:00:42. > :00:46.Afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. No one ever said it was
:00:47. > :00:49.easy being a party leader but has Nick Clegg got himself in a pickle
:00:50. > :00:52.over this man. Lord Rennard is refusing to apologise to women who
:00:53. > :00:56.claim they were sexually harassed by him. He says he's done nothing wrong
:00:57. > :00:59.and intends to take his seat in the Lords. Stepping up the war over
:01:00. > :01:03.welfare. Labour announce that benefit claimants will be forced to
:01:04. > :01:09.sit a test showing they can read, write and do maths in order to claim
:01:10. > :01:12.payments. Were scenes like these the result of the Government's decision
:01:13. > :01:17.to legalise gay marriage? The UKIP councillor who thinks so has been
:01:18. > :01:21.suspended from the party. And everyone says they want an end to
:01:22. > :01:24.Punch and Judy politics, but do we secretly love it? We'll be talking
:01:25. > :01:33.about taking the yah-boo out of Westminster.
:01:34. > :01:37.And with us for the duration are three whippersnappers, just cutting
:01:38. > :01:41.their teeth on the Westminster scene. Former Welsh Secretary,
:01:42. > :01:44.Cheryl Gillan. Former Culture Secretary, Labour's Tessa Jowell and
:01:45. > :01:49.former Liberal Democrat Leader, Menzies Campbell. Welcome to you
:01:50. > :01:54.all. First today, let's talk about immigration. Two senior Government
:01:55. > :01:57.ministers have announced that new migrants from the EU will not be
:01:58. > :02:02.entitled to housing benefit, if they already claim jobseeker's allowance.
:02:03. > :02:05.The Home Secretary, Theresa May, and the Work and Pensions Secretary,
:02:06. > :02:08.Iain Duncan Smith, also say that those who lose their jobs and get
:02:09. > :02:17.out-of-work payments will only receive housing benefit for a
:02:18. > :02:22.maximum of six months. Should jobless migrants be denied housing
:02:23. > :02:27.benefit? This is almost exactly what Nick Clegg said almost the other
:02:28. > :02:30.day. It's an assumption that in every other country, member of the
:02:31. > :02:36.European Union, people get unlimited access to benefits. The fact is
:02:37. > :02:39.rather different. In Holland, there are quite restrictive conditions. I
:02:40. > :02:43.think it is perfectly reasonable to say you don't get benefits as soon
:02:44. > :02:49.as you arrive, you don't get them without any strings and they don't
:02:50. > :02:56.go on with -- without a limited time. These principles were flagged
:02:57. > :03:00.up by Nick Clegg some time ago. Are these announcements new, or are they
:03:01. > :03:06.just restating what already exists? Bitter restatement of the principles
:03:07. > :03:10.that Nick Clegg set out. If EU migrants get jobs, they can't claim
:03:11. > :03:14.housing benefit for six months. Do you think that is right, even if
:03:15. > :03:18.they are contributing and paying taxes? I don't think that is
:03:19. > :03:22.unreasonable. You want to be satisfied that people are here in
:03:23. > :03:29.the long term. That they are not floating in and out in order to try
:03:30. > :03:33.and take advantage of the benefits system. It is important to remember
:03:34. > :03:38.that although there is a universal right of movement, there is no
:03:39. > :03:42.universal right of benefits. The universal right of movement, David
:03:43. > :03:47.Cameron wants to limit that. Is that wise? What we've done today with
:03:48. > :03:50.this announcement and what Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May have
:03:51. > :03:54.done today is reaffirm what we've been doing as conservatives, which
:03:55. > :03:57.is to take back control of our welfare and benefit system. I think
:03:58. > :04:02.most reasonable people think that should happen. Menzies said it
:04:03. > :04:06.already existed and other countries were doing it. We needed to take
:04:07. > :04:09.control because there's no doubt that after the last Labour
:04:10. > :04:12.government, there was this feeling that our welfare and benefit system
:04:13. > :04:17.had got out of control and aggression had got out of control.
:04:18. > :04:20.I've not done the sums. It's not just a question of how much
:04:21. > :04:24.ultimately it will save inexact monetary terms, but it's also about
:04:25. > :04:36.making sure that we are in command and in charge of our own destinies
:04:37. > :04:38.and borders in this country, despite being members the European Union. Do
:04:39. > :04:41.you back the idea of David Cameron's, which is to limit the
:04:42. > :04:44.free movement of people or have a cap on the numbers? I want people
:04:45. > :04:47.coming here to work. I want a rich and vibrant employment seen here. I
:04:48. > :04:51.think we need to be careful people do not come here to do other than
:04:52. > :04:57.work, and that is what we want to see. I think that's common across
:04:58. > :05:02.all parties. Do you agree that Britain shouldn't be seen a magnet
:05:03. > :05:08.to people who want to just use the welfare system? Of course it
:05:09. > :05:12.shouldn't. We should welcome and our economy needs to welcome migrants
:05:13. > :05:18.with skills that contribute to our economy. Really, the point about
:05:19. > :05:21.this particular proposal, and in the time available this morning I've
:05:22. > :05:27.tried to establish with welfare experts what it means in practice,
:05:28. > :05:31.just bear in mind this, 2% of migrants actually claim benefits.
:05:32. > :05:35.The numbers involved in this tiny, and therefore the point that Cheryl
:05:36. > :05:39.is making is probably the main one, which is that this was a bold move
:05:40. > :05:49.by Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May to outbid Rachel Reeve speech. It's
:05:50. > :05:56.electioneering, isn't it? That's completely wrong. From the moment we
:05:57. > :05:59.came in and took office, we have said we need to repair a damaged
:06:00. > :06:09.welfare and benefit system. That's what we've been doing. Come on!
:06:10. > :06:13.Rachel Reeves is trying to catch up with the government. All political
:06:14. > :06:15.parties try to put a shot across the bow is trying to catch up with the
:06:16. > :06:21.government. All political parties try to put a shot across the bowels
:06:22. > :06:25.of anyone... It's almost exactly a restatement of things that have been
:06:26. > :06:32.said before. It is electioneering. The point I wanted to make is this.
