09/01/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Police and


politicians try to calm an East London community after yesterday's


verdict of unlawful killing over the death of Mark Duggan. -- lawful


killing. We will bring you the latest.


The government says it can save ?500 million putting government services


online, but admits that ?40 million has already been wasted on the IT


for welfare reform. Love is in the air. What has brought


on an unexpected rapprochement between the Deputy Prime Minister


and shadow chancellor? And this man has got a bit of spare


time on his hands. Could Alex Ferguson do for the Labour Party


what he did for Manchester United? All that in the next hour. And with


us for the duration, our very own guru, a former canon chancellor of


St Paul's Cathedral. He is now a parish priest in south London. Giles


Fraser, welcome to the programme. Let's start with the Mark Duggan


inquest. Yesterday, a jury concluded that Mr Duggan was lawfully killed


when he was shot dead by police in August 2011. His death led to days


of rioting across the UK. His aunt, Carol, gave this defiant message


from outside the court. These pictures contain flash photography.


For as long as it takes, God give my family strength. Not only the


family, the whole of our legal team, the whole of our friends, the whole


of the who have supported us. The majority of people in this country


know that Mark was executed, and we still believe that. We are going to


fight until we have no breath in our body for justice for Mark, for his


children and all of those deaths in custody that they have had nothing


for. No justice, no peace! Well, this morning Carole Duggan


said although the "struggle" will go on, she's called for "no more


demonstrations, no more violence". She added that the family would be


pursuing their case through peaceful channels.


