. The Prime Minister was among those paying


tribute to the actor at the weekend, and he reminded us that Lawrence of


Arabia is his favourite film. It's pretty common now to ask politicians


for their favourite movie - but what if anything does it really tell us


about them? We're joined now by Dan Hodges from the Telegraph who's been


writing about this. What did it tell you? Lawrence of Arabia is David


Cameron's favoured. It tells us that political leaders have good taste in


films. I thought he would go for a more political choice. I was


sceptical. If you look at it, it is a deep, classic film. Certainly.


Were you surprised? It takes a few boxes. -- takes a few boxes. It is


complex. Everyone liked Lawrence of Arabia, did they not? It was quite


controversial when it came out. What about Ed Miliband? We discussed this


in the office. 12, Angry Men was his favourite but he has changed it to


the Usual Suspects. That is an unusual choice. Those are two great


films. I think the thing is that it is hard to get the truth as of


leaders. You hear on Desert Island Disks when they are thinking whether


they should like Coldplay. I was surprised by Usual Suspects. I can


see this image of him sitting there thinking about Ed Balls. Why could


he not have the Usual Suspects? Is he not trendy enough to pick a film


like that? Ed Balls, not trendy? ! You are not being fair. When I was a


child, my favourite film was dumbo, but now it is not! You progress. It


does not change your view about the leader, does it? What about Nick


Clegg? He went for Kung-Fu Panda. Kung-Fu Panda? ! Do you think he


sees himself as a Kung-Fu Panda? He said he is a big fan. He did say he


liked The Class. Have you seen it? I have not seen it. You are dammed if


you do and dammed if you don't when it comes to these choices. Favourite


songs, favourite films. Whatever you say, it is going to be over


analysed. When I worked as a researcher, we spent hours thinking


about our favourite films and favourite books. I was shocked to


learn that Tony Blair's favoured film is Rush Hour starring Jackie


Chan. I think that is quite refreshing. We asked Nigel Farage.


Have a go at what you think is his favourite film. I would not want to


go there! I thought maybe the Great Escape. But it is not. It is The


Longest Day. Are you surprised? Do you think he watches it in reverse?


It is about with drawing from Europe! You could put that to him,


could you not? That doesn't fit Nigel Farage. Favourite film? I like


Galaxy Quest. That is my favourite comedy. I also like Downfall. What


about you? Casablanca. Casablanca, very good. There's just time before


we go to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was... Which


politician has seen the biggest increase in the number of people


searching for them in 2013, according to Google? Was it a)


Theresa May b) Stella Creasy c) Boris Johnson or d) Barack Obama? So


David, what's the correct answer? I think it is Stella Creasy because


she has become much more prominent. Stella Creasy is not right. A good


guess. Boris is the top trending politician. May is at five and


Stella at eight. That's all for today. Thanks to David Schneider and


all my guests. Andrew and I will be back at 11.30 tomorrow for the last


Daily Politics of 2013 and of course we'll have Prime Minister's


Questions live from midday. Do join us if you can. Bye bye.


Download Subtitles