:06:33. > :06:35.Remember, the freedom of movement applies to people in Britain who
:06:36. > :06:40.want to go abroad. There are estimates that as many as 1.5
:06:41. > :06:43.million Britons are living and working abroad. If you start
:06:44. > :06:46.restricting people coming into this country, then don't be surprised if
:06:47. > :06:52.there are tit-for-tat responses elsewhere. But even you can't fail
:06:53. > :06:58.to have noticed that Labour is well behind the curve... Save it, leave
:06:59. > :07:02.it for later. Now it's time for our daily quiz. I'm sorry to break the
:07:03. > :07:06.sad news if you haven't heard already, but Tessa and Menzies are
:07:07. > :07:09.standing down at the next election. The rigours of being on Daily
:07:10. > :07:19.Politics panel were proving too much for them. So the question for today
:07:20. > :07:27.is... Which of the following is a career that a former MP hasn't
:07:28. > :07:32.pursued so far? Public relations, trying to fix the Middle East, going
:07:33. > :07:44.into space or stand-up comedy. At the end of the show, our trio will
:07:45. > :07:48.try to give us the correct answer. Lord Rennard's refusal to apologise
:07:49. > :07:52.over allegations of sexual harassment mean he shouldn't be
:07:53. > :07:55.allowed to take up the party whip, according to Nick Clegg. Mr Clegg
:07:56. > :08:00.said that Lord Rennard had caused distress and that an apology was a
:08:01. > :08:03.matter of basic decency. An independent investigation found that
:08:04. > :08:07.there was broadly credible evidence against Lord Rennard, although not
:08:08. > :08:12.enough evidence to begin disciplinary proceedings against
:08:13. > :08:16.him. Lord Rennard has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has
:08:17. > :08:21.refused to apologise. Nick Clegg insisted this morning that his
:08:22. > :08:27.authority was not being undermined. Leadership is partly about direct
:08:28. > :08:31.powers. It is also a process of persuasion and setting up your
:08:32. > :08:34.views. My views are clear, they are strongly held. If you've caused
:08:35. > :08:39.distress to another colleague, and that has been shown to be the case,
:08:40. > :08:44.then the most basic, decent thing you can do is apologise. That is
:08:45. > :08:48.what I believe and what many other people believe as well. That's why I
:08:49. > :08:51.think as long as that apology has not been issued, it wouldn't be
:08:52. > :08:58.right for Lord Rennard to join the group in the House of Lords. Let's
:08:59. > :09:02.talk now to our deputy political editor, James Landale. As it stands,
:09:03. > :09:07.in a couple of hours time Lord Rennard will return to the red
:09:08. > :09:11.benches and won't have apologised. Yes, up to a point. As I walked into
:09:12. > :09:14.the studio, I got a text suggesting there is now some doubt as to
:09:15. > :09:18.whether or not Lord Rennard will come to the House of Lords today.
:09:19. > :09:23.Not because of politics or strategy, but simply because of his health. It
:09:24. > :09:28.is well known that Lord Rennard has diabetes. It is well known that his
:09:29. > :09:32.health has suffered during this entire affair. A decision has been
:09:33. > :09:37.taken as to whether or not he feels up to coming to the House of Lords.
:09:38. > :09:42.And the inevitable Mediaset to and political pressure that would follow
:09:43. > :09:46.that. As of this morning his supporters were expecting him to
:09:47. > :09:52.turn up, come what may. But that is now in some doubt. What about Nick
:09:53. > :09:57.Clegg's authority? Nick Clegg has his hands tied by his internal party
:09:58. > :10:00.structures and the fact that the Lib Dems and the Lord is pretty much
:10:01. > :10:05.come when their own show. He now has two try and show he is taking some
:10:06. > :10:10.kind of decisive action. The problem is it's not an easy option. If he
:10:11. > :10:13.persuades a committee internally to restart some new disciplinary
:10:14. > :10:18.procedures, that then could be used as a pretext by the Lords chiefs to
:10:19. > :10:22.suspend the whip from Lord Rennard. Then two possible consequences of
:10:23. > :10:26.that. One is the possibility of legal action by Lord Rennard, saying
:10:27. > :10:29.that this has been an unfair process. You can't have a new
:10:30. > :10:32.disciplinary procedure just because you didn't like the results of the
:10:33. > :10:37.last one that came out last week. Secondly, there is the possibility
:10:38. > :10:40.this is challenged by the peers themselves. They have a regular
:10:41. > :10:44.meeting on Wednesday, Lord Rennard could appeal against any decisions
:10:45. > :10:48.to suspend him. He could potentially persuade enough peers to overturn
:10:49. > :10:51.Nick Clegg's decision. Not only could Nick Clegg" hugely bruising
:10:52. > :10:55.defeat and damage to his authority, he could also end up with a legal
:10:56. > :11:04.case that could stretch along into the distance, right up to the
:11:05. > :11:07.elections in May. If you talk to the Liberal Democrats on whichever side
:11:08. > :11:12.of this fence they fall, they also -- they all use the word that is a
:11:13. > :11:16.mess. Only the Liberal Democrats have the internal structures which
:11:17. > :11:20.would allow for this process. Most other political parties would have
:11:21. > :11:24.found some excuse to get rid of Lord Rennard, regardless of the rights or
:11:25. > :11:27.wrongs over this. Only in a party as smaller of the Liberal Democrats
:11:28. > :11:32.would Lord Rennard have had such power and influence and such a hold
:11:33. > :11:34.over this party. There's a huge generational division within the
:11:35. > :11:40.Liberal Democrats over this. There's an awful lot of undercurrents. This
:11:41. > :11:45.is a really Liberal Democrat issue, it wouldn't have happened in the
:11:46. > :11:50.other parties. Should Chris Rennard apologise to the women who claim he
:11:51. > :11:54.has harassed them? I speak for myself, I don't speak for the party.
:11:55. > :11:59.Anything I say here is based on what I've been thinking about in the last
:12:00. > :12:05.48 hours. It's interesting we are suffering from a surfeit of
:12:06. > :12:09.democracy. If you put it in rather confrontational terms, there would
:12:10. > :12:15.two sides. The independent investigation found, in relation to
:12:16. > :12:20.the standard of proof, that that hadn't been achieved. But at the
:12:21. > :12:26.same time, the independent investigation said women had been
:12:27. > :12:29.upset. There is a sense we neither one or neither lost. It seems to me
:12:30. > :12:35.therefore that it's not beyond the wit of man or the Liberal Democrats
:12:36. > :12:43.to find a form of words in which Lord Rennard is able to assert the
:12:44. > :12:47.fact that he was found, or in relation to him there was no finding
:12:48. > :12:52.of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but also to say at the same time
:12:53. > :12:56.that if by any chance and in any way inadvertently I have caused distress
:12:57. > :13:01.to anyone, then obviously I regret that very much indeed. At the end of
:13:02. > :13:04.that, part of it should be an apology. No, it will be highly
:13:05. > :13:09.qualified. I don't think you were able to remember the -- able to read
:13:10. > :13:14.the whole of the decision, it was talked about whether there was any
:13:15. > :13:17.intent. It was the absence of intent that the independent investigation
:13:18. > :13:22.found as being crucial. So it's perfectly reasonable for him to say,
:13:23. > :13:27.I had no intention, but if, per chance, I have caused upset, then I
:13:28. > :13:32.regret that very much. I tell you why I say this, and it's because of
:13:33. > :13:36.some of the things that have just been said by James Landale. We
:13:37. > :13:40.cannot allow this to go on and on and on. Should he be allowed to take
:13:41. > :13:45.up his seat in the House of Lords before that qualified apology? It
:13:46. > :13:49.needs two lines drawn under it. Were I advising Lord Rennard, which I'm
:13:50. > :13:56.not, I would have told him not to come today. To get here I came to a
:13:57. > :14:01.forest of photographers and cameras. It has been well known his health
:14:02. > :14:05.has been fragile for some time. If the consequence of these events has
:14:06. > :14:09.been for his health to be damaged, then what ever viewed you take that
:14:10. > :14:13.is obviously something for which one should be entirely sympathetic. But
:14:14. > :14:17.he feels he's done nothing wrong. Therefore, why shouldn't he try and
:14:18. > :14:21.take up his seat in the House of Lords, he seems to have the support
:14:22. > :14:28.of many Lib Dem peers? Are they wrong, too? You must get away from
:14:29. > :14:31.the question of who is wrong and who is right. The fact of the matter is
:14:32. > :14:37.a judgment was issued by the independent investigation saying...