In a moment, we hope to be joined by the MP for the area, David Lammy. He


is coming from a meeting with the Met Police. Giles, what is your


overall impression of what has happened here? Just looking at the


footage of Mark Duggan's aren't, there was something slightly


intimidating about that" no justice, no peace". That felt to me at the


time as if it was a call for some sort of violence. I am very glad to


hear that they have pulled back on that a bit. But I thought the


atmosphere outside was really intimidating. Jores Okore be at and


that sort of thing. This is unacceptable -- jaw is worth being


lunged at. At that has to reflect the feelings of the community, the


fact that the police have had a pretty bad track record of late,


from Jean Charles de Menezes and even Andrew Mitchell recently. A


jury came to this verdict and that is the way our legal system works,


and we have to accept that. The media talk about the concerns of the


community, but the evidence of what the community really thinks is quite


thin. There were a number of people outside the Tottenham police station


last night for the demonstration, but there was little evidence that


other people then joined in. It was worried much the people who had been


outside the court. There is a lot of evidence that this man terrorised


his community and that people were frightened of him. There is indeed,


and I am always be specious about people commenting about immunity


leaders, these self-proclaimed people. -- community leaders. Mark


Duggan was not on trial here. But their sins to be a lot of evidence


that this was a gang member who did terrorised the local community. None


of that justifies him being shot. Policing these areas, with dangerous


criminal gangs, is a difficult job for the police to do. The police


look to be on shaky ground over some questions, particularly the gun. We


have no witnesses saying they saw the gun being thrown away. The gun


was 20 feet away from the police. On the other hand, I would suggest that


there is a great danger, if our mythical community leaders and other


activists try to turn this man into another Stephen Lawrence, it is


clear that he was not a Stephen Lawrence. He was not any sort of


hero in this community. It is interesting about the nature of


evidence in these complicated crime scenes. That is why there is this


idea that has come up about the police having cameras on their


hats, which I guess sounds like a good idea. It is interesting that


the police, in difficult situations, have to make split-second decisions


about whether to shoot. We saw that in the case of the murder of Lee


Rigby and what happened after that, with people rushing at the police


and having to make a split-second decision. And how you make those


decisions is a really interesting thing. You can't looked up in a book


and see all the. You don't get a chance to do it again. These are


very difficult things. I have done quite a bit of work with the Army


over the last few years about how you make instant moral decisions. It


is nothing that comes out of a rule book, it comes out of your character


and your instinct. Let's go to David Lammy now. You were at a meeting


with the police this morning. What did you learn? Well, the meeting was


really a series of community meetings with local council and


members of the community, reflecting on the verdict. As you will have


seen and heard yesterday, many close to the family were communicating in


a powerful way, but also looking forward to hopefully a peaceful


vigil at the weekend, but also to broader police relations in the


constituency and beyond. Where will the vigil be, and who will be part


of it? That is still being determined. It is the intention of


the Duggan family to have a peaceful vigil. That will take place this


weekend. I suspect it will be, in the normal way in my constituency,


outside the police station. It is a moment in which members of the


community are able to reflect on the loss of life of Mark Duggan. But the


family will also be able to convey their feelings about where they find


themselves at this moment. For them, this is not the end of the


process. There is an Independent Police Complaints Commission enquiry


that has yet to report, so this story continues for them. But you


seem to have some doubts about the ability of the IPCC to get to the


bottom of this? It is not just me that has doubts. The Home Secretary


has doubts about that a black body. The Independent Police Complaints


Commission is a body that, across the political spectrum, there is


concern about its strength, its resources, its ability to command


the respect of officers and actually to be able to interview officers. In


this case, the officers did not give interviews. This investigation has


been going on for two and a half years. And with reason is not


attached to the Mark Duggan case, Andrew Mitchell, a former Cabinet


office the list, has expressed concerns. It full is the -- it falls


to the to look at questions the jury raised, and also questions that came


out of the inquest itself, and to come back to the public in the


coming weeks. In many people's mines, the police still have


questions to answer. It looks as if there are some contradictions in


what they have been saying. Are you not in danger of making a hero or a


national figure out of someone who was clearly a pretty nasty


gangster? Look, it is not for me, as an elected official, to determine


the rights or wrong is of a particular individual. That is for a


jury and our prosecution services. But are you in any doubt that he was


a gangster? I know what the jury said. It is your constituency and


you say you are close to the family. Are you in any doubt that he


was a gangster of whom people were terrified? Andrew, I have not come


on this show to start calling people gangsters, particularly when they


don't have significant criminal records. Mark Duggan had a small


criminal record for possession of marijuana, and that was it. So I


recognise that others have portrayed him as such. His family said he was


not an angel. But the truth is that there are many young men in


inner-city areas that reach the age of 29, have small criminal records,


but he had no record for violence, gun possession and other things. But


yes, operation Trident have said he was absolutely on their list. They


were watching him, and certain things came out of the inquest.


You were bursting to get in with something. I wanted to ask David


Lammy something. David, why is it that the natural place for a


peaceful vigil is outside a police station? That seems to be the


natural place for a demonstration. At a vigil may be churches and so


forth. That does not seem to be the natural place for a vigil. That is a


good point. It is a matter for discussion over the next 24-hour. --


24 hours. What has happened in Tottenham is that there have been


four deaths at the hands of the police in as many decades, each


decade of my life. This goes back to just before the Broadwater farm


riots. Roger Sylvester in the late 90s and now Mark Duggan. For those


reasons, protest outside the police station is something that has been


an established norm. Of course, in many respects, there are broader


issues here in terms of police relations, and if that protest is to


happen, I would like some of it to be in central London outside


Scotland Yard and not entirely directed at my constituency. The


vast number of people in Tottenham want to support this family. They


certainly don't want to see violence, and the family have


reiterated that there can be no violence at attached to the name of


Mark Duggan. Now to something different, our


daily quiz. The question for today is what new TV programme has been a


leader Nick Griffin launched on his party's website? Is it his own


fitness and work-out DVD? A cookery programme? And interior design show


or a money advice service? At the end of the show, Giles has the


privilege of giving us the correct and soft. -- the correct answer.


Hasn't he just gone bankrupt? So a money advice service? I am just


guessing. Apparently, you don't need to step


down from the European Parliament if you are bankrupt, whereas you do


across the road. Now, at this stage, I should have a bit of paper in my


hand, but I left it in the newsroom. Anyway, you know that in addition to


the plastic licences we get for driving, you still have to have some


back-up paper, even though we now have photographic licences. If you


want to rent a car when you go abroad, you need one. As soon, the


paper part of the driving licence will not be needed. They are going


to go away. It is part of the government drive to put more stuff


online. They say it will save money. Yes, the government is committed to


making the UK the most digital government in the G8 by 2015. Today


Cabinet office minister Francis Maude is unveiling lands to make


that a reality. Today's announcement is over the abolition of paper


driver licenses. But by 2015, the new system will be supporting


student loan applications, people registering to vote and tax


self-assessment is. The government says that on average, an online


service is 50 times cheaper than face-to-face transactions. According


to Francis Maude, tackling the waste in IT spending will save at least


?500 million this year. But of course, it is not all plain sailing.