:14:38. > :14:43.No conclusive evidence, but reason for an apology for causing distress.
:14:44. > :14:47.Exactly. It is not beyond the wit of man, this happens in law courts up
:14:48. > :14:51.and down the country every day. People say, I don't admit liability
:14:52. > :14:57.but if as a result of something then I'm willing to say... Will make some
:14:58. > :15:03.kind of apology. Now people really should be thinking about the future
:15:04. > :15:07.of the party, and not about trying to rerun the events. Except that
:15:08. > :15:12.friends of Chris Rennard says he's been through an awful lot. It's been
:15:13. > :15:16.very trying for him and his family. He feels he doesn't want to
:15:17. > :15:21.apologise on any grounds. Rightly or wrongly, that is how they feel. It
:15:22. > :15:28.looks as if, as James Landale said, they could advise him to take legal
:15:29. > :15:31.action, if there is now some sort of disciplinary proceeding about
:15:32. > :15:35.bringing the party into disrepute. Do you think that should go ahead? I
:15:36. > :15:41.believe there's a meeting going on at the moment. We should put these
:15:42. > :15:45.judgments aside. That is a judgment the Lib Dems... No, we've got the
:15:46. > :15:49.judgment of the independent investigation. We are where we are.
:15:50. > :15:53.The question is whether or not that is accepted. And the question is
:15:54. > :16:02.whether or not it can be lamented. On the basis I have suggested, I
:16:03. > :16:09.believe it can. I know him very well, I have worked closely with him
:16:10. > :16:17.for many years. The Liberal Democrats have become his life and
:16:18. > :16:23.his soul. But the party has been his life. And his wife as well, there is
:16:24. > :16:30.a huge affection between him and his wife. I do not know how Tessa feels
:16:31. > :16:34.about this, but aside from how everything Menzies has been saying,
:16:35. > :16:38.I am just speaking as a woman, and as a woman politician, we have
:16:39. > :16:41.enough trouble attracting young people to come into politics, and
:16:42. > :16:46.so, for me, the greatest sadness of this is that this is a story which
:16:47. > :16:49.has gone on and on and on, and continues to leave a nasty taste in
:16:50. > :16:54.the mouth, no matter what the rights or wrongs. I really regret it
:16:55. > :16:58.because it is just another example which can put women off politics.
:16:59. > :17:02.But do you think women have a right to have made this claim in the first
:17:03. > :17:07.place? I think women do have a right to make that kind of claim, as men
:17:08. > :17:12.would in a similar situation. It is not about women or men in that
:17:13. > :17:17.sense. Should he apologise? As far as I am concerned, sorry seems to be
:17:18. > :17:20.the hardest word to say. Menzies has come up with what I would consider
:17:21. > :17:24.to be a diplomatic solution to this. But it is a matter for the Liberal
:17:25. > :17:28.Democrats. Speaking just as a woman, I want more women to come into
:17:29. > :17:32.politics and I think this is yet another story that will put them
:17:33. > :17:35.off. This is about culture and attitudes to some extent in
:17:36. > :17:40.Westminster as a whole, isn't it? I cannot judge the Liberal Democrats
:17:41. > :17:45.culture, but I think it is part of the culture of politics. Menzies
:17:46. > :17:50.Campbell is white, you do not have to sign every last bit of legal
:17:51. > :17:58.exoneration, but what you do say is, if I have caused distress, then I
:17:59. > :18:02.regret that. It is not only Lord Rennard who have been upset by this,
:18:03. > :18:05.and his family, but also the women. This is a phenomenon which happens a
:18:06. > :18:09.lot in politics, the refusal to say sorry, and it is a great pity.
:18:10. > :18:21.Because actually, people watching at home, it makes us seem even more
:18:22. > :18:24.alien. We are going to come back to this later in the programme. Now,
:18:25. > :18:30.what action should you take if a member of your party says this? We
:18:31. > :18:35.have done many things over the years which have caused problems. One, for
:18:36. > :18:39.example, is the abortion laws, in which something like 6 million
:18:40. > :18:42.children, as many as the people killed by the Nazis in the death
:18:43. > :18:48.camps, have been killed as a result of the abortion laws. Now, the
:18:49. > :18:55.latest in this process is these homosexual laws, and I believe that
:18:56. > :18:59.the Prime Minister, who was warned that disasters would follow if he
:19:00. > :19:07.went in this direction, he has persisted, and I believe that this
:19:08. > :19:14.is largely a repercussion from this godlessness which he has persisted
:19:15. > :19:17.in. Well, the councillor concerned, David Silvester of UKIP, was
:19:18. > :19:22.suspended from the party last night. We are joined now by the UKIP
:19:23. > :19:27.spokesman Peter Reeve. At first, Cheryl Gillian, was it right for
:19:28. > :19:30.UKIP to suspend him? It is a matter for the party, but I think most
:19:31. > :19:34.normal people, listening to what we have just heard, and certainly
:19:35. > :19:39.members of the Major Roger: Office, came to recognise the connection
:19:40. > :19:43.between people's sexuality and legislation and the weather patterns
:19:44. > :19:49.in this country! -- of the meteorological office. You thought
:19:50. > :19:53.the attitudes were ridiculous?! You can tell, by my reply, that I think
:19:54. > :19:57.most normal people in this country would feel that this gentleman was
:19:58. > :20:03.expressing some very deeply held, personal views. Except, it was not
:20:04. > :20:09.that long ago that he was in your party. Should you have done more?
:20:10. > :20:14.Well, all parties have people with strange views within them, as I am
:20:15. > :20:19.sure my colleagues will agree. But it is a matter for UKIP as to
:20:20. > :20:22.whether they suspend him. I do not believe he expressed those views in
:20:23. > :20:28.those terms whilst he was a member of the Conservative Party. But no
:20:29. > :20:32.doubt he still held them. I do not know this gentleman personally, so I
:20:33. > :20:36.have not had the opportunity to discuss the weather with him
:20:37. > :20:43.recently. There was a very good tweet from someone who said, it is
:20:44. > :20:46.the hot air coming from UKIP! Lets see what Nigel Farage had to say,
:20:47. > :20:52.the leader of the party... Shall we just get a sense of perspective?
:20:53. > :20:57.This is somebody I had never even heard of, not even a district
:20:58. > :21:00.councillor, a town councillor, in a small town in Oxfordshire, who
:21:01. > :21:03.defected to us from the Conservative Party. This is not the party
:21:04. > :21:07.chairman. I think it is very interesting, the way that absolutely
:21:08. > :21:12.everybody in UKIP is under intense media scrutiny, where people from
:21:13. > :21:17.the other parties, at local level, are simply ignored. Here we go
:21:18. > :21:20.again, and other controversies around in one of your elected
:21:21. > :21:25.representatives, it is not going to stop, is it? It shows the pressure
:21:26. > :21:28.we are under as a political party, when a parish councillor says
:21:29. > :21:32.something that our party does not as assembly agree with, but would
:21:33. > :21:35.defend his right to say it, when a parish councillor writes a letter to
:21:36. > :21:41.a newspaper, a government minister comes on television to attack him.