The government's universal credit project, which is meant to


consolidate all working age benefits into one payment, has been troubled


by serious IT problems. This has led to the write-off of ?40 million and


led to the Cabinet office minister Francis Maude sending in


troubleshooters to get the project back on track. And there have been


leaked reports that there have been disagreements between the work on


pension secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Francis Maude over the way the


project is managed. I am joined now by Bryan Glick, editor in chief of


Computer Weekly. Government IT has been seen as a disaster. Why is


that? It comes down to the fact that the disasters we hear about are very


big projects and they are large politically driven initiatives and


because they try to deliver a promise of a politician, it is not


like a business with the Chief Executive says, let us slip that for


six months, but in politics you get attacked for that. It is that


physical pressure along with the sheer scale of what they try to


achieve. Universal Credit, was not to be? And the timescale to short?


-- too short? It certainly seems that has come back to bite them in a


rather nasty way since. The sad thing about Universal Credit is that


they chose to pursue initially some of the older ways of doing things


that had previously been criticised and they have not learned lessons


from past mistakes. There is a new breed of people within government,


led by Francis Maude, who believe it is better to do things differently.


Is this achievable? This project? It is certainly achievable at some


point and they shall be able to deliver that. Deliver software that


does what it is wanted to do. But not in the timescales overpromised


and to the budget they have committed to. Once this mod is


committed to making the UK the best in the G8. How good are we? Looking


across the G8, he would not about anyone to say, they are particularly


good. If you want to be the best, it is not a project really difficult


race to win! But over the last couple of years, this new digital


service that Francis Maude is responsible for has made some


significant progress and has done good work. Can they say the money


that Francis Maude is talking about? ?500 million every year? It costs a


lot of money to do a face-to-face transaction in public service and it


costs less to do that by telephone and a lot less online. If you can


take services that are done predominantly face-to-face or on


telephone and get them done over the internet, it will cost less money.


Thank you. Andrew? With us now is the man in charge - Francis Maude,


the Cabinet Office Minister. The Bill Gates of the Coalition


Government! How will look -- will be measure success in becoming the most


digital government by next year? There are independent rankings done


by outside bodies and we did not rank particularly high on that.


Estonia, remarkably, always comes up at the top. They are not in the G8


and that is a fair point. But the competition is not fierce. But that


word, by word for disaster, and repetition is shockingly bad and we


spend more per capita on IT in any other country with the exception of


Sweden and Switzerland. And you must include the cost of a certain


laboratory. That is a rather unusual piece of equipment. We were spending


a lot and were ranked fairly low. Now, we are rising but there have


not been recent rankings. But this is about how many transition --


transactions get done. We have good applications but they are not well


used. If you can get 20 percentage people to use an application, you


should be able to get up to 80% quickly and government applications


get stuck at 50% and a lot of that is the transaction failing so you


get huge numbers of enquiries by phone and people having to do things


face-to-face or by post, which is not the way most people want to do


this. Some people do but you want the individual attention to be


focused on the people who cannot operate online rather than on the


majority of people who want to do things quickly and conveniently at a


time of their own choosing. I have my prop! There are a lot of


endorsements on this! Is that yours? ! Quite clean! You must get rid of


this? That is a consequence. We will not need tax discs in the future


because that is a relic of the past. The police can now pick you up


on number recognition? And with the paper counterpart, you don't need to


have that any more because everyone has... And insurance companies and


companies for car hire have access to that online and one consequence


will be that insurance premiums should come down for honest drivers,


which is the majority, and it is reckoned that remains will drop by


?15 every year. Not huge but a little bit. Better than nothing.