:21:42. > :21:44.And that is what happened yesterday with Mr Fallon. When you say the
:21:45. > :21:49.party does not necessarily agree with him, are you saying there are
:21:50. > :21:53.those who do? No, this is a man with personal views, the mistake he made
:21:54. > :21:58.was attributing those views to our party. UKIP is a broad church, we
:21:59. > :22:02.have got many gay people. He does speak on behalf of the party,
:22:03. > :22:07.doesn't he? The mistake he made was a tribute in his personal views we
:22:08. > :22:10.are a party under the pressure. We are the most popular political party
:22:11. > :22:14.in this country, according to a recent survey. Nigel Farage is one
:22:15. > :22:29.of the most popular political leaders, and we are making real
:22:30. > :22:36.progress. If you want to play at the top level, you have got to realise,
:22:37. > :22:42.this is what happens. All of the parties have the same thing. Also,
:22:43. > :22:46.it is a bit tough of Nigel Farage to dismiss, I think he described him as
:22:47. > :22:49.a town councillor from Oxfordshire. There are an awful lot of town
:22:50. > :22:53.councillors up and down the country who will feel insulted by that. I am
:22:54. > :22:59.a town councillor, I do not feel insulted. If I may say so, you would
:23:00. > :23:06.not be the spokesman for the party if you were easily insulted. But the
:23:07. > :23:13.point is this, these are the views of those who have been left behind
:23:14. > :23:16.in the enormous progressive and social changes in this country. I
:23:17. > :23:20.support all of these changes, I think it has made us a more
:23:21. > :23:25.tolerant, a more inclusive and a better place to live. But there are
:23:26. > :23:36.people who hold views which may not be considered to be mainstream in
:23:37. > :23:40.all the parties. Who knows? I am not going to say that if you lift the
:23:41. > :23:45.roof off a town council... What I am going to say is that this man?
:23:46. > :23:49.Observations were entirely out of sync with the prevailing mood of the
:23:50. > :23:53.public. The fact that we have embarked, really since the time of
:23:54. > :23:57.Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary, upon a progressive change in society,
:23:58. > :24:01.which has benefited us all. Do you believe that the recent flooding was
:24:02. > :24:04.caused by the Government? Decision to legalise gay marriage? I think
:24:05. > :24:09.David Cameron can be blamed for an awful lot of things, for wrecking
:24:10. > :24:18.the Armed Forces... All right, but do you blame him for that? No, I
:24:19. > :24:21.would not. We are vetting our candidates. What we do not
:24:22. > :24:26.anticipate is the level of pressure our people are under. This man said
:24:27. > :24:29.these things when he was a Conservative councillor, nobody made
:24:30. > :24:32.anything of it. But this is going to keep happening, isn't it? All of a
:24:33. > :24:37.sudden, you are under more spotlight, the vetting procedure has
:24:38. > :24:40.not been all that robust. Actually, it has. When you look at the Liberal
:24:41. > :24:44.Democrats running round in circles with ministers, we are talking about
:24:45. > :24:51.parish councillors! What do you mean by that? In the interview you gave
:24:52. > :24:55.just a moment ago, your party is running around in circles in
:24:56. > :24:59.Parliament, not able to contain itself, attacking its own people.
:25:00. > :25:05.UKIP does not do that. If I may say so, that is because the word
:25:06. > :25:13.democracy is not one which appears in Nigel Farage? Dictionary. I think
:25:14. > :25:19.you will find we are the as far as I can see, the only person that gets
:25:20. > :25:24.airtime, apart from Nigel Farage, are those who express, how shall I
:25:25. > :25:29.put it, notoriously use them or maybe even hit journalists over the
:25:30. > :25:36.head with paper. It just shows you, it is a one-man show. But it is one
:25:37. > :25:42.which Conservative MPs seem to find a great threat? As Menzies says,
:25:43. > :25:45.welcome to Test cricket, this is what happens. If you are going to
:25:46. > :25:53.use that analogy, you had better look at what the women's team is
:25:54. > :25:57.doing. I follow women's cricket with great interest. What is it about the
:25:58. > :26:02.party which attracts people with extreme and colourful views? UKIP
:26:03. > :26:07.does not attract any more extreme views than other parties. Does it
:26:08. > :26:10.not? The difference between us and the other parties, which is very
:26:11. > :26:16.often found to be unpalatable, is that we are made up of ordinary the
:26:17. > :26:23.other parties will claim the same thing. I think if you look at the
:26:24. > :26:26.other parties, you will find a certain type of person, very
:26:27. > :26:32.polished, who has been to a certain type of school. Rubbish. Now, it is
:26:33. > :26:36.a widely held belief in British politics that MPs behaving badly,
:26:37. > :26:40.particularly at Prime Minister's Questions, is a big turn-off for the
:26:41. > :26:43.public, especially female voters. There have been repeated calls for
:26:44. > :26:47.all of the party leaders to town down the aggro. And the first PMQs
:26:48. > :26:51.of this new session did see a markedly different tone to the
:26:52. > :26:55.exchanges between David Cameron and Ed Miliband. But can they keep it
:26:56. > :27:01.up, and just how much would we missed the argy-bargy?
:27:02. > :27:04.Welcome to a world where Parliamentary democracy is a contact
:27:05. > :27:09.sport, brought to you by the people who really put the punch into Punch
:27:10. > :27:13.and Judy politics. Nothing more amusing than watching something like
:27:14. > :27:16.that in one of those funny foreign parliaments. But when it comes to
:27:17. > :27:21.our own prime ministers questions, we allegedly do not like it. Ed
:27:22. > :27:24.Miliband and David Cameron have at times from it to bring an end to
:27:25. > :27:32.yah-boo politics. But what do we really want? Although there are some
:27:33. > :27:34.negative public reaction is to prime ministers questions, the
:27:35. > :27:42.overwhelming majority of people who are interested in politics and PMQs
:27:43. > :27:44.say fairly positive things about it. And here is another conventional
:27:45. > :27:49.wisdom you sometimes hear from female politicians. Some of them say
:27:50. > :27:55.that they think it is Prime Minister's Questions, and the Punch
:27:56. > :27:59.and Judy show of parliament, which puts women off politics. But that is
:28:00. > :28:07.why I researched it, I cannot find evidence that that is the case. It
:28:08. > :28:14.puts off women MPs, but not women in the public, I have found. But there
:28:15. > :28:25.is no doubt that even for the most experienced hands, PMQs can be a
:28:26. > :28:29.cruel place. Declare your interests! It is not just between parties where
:28:30. > :28:32.it gets all macho, sometimes, it is within them. Rumour has it that one
:28:33. > :28:36.of our guests of today, Tessa Jowell, had to sort out some
:28:37. > :28:46.handbags between Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander. What are the
:28:47. > :28:49.chances of bringing peace to PMQs? I think Cameron and Miliband do have a
:28:50. > :28:54.responsibility to try to behave a bit more responsibly, and not
:28:55. > :29:00.engaging quite so much yah-boo politics. But I am a realist and a
:29:01. > :29:04.political journalist and sceptic, and as the general election gets
:29:05. > :29:09.much closer, and the polls narrow, and there is so much at stake, it is
:29:10. > :29:13.going to be very, very difficult for either party leader to resist
:29:14. > :29:17.dishing it out. The institutions and the structures and the ways of
:29:18. > :29:20.behaving are deeply embedded . they are habit-forming kinds of
:29:21. > :29:27.behaviour. So, it will take an enormous amount of will. I would not
:29:28. > :29:30.put my own money on it. So, it seems like cutting out bad behaviour in
:29:31. > :29:34.the Commons chamber may remain an aspiration rather than a pledge. And
:29:35. > :29:39.remember, David Cameron has not actually tried this on Ed Miliband,
:29:40. > :29:44.or even Ed Balls, yet. Well, we have not quite got to that level yet.
:29:45. > :29:49.Perhaps not something to aspire to, necessarily. But did you find the
:29:50. > :29:53.behaviour of some MPs cruel, when you were leader of the Lib Dems in
:29:54. > :29:58.the chamber? Well, you saw that clip. I learned afterwards that
:29:59. > :30:02.because I had quite large writing, Eric Forth had spied that I was
:30:03. > :30:06.going to talk about pensions, so he had had time to work up the joke.
:30:07. > :30:10.But of course, it was beautifully timed, and if you get something like
:30:11. > :30:15.that, it is very difficult to cope. But what is interesting is that in
:30:16. > :30:19.the first Prime Minister's Questions after the New Year, the whole house
:30:20. > :30:24.was shaken by the death of an enormously popular person from
:30:25. > :30:30.within the house, and a man who had respect. As a result of that, the
:30:31. > :30:34.atmosphere was very, very different. What you find, the Speaker
:30:35. > :30:37.frequently says, I get letters every week from people complaining. But I
:30:38. > :30:41.have got friends in the United States who will not go out to dinner
:30:42. > :30:48.on Sunday night because they want to watch Prime Minister's Questions,
:30:49. > :30:52.and one last point, if I may, since we have been talking about women, I
:30:53. > :30:56.sit just below the gangway on the government bench, I look across, and
:30:57. > :30:59.some of the most noisy contributors are women. And there is one
:31:00. > :31:06.particular woman, who I will not identify. Oh, go on. No, it would be
:31:07. > :31:08.unfair. She keeps up and running, drew from the start to the end. It
:31:09. > :31:20.is not Tessa. Do you turn native when you get into
:31:21. > :31:26.the chamber? They say women MPs, and the lady in that film said women MPs
:31:27. > :31:32.don't much like, but in the end, do you just join in? Guess, is the
:31:33. > :31:39.answer. But Menzies' point is an important one. An occasion like the
:31:40. > :31:45.announcement of Paul Goggins' death, or I remember Tony Blair's
:31:46. > :31:54.last PMQs. I remember the day that David Cameron's son died. There is a
:31:55. > :32:02.sense that the whole mood is to behave properly on those occasions.
:32:03. > :32:07.Should it stay like that? We did the story that Ed Miliband would like to
:32:08. > :32:12.see the whole tone brought down a level or two, do you think that's
:32:13. > :32:18.right? I think there's a difference between the shouting and all the
:32:19. > :32:21.rest of it and personal abuse, just being rude and not answering the
:32:22. > :32:26.question. I think that is what frustrates people at home. But I
:32:27. > :32:35.think there is a difference here. I don't accept that women like this. I
:32:36. > :32:40.think we all join in but that is PMQs. But actually, people want to
:32:41. > :32:44.feel that politics is more engaged, politicians are more engaged in the
:32:45. > :32:51.specific problems of the lives of the people. Churchill said, we shape
:32:52. > :32:55.our buildings and our buildings shape us. The House of Commons is
:32:56. > :32:58.very confrontational. But what people fail to appreciate is it's
:32:59. > :33:03.just that half hour in the middle of the week. There are so many other
:33:04. > :33:08.debates for hours and hours on end. But it is held up as the
:33:09. > :33:12.centrepiece. But partly because of journalists as well. I looked up in
:33:13. > :33:15.the gallery and it is during Prime Minister 's question Time that that
:33:16. > :33:19.gallery is packed with journalists with their tongues hanging out. We
:33:20. > :33:26.can't hear anything because you are also busy shouting at each other!
:33:27. > :33:30.This The reason we have a rectangular shape is because the
:33:31. > :33:36.first parliament met in a chapel. Chapels are rectangular. So when
:33:37. > :33:40.they built a house of parliament, they built it in a rectangular
:33:41. > :33:46.shape. As a result, we have adversarial politics. Go to Europe
:33:47. > :33:51.and they are built in a hemisphere. The atmosphere in Westminster Hall
:33:52. > :33:57.changes as well. There was taunting and hectoring of one of your
:33:58. > :34:02.colleagues, Julian Huppert. Was that acceptable? No. No more than there
:34:03. > :34:08.was taunting of a Conservative MP whose physical appearance attracted
:34:09. > :34:12.some attention. But that says more about the individual politician than
:34:13. > :34:18.it does about the chamber and the house. David Cameron has been
:34:19. > :34:24.criticised for making remarks like, calm down, dear. That is all played
:34:25. > :34:28.up by the media. We all know in the chamber, if we've been there a long
:34:29. > :34:33.time, like as three have been, we all know how far we can go. We
:34:34. > :34:37.understand it. I think maybe some of the new younger ones make mistakes.
:34:38. > :34:41.The personal attacks never go down well. There's a clear difference
:34:42. > :34:52.between a spontaneous response and organised by raging. A lot of the
:34:53. > :34:54.time it is organised region. Tessa Jowell, we mentioned the so-called
:34:55. > :34:56.fight between Douglas Alexander and Ed Balls. Did you have to break that
:34:57. > :35:04.fight up? I have got no recollection. I don't remember it.
:35:05. > :35:10.You don't remember breaking it up for the fight? Both. I've talked to
:35:11. > :35:17.Douglas about it and Ed Balls. Did they say you broke it up? No, they
:35:18. > :35:23.say they can't remember either. Amnesia on the Labour bench. No!