When we think of government and digital, we think of the Williams


spent on the NHS patient records. And electronic borders. And we have


seen you willing your chaps out of the project to deliver Universal


Credit? There are only a dozen of our people on that. And the


intention of these projects always is that we do not expect central


government to be there forever, we are there to give support and build


the team. MoJ, for example, that team is 65. We help them recruit and


all of that. But the programme of building the digital online


applications has to be done within the Department. Is your team saying


everything is OK at the Department for Work and Pensions? There are two


projects over their because there was the original Pathfinder which


has run into big problems. Iain Duncan Smith spotted the problems


earlier on and commissioned a review more than two years ago, and that


highlighted to the officials in the Department... What are your people


saying I? They have come out. Or they saying, it is fine? It has been


done in a way that is agreed with the digital leader in the


Department, who is strongly supported by our digital


infrastructure. Relations are very good. I am a strong supporter of


what Iain Duncan Smith is doing and Universal Credit is an exceptionally


powerful visionary policy and I am confident it is capable of being


implement it. The Guardian said that Mr Maude and his team fell out with


Mr Duncan Smith's that is simply incorrect. The Guardian got it


wrong? It is impossible to conceive such a thing! But we have worked


very closely together. We got involved with this project less than


one year ago at Ian's request because there was a real problem


going wrong and could we help? We put people in but it was always on


an interim basis, we had our most experienced project manager in


government on a temporary basis and he gripped that and reset everything


and we have been given commercial support because of problems in the


relationships with suppliers and be put in a digital team, so it was


always meant... We hope it shall work out well. There are two


projects. You would not hope it works out badly! Nobody has any


doubt that the digital solution that the team in Victoria Street, which


is predominantly Work and Pensions, are working on a prototype in three


months at a cost of just over ?1 million. Will it be all right? We


hope so. There is no certainty in these things. I think the gentleman


from Computer Weekly was right. One of the problems is we have set


deadlines and we feel locked into those and other organisations, you


would give yourself more fixable itty and everything we do in


government is incredibly public and one of the problems with the Oldroyd


of doing things, which are referred to, is that politicians and advisers


and officials produce a policy and gets handed off to someone to


implement and what has happened in the past easy draw up a huge amount


of money and specifications, going through lengthy procurement and give


that to a big firm to develop and two years later it comes back and


does not work. That is wrong, the way we do things now is very much


more interactive and you develop and test it all the time with users, it


has to be driven by user needs and it is a completely different


approach. We shall see. What is your take? I am quite grumpy about this.


But about the money that is wasted but about moving away from


face-to-face. I quite like the fact that so many of these things are


done face-to-face and so many interactions have become


depersonalised and it was rotating phrase is unexpected item in bagging


area. -- the most irritating. You get terribly frustrated. The idea


that we are moving online, with nobody to shout out! And for the


elderly, people without computers have to go to libraries, if there is


a library that has not been shot down near you. I can sense you


getting angry. But the point is at the moment have enormous numbers of


telephone calls and only driver licenses, there are 1 million


enquiries every year, most by phone, and most are quite unnecessary and


people don't want to do that. For most people, they want to do this


quickly and conveniently and it is a chore that has to be done. What you


need is the focus of the face-to-face contact centres


available for those who need it but not actually spread... People who


really need that RNA queue of people who do not. -- who need that are in


a queue. Thank you both. When the Occupy movement set up camp outside


St Paul's Cathedral towards the end of 2011, it did more than mount a


four-month protest against global capitalism, it provoked a series of


rows and resignations not least that of our guest of the day who was


senior member of the cathedral's clergy. But for all the turmoil,


some argue the episode actually did the Church of England some good and


provoked a passionate, if sometimes painful, debate about its role and


ability to speak on social, moral and financial issues. David Thompson


reports. St Paul's Cathedral. For some, the interface between God and


man. Two years ago, conflict came to its front door. They Occupy movement


was meant to bring a campaign against greed and inequality


straight to the spiritual heart of London. It's true the world 's media


to the steps and led to high-profile resignations at the church. The


protest began on October the 15th 2011. Around 3000 people gathered


outside the London Stock Exchange with a view to occupying it. And it


failed they moved to Saint Pauls. Within days, with an 100 tents were


set up and the cathedral had a crisis. It was visibly shocked when


Ocuupy turned up. You could see that on the face of the bishop and the


clergy. They did not know how to respond to this. Those built of


human flesh to back at first it remained open but citing health and


safety, it closed one week later and 13 days after the protest began the


cathedral took legal action to give it the protesters. But that came at


a price. The decision to evict the protesters had the backing of the


city. But the consequences were not good for Saint Pauls in the


short-term. The cause of the number of resignations. Giles Fraser, the


Dean and others. The protest came to an end on February 20, 2012, when


police moved tents and activists. It had lasted more than four months.