:35:24. > :35:27.Maybe you got a blow to the head in the middle or something. Let's take
:35:28. > :35:32.a look at what's happening this week. Later today the Transport
:35:33. > :35:35.Committee will hear evidence from Sir Howard Davies, Chair of the
:35:36. > :35:39.Airports Commission, on increasing aviation capacity in London and the
:35:40. > :35:41.South East. On Wednesday, Prime Minister David Cameron faces his
:35:42. > :35:44.regular questioning session in the House of Commons. Wednesday also
:35:45. > :35:48.marks the start of the World Economic Forum in Davos in the Swiss
:35:49. > :35:50.mountains, where more than 2,000 politicians, business leaders and
:35:51. > :36:00.journalists from around the world will meet to chew over the world's
:36:01. > :36:07.critical issues. And on Friday, James Wharton's EU Referendum Bill
:36:08. > :36:10.is at committee stage in the Lords. Joining me now is Laura Pitel from
:36:11. > :36:16.the Times and Oliver Wright from the Independent. The announcement was
:36:17. > :36:19.made by both parties today on welfare, clearly indicating a battle
:36:20. > :36:24.over who can sound tougher on the issue of welfare. Is that how you
:36:25. > :36:28.see it? Totally, they are trying to outdo each other. Most would agree
:36:29. > :36:32.that the Conservatives have the lead. Labour are very conscious that
:36:33. > :36:37.even amongst their own supporters, these Conservative policies are very
:36:38. > :36:39.popular. So they've been trying to hit back a bit, these Conservative
:36:40. > :36:42.policies are very popular. So they've been trying to hit back a
:36:43. > :36:43.bit and come up with their own welfare announcement. The
:36:44. > :36:46.Conservatives have been trying to drown them out by doing more of
:36:47. > :36:49.their own. Why don't we ever hear the parties talk more about the
:36:50. > :36:54.positives of welfare and what it's for, who with there to defend and
:36:55. > :36:58.help? It's not in vogue at the moment. What is in vogue is saying
:36:59. > :37:02.how tough you are going to be on benefits. What is interesting is how
:37:03. > :37:06.circular these debates are. Thinking back to 1997, it was Labour saying,
:37:07. > :37:11.we are going to be more generous and give more, that was electorally
:37:12. > :37:15.popular. The Conservatives are gambling that in 2015, the mood of
:37:16. > :37:18.the country will be being tough on welfare and benefits. But it is
:37:19. > :37:21.possible that if the economic situation improves a bit between now
:37:22. > :37:24.and the election, that the mood of the country may change and people
:37:25. > :37:28.may think that we're being too hard on benefits and that people need a
:37:29. > :37:31.helping hand. What Labour are gambling on is they put the emphasis
:37:32. > :37:44.on training and education and helping to get people back into
:37:45. > :37:46.work, tough but fair, that will perhaps be more appealing message
:37:47. > :37:49.than the Conservatives, who are characterised as just being tough or
:37:50. > :37:51.mean. Do you think it is a gamble that in the end, the Conservative
:37:52. > :37:56.Party will be risking being demonised by being too tough on
:37:57. > :37:59.benefits? It feels very negative. We're talking about benefits,
:38:00. > :38:03.migrants, bad things and people who are coming here to take advantage of
:38:04. > :38:08.what we've got. The politicians coming up to this time next year and
:38:09. > :38:12.going into the election, they will need to portray a positive message
:38:13. > :38:16.that doesn't just leave people feeling depressed. Lets try and
:38:17. > :38:19.lighten the mood a little bit and think about those politicians and
:38:20. > :38:26.journalists skiing in the Swiss mountains, I mean attending a
:38:27. > :38:33.conference on economics! What is the point of Davos? I'm not quite sure.
:38:34. > :38:41.I've never been. Maybe if I went then I could understand it better.
:38:42. > :38:44.It all feels terribly new Labour, all these people getting together
:38:45. > :38:49.and having a nice chitchat and a bit of skiing. I'm surprised we leave
:38:50. > :38:55.that the economic crisis didn't lead to a dramatic falloff in the number
:38:56. > :39:00.of people that go, because it doesn't, to my mind, look terribly
:39:01. > :39:05.edifying, this elite gathering of business men and politicians in the
:39:06. > :39:09.Swiss mountain resorts. Yes, sure, it's a good idea for them to meet,
:39:10. > :39:15.but I'm not sure that Davos sends quite the right image of business
:39:16. > :39:20.perhaps. In terms of friends for the Prime Minister, is he going to find
:39:21. > :39:25.himself like Billy no mates, having made these comments about freedom of
:39:26. > :39:30.movement and trying to limit it? It's gone down very badly with other
:39:31. > :39:35.EU leaders. There was a piece in the FT about how other leaders in Europe
:39:36. > :39:39.are getting a bit twitchy about things he has said, particularly
:39:40. > :39:49.this renegotiation of the relationship between Britain and the
:39:50. > :39:52.EU. I know it is not always going well, he faces a difficult challenge
:39:53. > :39:56.over the next few years to get people onside and persuade them to
:39:57. > :40:00.help him in this task. But the question remains of why they should
:40:01. > :40:10.do that when he is acting for Britain on its own? It's going to be
:40:11. > :40:13.difficult for him. In her first major speech as Shadow Work and
:40:14. > :40:16.Pensions Secretary, Rachel Reeves says benefit claimants will be
:40:17. > :40:20.forced to sit a test claiming they can read, write, add up and use a
:40:21. > :40:26.computer. If not, they will have to sign up to training will be stripped
:40:27. > :40:30.of their benefits. Here she eased -- speaking earlier. Your Low we also
:40:31. > :40:33.need to take action to make sure that those who are unemployed now
:40:34. > :40:37.have the skills they need to move into the long-term jobs they want
:40:38. > :40:42.and that the country needs them to take. So today I am announcing
:40:43. > :40:47.another important plan to address this problem. The new requirement
:40:48. > :40:52.for job-seekers to take training if they do not meet basic standards in
:40:53. > :40:55.maths, English and IT. Training that they will be required to take up
:40:56. > :41:03.along their job search or lose their benefits. Tessa Jowell, does Labour
:41:04. > :41:08.need to take a harder line on welfare? We all need to take a hard
:41:09. > :41:16.line on people who cheat the system. But I think sometimes we can
:41:17. > :41:20.be led to a position where we overstate and believe there is more
:41:21. > :41:26.fraud, more cheating than there is. I think Rachel Reeves' proposals
:41:27. > :41:34.this morning are very constructive and positive. Because actually, low
:41:35. > :41:37.levels of literacy and low levels of numeracy and not being IT competence
:41:38. > :41:42.are what Loch Ewe out of the job market. These are the prerequisites
:41:43. > :41:48.to getting jobs today and staying in work. This is constructive. But it's
:41:49. > :41:52.also saying, we live in a country where we expect everybody to work.
:41:53. > :41:57.If they are not working, to show that they are genuinely trying to
:41:58. > :42:01.get into work. So you do accept, as this policy seems to indicate, that
:42:02. > :42:05.there is a group of an appropriate for the need a kick up the backside?
:42:06. > :42:08.I think there's a small group of unemployed people who have just
:42:09. > :42:14.become completely disconnected from the labour market, who are no longer
:42:15. > :42:19.trying to get jobs and so forth. I think this will galvanise them to
:42:20. > :42:23.actually get to the job centre and do what is necessary. But
:42:24. > :42:27.overwhelmingly, and I'm always struck by this when I'm talking to
:42:28. > :42:31.young people in my constituency in south London who are ambitious about
:42:32. > :42:36.wanting to get jobs, they may not be in work, they just don't know how to
:42:37. > :42:39.get themselves from where they are now to a job that makes them feel
:42:40. > :42:45.proud of themselves will stop I think this is a practical step
:42:46. > :42:49.towards that. A person rocks up, does the test, let's say can't add
:42:50. > :42:53.up for toffee but perhaps passes the others and they lose their benefit.
:42:54. > :42:57.Are you happy with the idea that they will, if they don't then or not
:42:58. > :43:01.able to on to training as a result, they don't want to take the training
:43:02. > :43:06.that is offered, that they will be left languishing? They will have a
:43:07. > :43:14.choice. If you're literacy is not at the proper standard for you to get a
:43:15. > :43:18.job, then you go to an FC college and you are taught reading,
:43:19. > :43:23.writing, the basic levels of literacy that give you the chance of
:43:24. > :43:26.getting a job. If you are severely dyslexic then that is not going to
:43:27. > :43:31.happen. That is the kind of thing that will be factored into this.