But what long-term impact did it have on the wider church? The


protest might even have influenced the decision for Justin Welby to be


Archbishop. He came from the world of the city, he had massive


experience in finance and through the oil industry. But he also has


this very strong ability to speak on issues of poverty, so he is a man


who can bridge those worlds. The protest was worthwhile and we still


can seek repercussions are broad and here and we have seen long-term


change in the church in the church and the right action. And the people


did that I'd have free will, they wanted to. They thought it was


worthwhile. Shaking up a church every now and again is no bad


thing. Very few months, it was the centre of a noisy and sometimes


painful debate about the role of the church in a capitalist society. Two


years later, its effects are still being felt. So what should be the


real role of the church in the social and political life of the


country? Joining Giles Fraser to discuss that


is the Conservative MP and committed Christian, Steve Baker. Giles


Fraser, since the Occupy protests, you have been a critic of the


government. Is that the right thing for Anglican cleric to be doing? It


is not the government, per se. As a Christian clergyman, I feel that the


gospel calls us to preach in a way that is particularly good news to


the poor. This government has not necessarily been good news to the


poor, and that is something we can debate, but it is not a party


political issue. I am happy to criticise any government that is not


good news to the poor. It is not a party political thing. The idea that


the Church should stay out of politics is one of those cliches.


Tell that to Desmond Tutu. It is absurd. It is a diminished sense of


what constitutes politics if you think that. Let me welcome our


viewers in Scotland who have watching First Minister's Questions.


We are talking about the role of the Church and St Paul's cathedral since


the protests a few years ago. Why shouldn't the church criticise


something that they feel affects their constituents? The church


should do what Jesus did. Jesus was born King of the Jews and died King


of the Jews. He was a born politician. He said a lot of things


which disrupted society. But what is surprising about Jesus is that he


rejected the use of practical politics to force things. So the


question for the church is, what kind of politics do you want to make


relevant? What frustrates me is that there we are, a church which follows


Jesus, the servant King, and he avoided the use of political power,


against all expectations. So I think the church should be preaching


freedom and virtue and love for your neighbour, but not Kenzie and


economics and an extension of political power. Giles was talking


about championing the rights of the poor. He feels that some government


policies have not helped the poor. Steve, you you are a member of the


Christian conservative fellowship. You see the church should stay out


of politics. Here is the mission -2 bad prayer is the foundation of all


our activity, to seek Kristian to support the Conservatives. You are


politicising religion heavily, so don't put that on me. I did not see


the church should stay out of politics, I said the church thing


about what Jesus did in politics. You should be speaking for society


in the way Jesus did, which was to witness personal service and love,


not to reach for political power and coerce people. Are you saying that


because it is the politics you don't agree with? If Giles was supporting


conservative policy, you would not be criticising him. What I am


critical of is the wrong kinds of all attacks to serve the poor.


Wallace six you don't agree with! This is one of the unfortunate thing


is about the Bible and why the law should never be justified on the


grounds of faith. You have to keep faith out of legislation. The Bible


can be used to justify more or less anything, from anarchic hominis on


the one hand to a profound conservative on the other. I am an


old-fashioned liberal, so when I look at Galatians, the law is a


schoolmaster. I think the church should be preaching what Jesus said,


which is liberty and virtue and love for our neighbour. I am glad you


think that in one sense, you should separate the church from politics.


Presumably you are in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of


England. I am. I was baptised into the Church of England, but I am now


a Baptist, so I am happy to leave those issues to the Church of


England. I would be very happy to see the Church of England


disestablished, but I'm not about to start campaigning for it. We have


had enough nonsense about the House of Lords. You can see the


difficulties it creates for the Church of England over, for example,


women bishops. They have to play out that drama in public when actually,


it is a faith matter. You are presiding over a divided community.


The in your former role, you are presiding over a divided community


on those issues. The Church of England was invented as a board


church. We invented the big tent, Tony Blair didn't. We have all sorts


of people. That is what we want. There are not many people in the


10th these days. I don't know what tent you go to, but come to see me


sometime! Let's go back to the protests. With hindsight, do you


think the church got itself into a mess over it? Yes. I think the


church had ignored the idea of social and economic justice.


Economic justice is the number-1 moral issue in the Bible. I think


there was not enough talk about money and the morality of finance


and so forth. I think the church was fingers and thumbs when the


financial crisis hit. Part of what happened at St Paul's Cathedral was


what led us to having Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury. And is


he getting the politics right as well as the faith? He is doing a


good job, yes. Does he bridged the two worlds? It is not about reaching


the two worlds -- bridging them . It is Christianity trying to speak out


of its own truth. And would you like people like Giles to not say a word?


No, it is important that Giles is part of a spectrum of debate. But


for me, and understanding of the Bible justifies an old-fashioned


liberalism which is about freedom and institutions and eliminating the


moral hands at from the banking system which the state put there. We


should have a free society where people have responsibility for the


consequences of their actions. I don't remember anything about the


banking system in Bible classes. Or whether they had a view on


quantitative easing or not. Anyway, in the past, the shadow chancellor,


Ed Balls, has not been a fan of Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg. This was what


he said about him in September 2012.


I am not thinking to myself, I want a coalition for the future. I want a


Labour majority government in 2015. But right now, I want this and


people who put the country first and are sensible. Yesterday in an


interview with the new statesman, Ed Balls changed his tune, suggesting


that the Deputy Prime Minister was a man he could work with, saying" I


can disagree with Nick Clegg on some of the things he did, but I have no


reason to doubt his integrity". No lag responded on Twitter simply with


the words "Ed Balls". Ed Balls responded" I agree with Nick" .


Isn't that nice? We are joined now by the political editor of the New


Statesman, Rafael Behr. What is Mr Balls up to? It is a good question.


The interpretation from the Liberal Democrat side is that Ed Balls has


understood that it is still difficult for Labour to win a


majority at the next election. Labour have underestimated Nick


Clegg. They thought he would be toast by now. He is still there. He


might hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament, and there will be


coalition negotiations. Ed Balls has to demonstrate that he is capable of


doing business with everyone. This was an act of Rand decontamination


on his part, saying, I am not the angry trouble person you thought I


was. We might be able to get along. Was he speaking to the New Statesman


as an individual on this, or was there a decision in the Miliband


office? The relationship between the Miliband office and the Ed Balls


office is always complex. They communicate, but I don't think it


would be fair to say they always speak as one. There has been a broad


change in that own the Labour Party has adopted would the Lib Dems, as


they have realised that Nick Clegg is not the sort of zombie that they


can be had with one that of their wrist as the next election


approaches. He will be there, and he might want to be Deputy Prime


Minister under a Labour government. Ed Balls in particular has been


feeling isolated recently. He did not have a great end of the year.


People feel he has not been popular. He needs to show he is a figure that


is not just the angry man on the front bench of the Labour Party,


flapping his arms and shouting. Is there a lot of talk in the Labour


high command that "we might not get an overall majority" ? They have to


be careful about this. The official quote you will always get is that


they want to win. I can't even a hint of a signal plan for coalition


negotiations out. They know that in the run-up to 2010, they made a


mistake in not thinking about the fact that there might be coalition


negotiations. And they discovered that the Lib Dems and Tories been


thinking about it very hard privately. I would be surprised if,


very privately, there was not serious discussion close to Ed


Miliband about what that would involve. That is why Labour now


support a mansion tax, the Lib Dem policy. They are thinking about what


is compatible with a Lib Dem platform, but you will never hear


them say that. Fascinating. Now, should it be illegal to be


annoying? You might think it sounds like a good idea. I can think of a


few people! But could buskers, carol singers or even, dare I say it,


political interview fall foul of the law? Well, members of the House of


Lords were an annoyance to the government last night when they


defeated the plans to make causing nuisance and annoyance a criminal


offence. Here is what peers had to say about it. Nuisance or annoyance


cannot, I would maintain, and should not be applied to the countryside,


the public park, to shopping mall is, sports grounds, the high


street, Parliament Square, speakers Corner and so on. Because that risks


it being used against any of us and against anyone in society. It risks


being used for those who seek to protest peacefully, noisy children


in the street, street preachers, canvassers, carol singers, trick or


treat is, church bell ringers, clay pigeon shooters, nudists. And yes,


they also have raised objections with me. If people feel threatened


and their lives are badly impinged upon, that is what the government is


trying to prevent by this Bill. I don't want to downplay the impact of


some bad behaviour on a lot of people. I want to take you back to


1970s Soho, where as a young constable, I was patrolling with a


much more streetwise officer, when we were approached by a large


Westminster councillor who was objecting to people handing out


leaflets about rent rises. He said he was really annoyed by this. And


the officer I was with said "well, sir, my aunt Mabel is annoying, but


I'm not going to let anybody arrest her for just being annoying" .


With us now is the Home Office minister Norman Baker. It is an


embarrassing defeat for the legislation, isn't it? Are you going


to accept the wedding that was suggested, harassment, alarm and


distress rather than nuisance or annoyance? It is certainly


disappointing and I despair, having heard some of those comments. They


are misinformed. It is not a criminal offence that is being


proposed, it is a civil matter. There are tests of reasonableness


put in to make sure we don't have aunt Mabel being arrested. But they


are not convinced. That sounds as if the government has not done its job


properly. Someone from the Lib Dems said these laws would be used to


stamp out a plurality, to pursue children for the crime of being


young and together in a public gaze. They can't be used for that. There


are safe guards in place with our reasonableness test. They have to go


to the courts to uphold any application. There are amendments in


the Bill which I have put down with my colleagues which specifically


protect political protest. This is not the end of civilisation. But


they think it is. Nuisance and annoyance is a very elastic term.