:43:32. > :43:36.This is putting job centres back in the position that they were in when
:43:37. > :43:40.we were in power, which is having a dynamic responsibility to get people
:43:41. > :43:46.into work as quickly as possible. Is also a tacit that Labour has failed
:43:47. > :43:52.on education? That there is this group of people that can't read or
:43:53. > :43:57.write, which is a tragedy, really, isn't it? It is certainly something
:43:58. > :44:02.that persisted. The numbers reduced when we were in power. I was an
:44:03. > :44:07.employment Minister, we did something very similar. But in
:44:08. > :44:11.addition to these very hard to place young people, we put them through
:44:12. > :44:14.what was called soft skills training, which is required for the
:44:15. > :44:21.hotel industry, coffee shops, whatever it may be. We are talking
:44:22. > :44:26.here about a hard-core of people who find it very difficult to get into
:44:27. > :44:31.work, giving them the practical help they need. This is a practical and
:44:32. > :44:35.more positive way of looking at trying to get people of jobseeker's
:44:36. > :44:37.allowance and to work. In that clip I felt I was hearing a
:44:38. > :44:41.re-announcement of what is actually happening in terms of trying to get
:44:42. > :44:45.young people who are not numerous and literate, and I think there was
:44:46. > :44:52.an announcement by Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith some time ago on
:44:53. > :44:58.this. I went on Friday to Bucks and looked at people trying to get back
:44:59. > :45:05.into the world of work on the Work Programme. I was really impressed by
:45:06. > :45:08.what I saw on Friday. There's no point getting people back to work if
:45:09. > :45:19.their literacy and numeracy is not... What I was impressed with was
:45:20. > :45:22.not only helping them with interview techniques, but once they were in
:45:23. > :45:26.work, the Work Programme is actually giving support to people. I saw one
:45:27. > :45:30.young man who was running his own business, and he was being helped
:45:31. > :45:33.with the finance of how to keep his business in line with HMRC. I
:45:34. > :45:40.thought that that was really valuable, because it was recognised
:45:41. > :45:46.that people need that help and support. That is why I think what we
:45:47. > :45:56.are doing in our reforms is so important. But if the numbers are so
:45:57. > :46:00.small, as you said, and the numbers of people defrauding the system are
:46:01. > :46:05.also very small, this is just posturing, it is just about who is
:46:06. > :46:10.going to look tough on welfare? We are in the middle of a very severe
:46:11. > :46:13.period master at it. Every pound counts. But you may have put your
:46:14. > :46:17.finger on it a moment ago, because to acknowledge that this is
:46:18. > :46:20.necessary is by implication to acknowledge that these young people
:46:21. > :46:23.have been failed in our education system. It seems to me that if you
:46:24. > :46:28.are going to do what is being suggested, then the quid pro quo
:46:29. > :46:35.ought to be that we are going to invest more in education. What we
:46:36. > :46:39.have to remember, of course, is that it is a very competitive world now.
:46:40. > :46:43.We have a lot of university graduates who cannot get jobs, so
:46:44. > :46:47.what do they do, they trade down. When they trade down, the people
:46:48. > :46:50.whose jobs they take trade down as well. And therefore it is a much
:46:51. > :46:54.more competitive set of circumstances than we have seen in
:46:55. > :47:02.the past. But the one thing which is absolutely essential is that work
:47:03. > :47:07.makes people feel better, work is... Nobody disagrees with that. But is
:47:08. > :47:11.this a battle between the parties, to say they are the toughest? There
:47:12. > :47:15.is no doubt about that, otherwise you would not have these
:47:16. > :47:19.announcements made on the same day. I would like to say it is more about
:47:20. > :47:23.ambitions to get people into work who find it very hard, and giving
:47:24. > :47:27.them skills to do that. Let's return to the story about Lord Rennard. As
:47:28. > :47:29.we heard earlier, there are moves to suspend him from the Liberal
:47:30. > :47:35.Democrats for bringing the party into disrepute. He has refused to
:47:36. > :47:37.apologise to women who brought sexual harassment claims against
:47:38. > :47:41.him, saying he has done nothing wrong. And inquiry said there was
:47:42. > :47:46.not enough proof to take the matter further. But it said the claims were
:47:47. > :47:49.credible. He is due to take up his seat in the House of Lords later
:47:50. > :47:57.today. As we heard earlier, there are doubts as to whether he will in
:47:58. > :48:03.fact attend, you to health reasons. One of the women involved says Nick
:48:04. > :48:06.Clegg must act. We are expecting him to show some leadership on our
:48:07. > :48:10.behalf. We want Nick Clegg to have the confidence to say it is not
:48:11. > :48:13.acceptable to have somebody who is under such clout to be back on the
:48:14. > :48:21.benches, calling himself a Liberal Democrat. -- under such a cloud.
:48:22. > :48:26.Nick Clegg has said Lord Rennard should apologise. Paddy Ashdown
:48:27. > :48:30.agrees. Daddy Alexander said the same. Lord McDonald's said it is
:48:31. > :48:33.perfectly reasonable to expect an apology, and Menzies Campbell has
:48:34. > :48:38.said a qualified apology is also needed, so why hasn't Lord Rennard
:48:39. > :48:47.apologised? You will have to ask him that. I am one of those who has been
:48:48. > :48:52.horrified at what seems to be the lack of acceptance of a due process.
:48:53. > :48:55.But I think we are past that now. I think the whole argument about an
:48:56. > :49:02.apology is becoming quite ridiculous. I do not think it will
:49:03. > :49:05.will understand that that is the fundamental issue of British
:49:06. > :49:11.politics today. It seems to me that the party is in a huge crisis now.
:49:12. > :49:15.It is divided into two camps, over what in the grand scale of things is
:49:16. > :49:19.a storm in a teacup. There is a huge chasm in the party, and each side is
:49:20. > :49:23.standing behind their own lines, chucking grenades at the other, and
:49:24. > :49:28.there is absolutely no dialogue going on. What we now need is a new
:49:29. > :49:33.process of reconciliation and mediation. You say it is a storm in
:49:34. > :49:37.a teacup - the women who brought those charges against Lord Rennard,
:49:38. > :49:40.they do not think so, nor do the number of Liberal Democrats who have
:49:41. > :49:45.formally complained and are calling on Nick Clegg to act. Well, neither
:49:46. > :49:49.do people who are appalled that having had a due process, that due
:49:50. > :49:54.process seems to be being ignored substantially. The substantial
:49:55. > :50:00.issue, that there was no case to answer, is being ignored. But people
:50:01. > :50:06.on both sides are in entrenched positions, and all this is going to
:50:07. > :50:09.do is to destroy the party. You have spoken about entrenched positions,
:50:10. > :50:14.but if Lord Rennard were to apologise, in your mind, would that
:50:15. > :50:20.then released those positions, and the party could get on? I do not
:50:21. > :50:27.think so, no. Why? That was part of the recommendation, wasn't it? What
:50:28. > :50:34.I am saying is that I do not think it would. There are two possible
:50:35. > :50:38.outcomes at the moment. The first is that Lord Rennard is able to take up
:50:39. > :50:42.his position, and everything carries on as before, in which case a very
:50:43. > :50:45.large number of people in the party would be angry. The other
:50:46. > :50:50.alternative is that he is expelled from the party, in which case
:50:51. > :50:54.another section of the party will be very angry. There is a huge chasm in
:50:55. > :50:59.the party, and we have got to start to heal that chasm. How do you do
:51:00. > :51:03.that? We need a peace and reconciliation process. If it works
:51:04. > :51:08.between Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley... This cannot be compared
:51:09. > :51:12.to that, can it? Of course not. But if it works on huge great things
:51:13. > :51:15.like that, if it worked in South Africa, surely, for what is in the
:51:16. > :51:23.grand scale of things, within the Liberal Democrats, a small party in
:51:24. > :51:31.this country, a relative small in -- a relative storm in a teacup... What
:51:32. > :51:37.I want to say is that we have got to get together as a party. Any of the
:51:38. > :51:41.possible outcomes at the moment are going to seriously damage this party
:51:42. > :51:47.for a generation. We have got to call a halt, step act, give
:51:48. > :51:49.ourselves time and see if it can be sorted out. Should Chris Rennard be
:51:50. > :52:00.allowed to take the whip again in the House of Lords? Allowed by
:52:01. > :52:03.whom? By Lib Dem peers. Well, it is accepted by the officers of the
:52:04. > :52:11.group in the Lords that they have no grounds at the moment, as we speak,
:52:12. > :52:16.to exclude him. This has been described in almost apocalyptic
:52:17. > :52:24.terms as a crisis facing the party. You took the words out of my life.
:52:25. > :52:28.-- out of my mouth. Of course we would like not to be where we are.
:52:29. > :52:34.But I think the last thing we need is another process, with all that
:52:35. > :52:39.that involveswhat we need is common ground and common-sense, and I
:52:40. > :52:45.believe that can be achieved without going through the paraphernalia, if
:52:46. > :52:50.you like, of another formal process, and I said this earlier in the
:52:51. > :53:04.programme. But some members of the party are saying they will define
:53:05. > :53:08.Nick Clegg over this. The one thing I do agree about is the fact that
:53:09. > :53:14.the volume should be turned down. People should not be rushing into
:53:15. > :53:20.television studios on either side of this argument. A period of calm
:53:21. > :53:28.reflection would be better, and would provide the opportunity for
:53:29. > :53:31.the kind of circumstances I suggested - a joint statement in
:53:32. > :53:37.which it is pointed out firmly on Lord Rennard? Behalf, that so far as
:53:38. > :53:41.the allegations against him were concerned, they were not able to be
:53:42. > :53:47.proved beyond reasonable doubt, but that there is an acceptance that if
:53:48. > :53:54.in any way, people were caused distress, he is willing to say how
:53:55. > :53:56.much he regrets that. And that is the crucial thing, at the moment,
:53:57. > :54:04.those people would not accept such an apology. I am not sure about
:54:05. > :54:11.that. I am. We are both calling for peace. Peace has broken out on The
:54:12. > :54:14.Daily Politics! After the coalition government called for a freeze on
:54:15. > :54:20.council tax, immunities secretary Eric Pickles said councils had a
:54:21. > :54:25.moral duty to abide by it, despite swingeing cuts to their budgets. --
:54:26. > :54:27.Communities Secretary. But the Government said that if local
:54:28. > :54:31.authorities wanted a council tax rise above a certain amount, they
:54:32. > :54:37.would have to hold a referendum. The Green Party in Brighton could be the
:54:38. > :54:42.first to hold one. They want a council tax increase of almost 5%.
:54:43. > :54:45.Their leader is in Brighton. Welcome to the programme. Is it just a
:54:46. > :54:50.failure on your part to manage your budget? It is a serious proposal. It
:54:51. > :54:54.is needed. We think we should ask the people for a referendum on the
:54:55. > :54:59.future of social care. As you said, we have seen a huge reduction in our
:55:00. > :55:03.funding by government. We have also got growing demand, an ageing and
:55:04. > :55:08.growing population, neither of which are recognised by covenant funding.
:55:09. > :55:14.And we have a situation where -- government funding -- in previous
:55:15. > :55:19.years, a freeze has been imposed upon us. Inflation since we took
:55:20. > :55:24.control has been 9.6%, and council tax has risen in that time Western
:55:25. > :55:33.2%. So, we are well behind. We have a huge pressure on social care. --
:55:34. > :55:36.less than 2%. Many other councils have similar structures, but they
:55:37. > :55:41.are not trying to increase council tax by 5%? Directed now is that it
:55:42. > :55:48.is a difficult time for everyone, and I think that is why we want to
:55:49. > :55:52.let the people decide. -- I recognise that it is a difficult
:55:53. > :55:55.time. These cuts have gone too far and too deep for councils across the
:55:56. > :55:59.country, and many councils are proposing increases. We think that
:56:00. > :56:04.the elderly and the disabled need support from local government. Do
:56:05. > :56:08.you think there will be a majority of people who will vote for more
:56:09. > :56:12.taxes? I think we have got a long time to make that argument. The
:56:13. > :56:16.referendum will be in May. We need the opposition parties to accept the
:56:17. > :56:21.idea of letting the people choose. Since our last local elections in
:56:22. > :56:25.Brighton, the circumstances are quite different. Nobody expected to
:56:26. > :56:29.have ?100 million cut out of our budget. How much would the
:56:30. > :56:33.referendum cost to run? Because it can be held on the same day as the
:56:34. > :56:40.European elections, the estimates are around ?30,000. It is the only
:56:41. > :56:46.choice I have got on the table. Conservative MPs said this proposal
:56:47. > :56:48.was bonkers. Actually, Brandon Lewis, the Local Government
:56:49. > :57:00.Minister, said that we should trust the people. Much has been made by
:57:01. > :57:04.Tories about their care and concern for pensioners, and yet when we say
:57:05. > :57:07.that social care cannot take any more reductions in spending, they
:57:08. > :57:13.seem to be running away from the idea. There is just time before we
:57:14. > :57:16.go to find the answer to our quiz. What was that question?! The
:57:17. > :57:22.question was, which of the following is a career that a former MP has not
:57:23. > :57:24.pursued so far? Is it public relations, trying to fix the Middle
:57:25. > :57:32.East, going into space or stand-up comedy? Going into space? I presume
:57:33. > :57:38.so. I think that is the right answer. I do not think anybody has
:57:39. > :57:43.gone into space. You two, what are you going to do when you stand down,
:57:44. > :57:47.are you going to stand for Mayor of London, Tessa? I have not decided. I
:57:48. > :57:56.am going to Harvard for three months to teach at the School For Public
:57:57. > :58:00.Health. I am also going to be doing work with the city 's programme at
:58:01. > :58:05.the London School of Economics. And there are other possible to use.
:58:06. > :58:10.When are you going to make up your mind? I do not think anybody should
:58:11. > :58:14.be making up their mind until the other side of the general election.
:58:15. > :58:23.Would Tessa make a good Mayor of London? I rather like the one we
:58:24. > :58:27.have got. I am fond of Boris. I am rather fond of Tessa. I certainly
:58:28. > :58:32.think she would give Boris a run for his money. And she has got a much
:58:33. > :58:39.better haircut. And she does not do this all the time with her hair.
:58:40. > :58:47.What about you? I am not reading up politics, and I am going to get my
:58:48. > :58:53.week out. -- giving up politics. -- wig out. That is it for today. I
:58:54. > :58:59.will be back tomorrow.