One person's nuisance, you must accept, would be another person's


exuberance. Yes, but that is constrained by the test which are in


there. It has to be just and reasonable. Then why change the


wording in the first place? Because we are moving away from Labour's


failed ASBO process, where people continually reoffend, despite the


ASBO being given to them. We are moving to a civil standard which is


better in terms of not criminalising young people. We want to deal with


that and anti-social behaviour. It is silly for this to be built around


words like annoyance and nuisance. This is the wrong part of the


dictionary. These are words that we cannot make subject to any


legislative stuff, and we shall keep on hearing about this, about aunt


Mabel, and unless you make something more, this is silly. Let me stress,


it is not a criminal offence for introducing this and this is an


injunction they would have to grant. The fact that carol singers could be


stopped is nonsense. They would be five miles down the road. What could


happen? If you breach a subsequent order, that is a different problem.


If somebody says the government is planning to kill every 10th child,


the assumption is that the worst possible interpretation is the one


the government is putting forward. But you will look at changing the


wording? The House of Lords have spoken and we must look at that.


Will that satisfy you? Yes, they need to look at this again and they


need to change it and get rid of these silly words. We want a society


in which people have the right to be annoying. I absolutely degree, no


dispute. Then you must change the words. This does not do what you


think it does. People should be allowed to be awkward and cause a


nuisance by exercising their credit right. Some people do not like


Morris dancers. But others might. As a Lib Dem, there will be many who


will say, do you not feel uncomfortable about championing


legislation around this framework? Anti-social behaviour was a big


problem and no one doubts that this should be looked at but are you


comfortable championing this in this way? I am because it does not do


what opponents say it does and the did say that, I would not supported.


But I am very happy to look at the wording and we shall analyse this in


detail. But there is no intention from either side of the government


to do anything to limit civil liberties. This is to stop


anti-social behaviour. What is your response to what the Mark Duggan


family is calling for? We have had a verdict from injury and we need to


be careful in terms of civil liberties and the IPCC is carrying


on with its investigations and that is a proper course of action and it


is right that Mr Duggan's and said she wants to pursue this through


proper channels rather than any other means. That is the correct


response. Thank you very much. Can I clarify? Is a government policy to


kill every 10th child? ! Know, every fifth child! At least we cleared


that up! One answer to the population explosion! I am glad you


were listening! The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee


met today and, surprise, surprise, they're sticking to a historically


low interest rate of 0.5%. But should rates rise soon? Joining me


to discuss the pros and cons of an interest rate rise is Nigel Mills


from the North East Entrepreneur's Forum, who is against a rate rise,


and Andrew Lilico from the Institute of Economic Affairs, who is in


favour. The initial circumstances that justify that has passed and we


should seek to normalise levels to around to present at the earliest


opportunity. The Bank of England has missed really as opportunities to do


that when growth was picking up but with a more sustained growth it


should be taking that chance. One problem with rates being so


extraordinarily low is if anything further goes wrong, there is no


scope to act so we should seek to have some normalisation, but going


back to 5% something overnight but raising a little bit night and


taking this chance. What do you say? Interest rates should stay where


they are, the recovery is extremely fragile and people are dependent on


no interest rates to be able to afford mortgages and businesses


depend on them to be able to pay their loans and in the absence of


any sustained growth period and the absence of wages inflation, which is


1.1%, I do not see any point in raising interest rates and pouring


cold water on the economy at this stage. Isn't an argument that the


recovery is only just getting underway and it looks like it shall


be quite strong this year but there is still a lot of zombie companies


out there and if they had to pay more to service the debt, they could


be in trouble and lots of people with mortgages could be in trouble


as well. Why rush into this? It would be helpful to liquidate some


of those companies because they are tying up capital and workers could


be used in more productive activities and it slows growth the


medium term. Furthermore, adding such low interest rates is liable to


mean that as a recovery occurs, a number of businesses take on unwise


loans in order to fund non-viable projects so it would be better to


take the opportunity to make things a little to eliminate the most


egregious examples of zombie companies and nobody is talking


about rates becoming unsupportive, we still want loose monetary but


this is just to move away from the emergency levels from 2009. That is


the point, the emergency is over and we wait to see the strength of the


recovery but the crisis has gone both here and in the Eurozone? Not


.5% is a huge historical anomaly? They will have to rise? Interest


rates will have to rise in terribly, inevitably, but a long


time in the future. The UK economy operates not independently but as


part of the world economy and when you have lower interest rates in


America, record rates in Europe, those economies slowly recover as


well. Why would we put the British economy at a huge disadvantage are


advocating an interest rate rise now before the recovery has retaken hold


and before the benefits of that recovery have been felt? We are only


talking about the minister to freight by the Bank of England but


the markets a body spoken? -- administrative rate. Bonds will


likely rise more and that is a return to normality and the basis


upon which many companies will borrow, on 3% and this is happening,


you are getting the rates rise? And I am pleased by that and I think the


Bank of England is behind that curve. As illustrated by the broader


yields. Does it matter if it is behind the curve? Because one of the


dangers that we can see is once we get into recovery, the enormous


amount of printing gets leveraged as Hanks look healthier and they are


more willing to lend and we have had a strong recovery over the past year


with bank lending continuing to contract and that started to rise,


we could see a rise in broad money that was difficult to control which


might lead into an unsustainable and one of the key things is to act


early. It is a mistake to wait until everything looks like it is


completely sweet because by then, you might be too late to act to


prevent the next crisis. We shall have to leave it there. Thank you.


If success in leadership is measured by how badly your organisation does


after you leave then if there were any doubts about Alex Ferguson's


credentials, then Manchester United's losing streak since he


stood down have perhaps confirmed his brilliance. And with Fergie at a


loose end, where should he direct his energies next? Well, one Labour


MP has written to Ed Miliband urging him to call on the Labour supporter


and donor's talents in the run-up to next year's general election. You


were a left winger playing football? ! I was not a great footballer? My


brother was a goalkeeper. Fascinating insight into the talents


of Ed Miliband! We're joined now by the Labour MP John Mann and Michael


Crick, who has written a biography of Alex Ferguson. Y Alex Ferguson?


What can he do for the Labour Party? Leadership. He is a proven leader, a


proven winner, and if he was to use his test on all of our policies,


that would root out ones that will not actually persuade the British


people. He would be a big asset to shake things up. Is it because Ed


Miliband is not providing leadership or there is not enough morale? We


always need a better cutting edge and I think Sir Alex Ferguson could


give that. And make sure the entire Cabinet is performing as a team.


They are not gelling together? They can always improve and to win this


election, that kind of leadership at the top and that kind of advice


would be very valuable indeed. I am sure Ed Miliband is considering this


and I am sure that Sir Alex will be called upon. Would the chemistry


work? It would be perfect because what leaders need, to become Prime


Minister, Ed Miliband has to surround himself by people not


liking. It is what Tony Blair did, Campbell, Mandelson. Alex Ferguson


is not like Ed Miliband. They are poles apart. Is this a brilliant


idea? You have kept a straight face! I am absolutely amazed! This is a


joke? ! No, it is not! I am a Chelsea fan. Do you believe football


managers could help? This is nonsense but there was a load of


divisiveness that surrounds Sir Alex Ferguson, people think he is a


bully. He is a great leader? You will not push me on that, I am blue


to the core. There is no way that micro-you might be read in


politics... That is part of the problem politics has. Abraham


Lincoln brought his enemies into the camp and I am saying to Ed Miliband,


who is a Leeds fan, bring our archenemy, Sir Alex Ferguson, in,


let his skills work. There is a move to draft Sir Alex Ferguson into the


no campaign for Scottish independence. There's just time


before we go to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: What


new TV programme has BNP leader Nick Griffin launched on his party's


website? His own fitness and work-out DVD? A cookery programme?


An interior design show? Or a money advice service? What's the correct


answer? I do not know! A cookery programme. In case you're not a


regular viewer of BNP TV, here are the not-so-subtle political messages


that Mr Griffin managed to shoehorn into his show: Look at this that


micro-2 carrots, some sweet. You cannot have too much sweet, unless


you are good. English cookery was the best in for centuries. Very


advanced, great mixture of spices. It became very simple after the


Hanoverian skim over from Germany and they had a very bland form of


cookery. Don't let people tell you you must have huge drummers of


immigrants to have good cooking. We have Mexican and Italian restaurants


not far from here. No worries for Nigella Lawson! That's all for


today. I am back at 11:35pm tonight. Katie Hopkins joins me. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles