:00:36. > :00:40.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. The Lib Dem crisis
:00:41. > :00:43.over Lord Rennard continues, with the former party chief exec
:00:44. > :00:48.considering going to court to lift his suspension from the Liberal
:00:49. > :00:51.Democrats. Former party leader Paddy Ashdown joins me live.
:00:52. > :00:54.The Conservatives and Labour square off over changes to welfare, with
:00:55. > :00:59.proposals for new benefit cuts and incentives. We will hear from both
:01:00. > :01:02.sides. David Blunkett has a plan to
:01:03. > :01:05.reconnect politicians with the public, and it doesn't involve going
:01:06. > :01:10.to the jungle or diving in a swimsuit on reality TV. He will join
:01:11. > :01:19.me live. Plus, should the rich fork out more
:01:20. > :01:23.to fund the arts? All that in the next hour. And with
:01:24. > :01:26.us for the whole programme today is Peter Bazalgette, the chairman of
:01:27. > :01:29.England's Arts Council and a TV bigwig responsible for programmes
:01:30. > :01:35.like Big Brother and Deal Or No Deal. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:01:36. > :01:37.Let's start with the news that this afternoon, the International
:01:38. > :01:40.Monetary Fund is expected to announce that it's increasing its
:01:41. > :01:49.growth forecasts for the UK by a significant amount. So the UK
:01:50. > :01:56.economy is supposed to be motoring ahead. Can you feel it? I think we
:01:57. > :02:01.all feel something happening. One of the newspapers this morning had a
:02:02. > :02:08.survey which said that we, the public, think it is business that is
:02:09. > :02:14.delivering the growth, not the politicians. We, the voters, think
:02:15. > :02:18.business is delivering the growth more. Quite often, politicians say,
:02:19. > :02:23.we have created X number of jobs since we came to power. Of course,
:02:24. > :02:28.they don't create the jobs, it is businesses that create the jobs. But
:02:29. > :02:31.they do create the conditions for success. And do you think that has
:02:32. > :02:35.happened over the last few years, that businesses, as a result of
:02:36. > :02:44.conditions set by the government, have created jobs? Well,
:02:45. > :02:47.productivity is the problem. Employment has been positive in that
:02:48. > :02:52.we have not lost nearly as many jobs as we expected. But investment has
:02:53. > :02:57.not been so good, particularly from large companies. Investment in
:02:58. > :03:03.everything, including the arts, but we will come to that. Do you think
:03:04. > :03:09.this supposed feel-good factor is limited to the south-east? No, but
:03:10. > :03:14.it is stronger in the south-east. A lot of the country is still
:03:15. > :03:18.suffering. If you live in London... I travel around the country all the
:03:19. > :03:21.time, and it is very tough in parts of the country, in contrast to
:03:22. > :03:29.London, which is booming by comparison. How much do people care
:03:30. > :03:36.about growth figures if their wages have fallen behind prices for almost
:03:37. > :03:40.a decade? People are worse off, and there is no question that everybody
:03:41. > :03:43.is living at a lower level than they were five years ago. So people care
:03:44. > :03:49.very much, because they can afford to spend less on their holidays and
:03:50. > :03:54.home improvements and things that matter. That might change, but it
:03:55. > :03:58.will take time. It will take time for people to feel better. We will
:03:59. > :04:02.be told it a lot earlier than we will feel it.
:04:03. > :04:07.So the Rennard crisis rumbles on for Nick Clegg's Lib Dems. Yesterday,
:04:08. > :04:10.Lord Rennard was suspended from the party on the grounds that his
:04:11. > :04:13.failure to apologise to four women who claim he made sexual advances to
:04:14. > :04:17.them was bringing the party into disrepute. That was followed by a
:04:18. > :04:19.lengthy statement from the former party chief executive, and the
:04:20. > :04:24.threat that he might take legal action to regain his place in the
:04:25. > :04:27.party. I'm joined to discuss this by Linda Jack, a party member who is
:04:28. > :04:41.also chair of the Liberal Left group. She is in Luton. How do you
:04:42. > :04:48.feel about your party today? Can you hear me? Let me try again. How do
:04:49. > :04:55.you feel about your party today? I feel very sad, because we have been
:04:56. > :05:03.deflected from more important issues. For example, yesterday, the
:05:04. > :05:06.launch of the closing the gap mental health policy, which reflects
:05:07. > :05:09.everything we stand for as Liberal Democrats. And instead, we are
:05:10. > :05:13.focusing on something which, although I fiercely think it is
:05:14. > :05:18.important, is not the whole story about who we are as a party. But
:05:19. > :05:21.when we are talking about the claims that have been made against Chris
:05:22. > :05:27.Rennard, some in the party have said it has all been overblown, taste
:05:28. > :05:32.warm in a teacup -- a storm in a teacup. One MP likened it to
:05:33. > :05:35.Italians pinching women's bottoms, remarks he has since apologised for.
:05:36. > :05:45.How serious are these alleged offences? They are very serious. I
:05:46. > :05:47.was at the same event as one of the women after it occurred, and she was
:05:48. > :05:53.extremely distressed, and rightly so. What Chris Davies said, even
:05:54. > :05:59.though he has apologised, betrays an ass dude in some parts of the
:06:00. > :06:02.party, not the whole of the party -- it betrays an attitude that this is
:06:03. > :06:07.a trivial matter. I worry that Lord Rennard also sees it as a trivial
:06:08. > :06:10.matter, urges why he does not think it is worth apologising for. You
:06:11. > :06:15.were confided in by one of the women, as you have just said, and
:06:16. > :06:17.there is this argument going on that what happened was actually
:06:18. > :06:21.relatively minor in the minds of some people. Was it more serious
:06:22. > :06:26.than just touching of the leg through clothing, as one described
:06:27. > :06:32.it? Any potential abuse of power is serious. It is also about the
:06:33. > :06:36.impact. Somebody may not have intended that impact, but the impact
:06:37. > :06:40.is what matters. I cannot say how somebody else will react to being
:06:41. > :06:46.treated like that, or how I would react. But some people are making a
:06:47. > :06:49.judgement that it was just a little bit of touching, as if that did not
:06:50. > :06:53.matter. That betrays attitudes I would not expect in a party
:06:54. > :06:59.committed to equality like ours. Have you been surprised that those
:07:00. > :07:06.attitudes exist more broadly than you thought? I am not surprised that
:07:07. > :07:10.they exist. I am surprised at how broadly they exist. I am surprised
:07:11. > :07:17.at some of the responses I have had where people did not agree with me
:07:18. > :07:22.in terms of not understanding that this is not just about some clumsy
:07:23. > :07:28.advances, it is about a potential abuse of power. There is going to be
:07:29. > :07:31.another party enquiry, as you know, about whether Lord Rennard has
:07:32. > :07:34.brought the party into disrepute. If that clears him, he can come back
:07:35. > :07:40.within 14 weeks. What do you think of that? This should have been dealt
:07:41. > :07:45.with ages ago. The party has brought itself into disrepute by having
:07:46. > :07:51.processes which were not appropriate for the case and were not robust. I
:07:52. > :07:56.hope that gets sorted out. We need some sort of conciliation at the
:07:57. > :07:58.moment, if possible. It would have been nice if Nick Clegg had spoken
:07:59. > :08:03.to Lord Rennard after last Wednesday and tried to come to some sort of
:08:04. > :08:08.agreement, because this story is now much bigger than him and his
:08:09. > :08:13.accusers. It is affecting the whole party. And knowing Lord Rennard, I
:08:14. > :08:17.imagine this is a party he has devoted his life to. He does not
:08:18. > :08:20.want to damage it. So if anyone can come up with an idea to smooth
:08:21. > :08:23.everything over, that would be better for all concerned, rather
:08:24. > :08:29.than it becoming a vendetta, which it feels like at the moment. Is the
:08:30. > :08:36.party divided into two camps now? That may be the case in the Lords.
:08:37. > :08:40.Within the wider party, it is not 50-50, but there are those arguing
:08:41. > :08:48.on behalf of Lord Rennard who don't know what the fuss is about, and
:08:49. > :08:52.those who see this as a fundamental issue to do with who we are and what
:08:53. > :08:55.we stand for. Chris Rennard has expressed regret in the statement he
:08:56. > :09:00.made. Even if he goes further, which he has said he will not do, and says
:09:01. > :09:06.Warwick, that will not satisfy at least one of the women who made the
:09:07. > :09:14.claims -- if he says sorry. This is the dilemma we have. We may say we
:09:15. > :09:21.are satisfied if there is an apology, but at the -- at the end of
:09:22. > :09:25.the day, it is down to those women. It is about the process. I have been
:09:26. > :09:32.involved in a lot of internal disciplinary procedures as a union
:09:33. > :09:35.official. This should have gone to a hearing, and then both sides would
:09:36. > :09:40.have been able to confront and cross examine each other. That is what the
:09:41. > :09:43.failing has been. And we have been joined by the
:09:44. > :09:50.former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown. Welcome to the Daily Politics. You
:09:51. > :09:52.heard Linda Jackson Nick Clegg should have sat down with Chris
:09:53. > :09:58.Rennard and they should have talked about this and stop it getting to
:09:59. > :10:03.the stage. I know Linda and we have often fallen out, but I agree with
:10:04. > :10:07.almost every word she said, except that. Nick could not do that. He is
:10:08. > :10:12.a leader of the party. There were enquiry is going on. He would have
:10:13. > :10:16.been open to criticism if he had intervened in a personal way. Many
:10:17. > :10:21.of us have spoken to him on several occasions. He is a close friend, and
:10:22. > :10:27.he knows I think he is wrong on this. But Linda's point is the
:10:28. > :10:38.central point here. What Nick Clegg has done is stood on a fundamental
:10:39. > :10:44.visible at the heart of liberalism. It is about respect for individuals
:10:45. > :10:47.and respect forward. He has taken flak for that, but he is right. I
:10:48. > :10:54.suspect every party in Westminster suffers from this. Most of them are
:10:55. > :10:58.saying, there for the grace of God. But this is the Liberal Democrats.
:10:59. > :11:00.Nick Clegg has stood up for a mental principle and he is right to do so.
:11:01. > :11:04.Insofar as offence has been given, it would have been easy to find the
:11:05. > :11:11.words for an apology, and the absence of that is something we
:11:12. > :11:19.should continue to demand. And other Lib Dem Lords are defying the Clegg.
:11:20. > :11:22.-- Nick Clegg. They are defying the leadership, who are saying an
:11:23. > :11:27.apology is the least that needs to come? I can only give you my view.
:11:28. > :11:33.You are fiercely going to make up the division to be the biggest story
:11:34. > :11:38.you can. But I don't think it is as bloodthirsty as you suggest. Here is
:11:39. > :11:43.the central point. The democracy of our party is something we are very
:11:44. > :11:54.proud of. Yes, it makes it difficult to handle some issues. People fall
:11:55. > :11:58.out. It is not our finest moment. But when it comes to running the
:11:59. > :12:03.country, that very democracy has meant that the party has been united
:12:04. > :12:07.in a way that the Tories are not. Because of that democracy, the party
:12:08. > :12:11.has walked into the coalition. So you can criticise us about our
:12:12. > :12:15.internal structures, but when it comes to the big issues, standing
:12:16. > :12:18.together and taking tough decisions to put the country right, our party
:12:19. > :12:23.is united because of the democracy it has. But Linda Jack said the
:12:24. > :12:30.party has brought itself into disrepute. If this investigation
:12:31. > :12:34.clears Chris Rennard, he could be back within 14 weeks without making
:12:35. > :12:37.the apology that Nick Clegg has demanded. And you will have this all
:12:38. > :12:42.over again. I don't think that is correct. I am not going to predict
:12:43. > :12:49.what happens. The Webster enquiry said two thing is. There was
:12:50. > :12:54.credible evidence. Not sufficient for a criminal prosecution, and
:12:55. > :12:59.maybe that should be changed, and an apology is appropriate. All of those
:13:00. > :13:05.things must be followed through. You can't pick and choose. It stands
:13:06. > :13:09.together. The central issue is, is Nick Clegg right to have stood on a
:13:10. > :13:12.principle that Linda articulated brilliantly well, which is that
:13:13. > :13:17.women now in power demand something different in terms of respect than
:13:18. > :13:23.what was acceptable previously? He is dead right. On that basis, should
:13:24. > :13:27.the women who have accused Chris Rennard of harassing them take civil
:13:28. > :13:32.action, and should the party encourage them to do so? I think
:13:33. > :13:38.this talk of civil action is foolish. I don't think it will
:13:39. > :13:44.advance us towards where we want to get. Maybe with everybody in their
:13:45. > :13:48.trenches, they will want to do that. I don't git will serve the party.
:13:49. > :13:53.There is a way around this and we know what it is. The Webster
:13:54. > :13:57.omission report is the answer, and it needs to be followed through. It
:13:58. > :14:02.is simple to find the words to make this apology. There are people
:14:03. > :14:08.advising Chris who do this every day for large sums of money. Not that
:14:09. > :14:11.there is money involved here. It goes like this. "I assert my
:14:12. > :14:19.innocence. I do not believe I did this. But if inadvertently, I hurt
:14:20. > :14:26.others, I regret that." Ming Campbell said something similar
:14:27. > :14:30.along those lines. And he did say something like that. At Chris
:14:31. > :14:36.Rennard is considering legal action now. What is your message to him if
:14:37. > :14:40.he seeks an injunction to halt this enquiry? My message to all in the
:14:41. > :14:45.party is, you have done brilliantly in this coalition. You have helped
:14:46. > :14:50.this country out of a terrible mess. You have shown courage and unity.
:14:51. > :14:53.This is an internal matter. Give it a bit of time, let tempers cool, and
:14:54. > :14:59.let's come back to the central principle, the one Nick Clegg has
:15:00. > :15:04.defended with great courage. In the Liberal Democrats today, there are
:15:05. > :15:08.different standards. We demand respect for individuals and above
:15:09. > :15:16.all, respect for women. Test macro, as an observer, what do you take
:15:17. > :15:22.from this? -- Peter Bazalgette. There does not seem to be much
:15:23. > :15:27.reconciliation in the Lib Dem party at the moment and not a great deal
:15:28. > :15:33.of truth. But we are asserting a new standard of behaviour and respect
:15:34. > :15:38.between the sexes. As we are applying this new standards perhaps
:15:39. > :15:43.to behaviour in the past. I take issue with this and other serious
:15:44. > :15:49.court cases going on at the moment. They are all about saying, we used
:15:50. > :15:59.to do this, it is not how we do it now. It is an issue of principle.
:16:00. > :16:05.The issue is there has been a change of culture. The old standards are no
:16:06. > :16:10.longer in existence. People have to come to terms with that. So you
:16:11. > :16:15.would like to see him permanently suspended on that basis? I am
:16:16. > :16:19.prepared to let the processes we now have in chain take their natural
:16:20. > :16:24.course. But at the heart of democracy lies respect for
:16:25. > :16:31.individuals and if we have stood up for that then I am proud of that. I
:16:32. > :16:35.will bet you anything you like every other political party in Westminster
:16:36. > :16:41.is saying today, there but for the grace of God. I am sure that they
:16:42. > :16:46.are and they will lie low and give you the full spotlight. Is this
:16:47. > :16:56.turning into an old liberals versus the rest argument? I think it is
:16:57. > :17:04.much more a generational thing. It used to be tolerated but no longer.
:17:05. > :17:14.I think it is far more generally -- generational issue. And we should be
:17:15. > :17:18.leading the way on issues like this. If we helped to change the climate
:17:19. > :17:24.in Westminster in favour of respect for women then it may be difficult
:17:25. > :17:29.but I am proud of that. Now it's time for our daily quiz.
:17:30. > :17:31.The question for today is who is this being hit over the head with a
:17:32. > :17:47.placard yesterday? At the end of the programme Peter
:17:48. > :17:54.will give us the right answer. I am working on it! It is not easy
:17:55. > :17:58.unless you know the story. Now the eagle-eyed among you will
:17:59. > :18:01.notice that there's been a spate of welfare announcements from both the
:18:02. > :18:05.government and the Labour party in the last few weeks. It's hard to
:18:06. > :18:11.keep up. But don't worry, it's time for our welfare round-up. Two weeks
:18:12. > :18:14.ago George Osborne outlined his spending plans for the first two
:18:15. > :18:18.years of the next Parliament in which the welfare budget - excluding
:18:19. > :18:22.pensions - is set for an extra ?12 billion of cuts.
:18:23. > :18:28.The Chancellor suggested two possible changes to save money. A
:18:29. > :18:31.cut to Housing Benefit for under 25s and restricting access to council
:18:32. > :18:36.housing for those earning more than ?65,000 a year. That's if the
:18:37. > :18:41.Conservatives win the election in 2015. Meanwhile Labour's Rachel
:18:42. > :18:44.Reeves yesterday announced plans to increase the rate of job seekers
:18:45. > :18:50.allowance for those who lose their jobs after at least five years in
:18:51. > :18:55.employment. They'll get an extra ?20 a week for their first six weeks out
:18:56. > :18:59.of work. But the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary's plan will have
:19:00. > :19:04.to be approved by Ed Balls, who says that any changes must be
:19:05. > :19:10.cost-neutral. So who's winning the welfare battle? Joining me now is
:19:11. > :19:19.Conservative MP Mary Macleod and Shadow Employment Minister Stephen
:19:20. > :19:24.Timms. Should those who pay into the benefits system get more out of it
:19:25. > :19:30.when they fall on tough times? We think that the contributory
:19:31. > :19:32.principle is right. It has been weakened under successive
:19:33. > :19:39.governments and we think it is time to reverse that trend. You say it is
:19:40. > :19:44.a trend because experienced workers are to get an extra ?20 per week in
:19:45. > :19:49.payments. That is hardly an return to the contributory principle. It is
:19:50. > :19:55.a move back in that direction. It will take time. But at the moment
:19:56. > :20:00.people feel they pay into the system and when they need help is the help
:20:01. > :20:05.there. Would you like to see it go further? Well one thing the
:20:06. > :20:11.government has done that we argued against was that people losing their
:20:12. > :20:17.jobs on health grounds lose their contributory allocation now. We
:20:18. > :20:23.think we would like to increase that period. So I think it is an
:20:24. > :20:27.important first step and most people agree that if you have paid into the
:20:28. > :20:33.system for a significant period then you ought to be able to get more
:20:34. > :20:37.help than available at the moment. Ed Balls says it has to be cost
:20:38. > :20:43.neutral. What was suggested yesterday, at the moment you get
:20:44. > :20:52.contributory jobseeker's allowance after two years of contributions. We
:20:53. > :20:58.would look to extend that period. I think with Rachel Reeves on the
:20:59. > :21:05.front of the pages, it is still the same old Labour. I would like to see
:21:06. > :21:12.Ed Balls coming out and saying it is cost neutral, we do not think it is.
:21:13. > :21:20.You voted against savings on welfare. That is not true. But just
:21:21. > :21:24.to get to the point, we have a long-term economic plan in place and
:21:25. > :21:30.that is about bearing down on the deficit and making sure mortgages
:21:31. > :21:36.stay low. Part of that is putting a cap on housing. Why allow young
:21:37. > :21:43.people under 25 to leave home and take housing benefit? That cannot be
:21:44. > :21:46.fair or right. I would like to think your supporters would come forward
:21:47. > :21:52.with ideas for the next election to say people under 25 should just
:21:53. > :21:55.think about staying at home. Do you support that? I would like to see
:21:56. > :22:01.the detail of what is being proposed. We have agreed with the
:22:02. > :22:05.principle of universal credit which unfortunately is in a mess at the
:22:06. > :22:09.moment. We agreed with the principle of the benefits cap. Some changes
:22:10. > :22:16.did need to be made. But we should have a system where if you pay in,
:22:17. > :22:19.you can be confident of support. And you do not think that there should
:22:20. > :22:23.be a system for when people fall on hard times, when they have
:22:24. > :22:27.contributed, that they should not be demonised as some people have
:22:28. > :22:34.criticised ministers for, for claiming an effort. I do not think
:22:35. > :22:38.we criminalise people. Ian Duncan Smith has done a fantastic job of
:22:39. > :22:44.helping people out of the welfare trap. We are talking about people
:22:45. > :22:48.who have worked with them fall on hard times. I understand that. You
:22:49. > :22:52.have to live within your means. Part of that is that we take difficult
:22:53. > :23:02.decisions and focus the money on those women -- on those in most
:23:03. > :23:07.need. We believe in the principle of capping benefits but not the cap
:23:08. > :23:13.that the Conservatives used. Labour cannot keep saying we support you in
:23:14. > :23:16.these things and then vote against it in Parliament. And actually this
:23:17. > :23:22.is just about electioneering, posturing? The Labour Party feels it
:23:23. > :23:27.is seen as being soft on welfare and now seems to want to make itself
:23:28. > :23:30.tough. Rachel Reeves says Labour will be tougher than the
:23:31. > :23:37.Conservatives on slashing the benefits bill. How will it do that?
:23:38. > :23:42.Well we want to assess people who become unemployed right at the start
:23:43. > :23:46.to see which people have got a sick skills needs and then provide them
:23:47. > :23:50.with basic skills training to address those needs. If they do not
:23:51. > :23:55.take up that training we will have benefit sanctions. It is not just
:23:56. > :24:01.about posturing. We are putting forward a programme which will be
:24:02. > :24:04.developed over the coming months and will be ready for the general
:24:05. > :24:10.election, where all the different parts of what we will propose will
:24:11. > :24:18.come together. We spoke yesterday about education, a programme to take
:24:19. > :24:25.it in forward and get us out of the mess we are in at the minute. This
:24:26. > :24:30.is a battle over who is going to look toughest or fairest, which ever
:24:31. > :24:34.way you look at it, on welfare. The guys have done their research. They
:24:35. > :24:39.know people in work have had tough time and the public questions
:24:40. > :24:44.whether the benefits system is too generous. But I would make a
:24:45. > :24:51.different point, which is that we have all this pressure and talk of
:24:52. > :24:55.the benefits bill. We're not talking about one of the largest elements,
:24:56. > :24:59.the cost of the old age pensions. That is because old people are more
:25:00. > :25:04.likely to vote and so there sacrosanct. When you do that you
:25:05. > :25:10.make the pressure on the rest of the benefits bill very tough. That point
:25:11. > :25:15.would be right if we had not in the last three years taken some tough
:25:16. > :25:20.decisions. Not on pensions. Increasing the number of years that
:25:21. > :25:24.you have to work. That is a big change in culture. Of course the
:25:25. > :25:35.universal benefits will stay, rightly or wrongly. We have said I
:25:36. > :25:41.think it was above inflation, the triple lock. It is being protected.
:25:42. > :25:45.I have nothing against that policy but we must look at benefits in the
:25:46. > :25:50.round. I fear we are putting too much pressure on one area of
:25:51. > :25:55.benefit. We can take a look at the rest of the benefits bill if
:25:56. > :26:02.pensions are put aside. George was born says he wants to cut the bill
:26:03. > :26:08.further by ?12 million beyond 2015. Where would you find those cuts?
:26:09. > :26:13.What he signalled is what he needs to do. He has talked about the under
:26:14. > :26:20.25 is which Labour will not support. I hope they will changed their mind.
:26:21. > :26:28.That is part of it. Looking at housing benefit for people earning
:26:29. > :26:32.?65,000. Where is the rest going to come from? I will not sit here and
:26:33. > :26:38.speculate, I'm not the Chancellor. What I would say is that we have
:26:39. > :26:42.indicated you need to find more savings in the welfare budget. I
:26:43. > :26:48.hope Labour will support us if they are serious about this. I suspect
:26:49. > :26:55.they are not. It is the same old Labour with more taxation. In terms
:26:56. > :27:01.of other things that Labour has been shouting about, like the minimum
:27:02. > :27:06.wage, George Osborne has still underfunded. It is a welcome change
:27:07. > :27:11.of heart. I hope that he sees it through. The key to bringing down
:27:12. > :27:20.the Social Security Bill is to get people back in work. ?15 billion
:27:21. > :27:23.more has been spent on social security because so many people are
:27:24. > :27:27.out of work. So many people who want to work full-time can only find
:27:28. > :27:33.part-time work. That is what we have two address. But the unemployment
:27:34. > :27:37.picture is not as bad as you predict. It is now looking up. We
:27:38. > :27:43.were told after the election that there would be steady growth but it
:27:44. > :27:47.took three years of no growth. Finally there is some growth and the
:27:48. > :27:52.opportunity must be taken to get people back into work. Where would
:27:53. > :27:58.you set the national minimum wage? We would take advice from the low
:27:59. > :28:05.pay commission. Would you like it to be beyond ?7 an hour. I'm happy to
:28:06. > :28:10.wait for advice on that. But we would encourage employers to pay the
:28:11. > :28:19.living wage and there are ways to encourage them to go further. How
:28:20. > :28:26.would businesses feel about that? It would make life more affordable for
:28:27. > :28:33.people working in London. It might cause problems for some businesses
:28:34. > :28:39.employing some of the lower paid workers. But personally, it is not a
:28:40. > :28:46.political point, it is good to hear both parties backing a living wage.
:28:47. > :28:51.I am pleased to hear everyone backing this principle. The
:28:52. > :28:56.important thing is incremental increases to the minimum wage do not
:28:57. > :29:00.hurt businesses, small or large. All the research I have seen indicates
:29:01. > :29:05.that there is not that damage if it is incremental.
:29:06. > :29:08.How we pay for the arts in this country has always been contentious.
:29:09. > :29:11.And never more so than in these austere times, where every penny of
:29:12. > :29:14.public money counts. The government would like to see arts organisations
:29:15. > :29:17.moving closer to the American model, where philanthropy rather than the
:29:18. > :29:21.state funds the lion's share. In 2012, more than $14 billion were
:29:22. > :29:27.donated in the US. In Britain, it was just under ?700 million. But are
:29:28. > :29:41.the two systems comparable? And could what happens in the States
:29:42. > :29:45.work here? David Thompson reports. The take written, one of the great
:29:46. > :29:51.national galleries and free to all comers. Most people agree that the
:29:52. > :29:57.arts are good thing. We are proud of our galleries. We love it when a
:29:58. > :30:03.Brit wins an Oscar. It only gets tricky when it comes to funding it.
:30:04. > :30:06.This government has been urging arts organisations to do more to raise
:30:07. > :30:13.their own revenue. But how much the public prepared to stump up? People
:30:14. > :30:17.to not give that much to the art. Their favourite causes are medical
:30:18. > :30:25.research, international development. The arts has never been a popular
:30:26. > :30:33.fund-raising calls except for major donors who always gave a lot of
:30:34. > :30:45.money to the arts. He here is one of those donors. His home is testament
:30:46. > :30:52.to his wealth. There is nowhere near the same magnitude of fundraising
:30:53. > :30:55.that you find in the United States. In this country, it is moving in
:30:56. > :31:01.that direction, but it is not there yet. Therefore, the government has
:31:02. > :31:09.to give organisations in this country and a four effort of trying
:31:10. > :31:13.to move the needle -- they have to give an A4 effort. But we have a
:31:14. > :31:17.longer to go before we can compare apples with apples between New York
:31:18. > :31:22.and London. But even if ministers can make London more like New York,
:31:23. > :31:26.what about the rest of the country? The government has put a lot of
:31:27. > :31:29.building blocks in place to encourage donors to make
:31:30. > :31:35.contributions to our arts facilities. I suspect it may do more
:31:36. > :31:38.in time. What it hasn't done is thought through how to encourage
:31:39. > :31:46.more giving to the small, regional arts organisation. For donors like
:31:47. > :31:51.John, sustaining Britain's cultural heritage is too important to be left
:31:52. > :31:57.to short-term financial necessity or longer term ideology. This is a
:31:58. > :32:01.serious part of this country's culture. If you are going to change
:32:02. > :32:07.the funding base, you should develop a long-term plan and do it. The
:32:08. > :32:13.reality a 20 or 30 year plan with these institutions to try to say,
:32:14. > :32:18.let's look at this over two decades. In that time, we would like these
:32:19. > :32:22.institutions to be financially independent. Private patronage of
:32:23. > :32:26.the arts is hardly new. The challenge now is to harness the
:32:27. > :32:33.values of the Medicis 28 when she first century renaissance in how we
:32:34. > :32:34.pay for our current -- 21st century renaissance in how we pay for our
:32:35. > :32:39.culture. Why is philanthropy so much bigger
:32:40. > :32:43.in America than here? Actually, Britain is quite a charitable
:32:44. > :32:48.nation. Although not as much money gets given to charity in Britain as
:32:49. > :32:52.America, if you look at the international league table, we are
:32:53. > :32:58.high up there. But to the arts? You have put your finger on it. Less
:32:59. > :33:05.money goes to the arts than probably should do. Probably 1% of charitable
:33:06. > :33:10.giving goes to the arts. We did some research that told us that only 9%
:33:11. > :33:13.of the population knew that arts and cultural organisations were
:33:14. > :33:21.charities. That is a marketing issue for the arts sector. But there are
:33:22. > :33:24.things we can do. The interview who said -- the interviewer who said it
:33:25. > :33:28.was a problem outside London is right. 80% of the philanthropic
:33:29. > :33:35.money raised for organisations goes to London. The Arts Council can only
:33:36. > :33:41.do its bit, but we are doing some things. We are doing a scheme where
:33:42. > :33:46.we have given money to be matched by private donors, which will help
:33:47. > :33:50.raise more than 100 million. We are putting money into training a new
:33:51. > :33:54.generation of fundraisers and improving the fundraising
:33:55. > :33:57.departments. But we need to do more. But why is it more successful in
:33:58. > :34:01.terms of giving to the arts in America than here? Well, as I say,
:34:02. > :34:08.arts and culture here has not presented itself as a charitable
:34:09. > :34:15.object. And it does over there. Also, there are tax breaks. For
:34:16. > :34:20.instance, did you know that if you leave more than 10% of your estate
:34:21. > :34:29.to a charity, you get a 4% reduction in your inheritance tax? No. I do
:34:30. > :34:34.now. Very few people know about it. I have discovered that the Treasury
:34:35. > :34:43.gives us tax breaks, but they never publicise them. Of course. But as
:34:44. > :34:49.you said, we know Britain is a charitable nation. We know that
:34:50. > :34:52.interims of disaster appeals. But we give more to donkey sanctuaries than
:34:53. > :34:58.we do to the opera. Does that upset you? I think people should give
:34:59. > :35:02.their money to whatever cause they want to. If we are going to compare
:35:03. > :35:08.donkey sanctuaries to opera, that is difficult all stop quite a poser for
:35:09. > :35:13.this time of day. But we do need to raise more money for the arts, and
:35:14. > :35:17.we can get a bigger slice of the charitable cake for the arts if the
:35:18. > :35:22.arts present it in the right way. It is difficult outside London, but we
:35:23. > :35:27.are going to have a go. Is it taboo to celebrate people's generosity
:35:28. > :35:33.here? That is another thing. We should do that. We are good at
:35:34. > :35:37.getting arts organisations to put arts Council funded or Heritage
:35:38. > :35:44.Lottery Fund did. Maybe we should write, do John Studzinski funded.
:35:45. > :35:48.So we have discussed who should pay for funding the arts, but what about
:35:49. > :35:52.how that money gets distributed? We have been joined from Birmingham by
:35:53. > :35:58.Dorothy Wilson, chief executive of the Mac Arts Centre. How do you feel
:35:59. > :36:02.about the imbalance? Is it something that has been there since time
:36:03. > :36:11.immemorial? Has it improved over the last few years? It is a big picture,
:36:12. > :36:14.of course. The arts Council has been channelling the department of
:36:15. > :36:19.culture support and local authority support, together with donations
:36:20. > :36:24.from individuals, corporate organisations and foundations. That
:36:25. > :36:30.makes up the whole picture in terms of investment out of London. Each of
:36:31. > :36:36.those are challenged. I agree with Peter that there are signs of some
:36:37. > :36:44.improvement in terms of philanthropic giving that is coming
:36:45. > :36:47.outside London. But it is slow. The point was made by one of your
:36:48. > :36:53.earlier speakers that this has to be a 20 year plan. I agree with that.
:36:54. > :36:58.But how big is the discrepancy between, say, London and York, or
:36:59. > :37:04.Birmingham, in terms of the money they get for their theatres and art
:37:05. > :37:13.galleries? It varies enormously. A recent report illustrated that the
:37:14. > :37:21.amount of government money going into the arts is very much dominated
:37:22. > :37:25.by London. It is therefore easy to say that that should be rebalanced.
:37:26. > :37:29.Everyone would agree that there should be some rebalancing, but
:37:30. > :37:34.London is our capital, and it is also an international centre for the
:37:35. > :37:40.arts. So we would expect that to be carrying the lion 's share. Let's
:37:41. > :37:47.look at the figures. You are aware of the imbalances, Peter, but but
:37:48. > :37:52.you are also presiding over it. Arts Council 2013's spend was ?163
:37:53. > :37:58.million. ?20 per head went to serve the capital, versus ?3 60 outside
:37:59. > :38:03.London. That is a big discrepancy. Dorothy makes a good point. She and
:38:04. > :38:06.I have discussed this in the past during my visits to Birmingham.
:38:07. > :38:09.There is a historical imbalance between London and outside London.
:38:10. > :38:13.The main reason for that is not to do with the arts Council, it is to
:38:14. > :38:17.do with the fact that the government directly funds the National
:38:18. > :38:21.museums, things like the Tate, the British Museum and the National
:38:22. > :38:25.Gallery. 80% of that money goes to London, because that is where most
:38:26. > :38:29.of the national institutions are. By comparison, the arts Council has
:38:30. > :38:34.always been the champion of arts outside London. It has two sources
:38:35. > :38:39.of finance. One of those is lottery money, and the other is money from
:38:40. > :38:43.the taxpayer. 60% of that money goes outside London. It used to be less
:38:44. > :38:48.than that. So the trend is towards outside London. I hope Dorothy and I
:38:49. > :38:51.would agree that we need to keep that trend going, because investment
:38:52. > :38:57.outside London, where the money is really needed, like the fact that a
:38:58. > :39:03.quarter of ?1 million has gone into Birmingham in the last few years,
:39:04. > :39:05.there is a national is usual in the West Midlands, the royal Shakespeare
:39:06. > :39:11.company in Stratford. We have to keep the trend going. Dorothy, what
:39:12. > :39:15.about complaints about community projects, things that are
:39:16. > :39:23.experimental? Those struggled to get funding. How do you boost those? I
:39:24. > :39:29.agree with a lot of what Peter was saying. But we must also remember
:39:30. > :39:37.that whilst most of the major institutions are still based in
:39:38. > :39:44.London and the South, we need to be careful not to focus production only
:39:45. > :39:50.in the capital. What is really important is that we need to be
:39:51. > :39:55.nurturing centres of production and engagement throughout the country.
:39:56. > :40:01.It is tough. I see small green shoots in my own experience, which
:40:02. > :40:05.indicate that some, particularly the London based foundations, are
:40:06. > :40:13.starting to look outside London. That has to be encouraged.
:40:14. > :40:16.Now, do you remember this? If you can't be asked to vote, why should
:40:17. > :40:19.we be asked to listen to your political point of view? You don't
:40:20. > :40:24.have to listen to my point of view but it is not that I am not voting
:40:25. > :40:26.out of apathy. I am not voting out of absolute indifference and
:40:27. > :40:30.weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the
:40:31. > :40:33.political class that has been going on for generations and which has now
:40:34. > :40:37.reached fever pitch where we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned,
:40:38. > :40:40.despondent underclass that are not being represented by the political
:40:41. > :40:45.system. So voting for it is tacit complicity with that system.
:40:46. > :40:51.That was the comedian Russell Brand, talking to Jeremy Paxman on
:40:52. > :40:56.Newsnight last autumn. His attack on politics and the political process
:40:57. > :40:59.got some headlines, and prompted politicians to scratch their heads
:41:00. > :41:03.and wonder why the public hate them so much. One senior backbencher has
:41:04. > :41:09.been thinking about this a lot. He joins us now. David lunk it,
:41:10. > :41:15.welcome. -- David Blunkett. Why do you think young people are so
:41:16. > :41:20.disengaged with mainstream politics? There are lots of reasons. Partly,
:41:21. > :41:24.we don't talk the language. We are not as honest as we should be about
:41:25. > :41:27.where power really lies and what influence we have and where we don't
:41:28. > :41:32.have it. But actually, there is a corrosive influence taking place,
:41:33. > :41:36.and Russell Brand is part of that, to pretend that this is something to
:41:37. > :41:40.do with what he described as the political class. Whereas, of course,
:41:41. > :41:43.politics is to do with all of us. It is not a spectator sport. It is
:41:44. > :41:50.about people getting engaged with their own lives and participating,
:41:51. > :41:54.and also voting. This evening, in a speech I am making, I will make the
:41:55. > :41:57.point that the people who need politics the most are the least
:41:58. > :42:01.likely to engage. That has always been the irony. Do you think
:42:02. > :42:09.celebrity culture has damaged politics? I am fully in favour of
:42:10. > :42:15.satire. I am totally against sneering. I am in favour of being
:42:16. > :42:19.sceptical. That is part of a healthy democracy, but not cynical. Too
:42:20. > :42:27.often, we just get straight abuse. They are not very funny either. But
:42:28. > :42:31.they are also helping to disengaged other people. And the people who are
:42:32. > :42:37.in the know, who actually do have a voice and can get on Question Time
:42:38. > :42:41.or get a radio programme on the BBC, they know where the power lies.
:42:42. > :42:46.They have a voice and some influence. To encourage other people
:42:47. > :42:50.to disengage and to do away with their little bit of influence in the
:42:51. > :42:55.world is a disgrace. Let's put that to Peter Bazalgette. You know
:42:56. > :42:58.something about celebrity TV. It is damaging politics and stopping the
:42:59. > :43:06.people who need it from getting it. That is pretty ten pensioners. --
:43:07. > :43:10.tendentious. A few years ago, I cooperated with the Hansard Society
:43:11. > :43:14.to do research into fans of TV shows and their attitude to politics. Why
:43:15. > :43:19.do young people not vote? It is a good question we will be talking
:43:20. > :43:22.about this evening. Young people are after authenticity and decency. One
:43:23. > :43:26.thing I hope you will address this evening, David, is the tenor of the
:43:27. > :43:33.debate between politicians, because it is depressing. If I may say so,
:43:34. > :43:37.in the media, they constantly disagree with each other and people
:43:38. > :43:41.get very tired of that. It seems very inauthentic. We need a more
:43:42. > :43:47.authentic political discourse to engage young voters. David, the
:43:48. > :43:51.anti-politics you dislike so much is proving to be popular for that
:43:52. > :44:01.reason. Well, we are caught. If we are not entertaining, we get
:44:02. > :44:04.ignored. I grant you that. With Prime Minister's Questions, this
:44:05. > :44:07.must be a matter of age. I find Prime Minister's Questions a
:44:08. > :44:12.complete turn-off. I sit there, thinking, who is this reaching?
:44:13. > :44:17.There are plenty of our viewers who like that argy-bargy. So we can't
:44:18. > :44:20.win on that. We have to address where people are at. One of the
:44:21. > :44:24.great thing is nine years ago was something called make poverty
:44:25. > :44:29.history, a major campaign across the developed world. Here in Britain, at
:44:30. > :44:34.the beginning of July 2005, we had over 2 million mainly young people
:44:35. > :44:38.involved, 1.5 million on the streets of Edinburgh, peacefully walking and
:44:39. > :44:43.influencing the G8 summit which took place at Gleneagles that week.
:44:44. > :44:48.Sadly, at the time of the London bombings as well. And they did make
:44:49. > :44:54.a difference. That campaign changed the minds of world leaders in terms
:44:55. > :45:01.of debt relief in Africa and to a degree, on climate change. But there
:45:02. > :45:07.are events where politics has been damaged by politicians themselves. I
:45:08. > :45:10.can quote you Lord Faulkner . In 2012 on the 10th anniversary of the
:45:11. > :45:13.Iraq dossier, he admitted that the war had had a hugely damaging effect
:45:14. > :45:19.on politics and political discourse. Do you accept that things like that
:45:20. > :45:29.have eroded trust and belief in politics? I do accept it has a major
:45:30. > :45:34.influence. We need a sensible dialogue. We need to disagree when
:45:35. > :45:39.we disagree instead of for the sake of it. We have to get across that
:45:40. > :45:45.sometimes in a do not receive you do not get your way. I was the first to
:45:46. > :45:57.say in 2010 that you have to lose elections as well as the women in at
:45:58. > :46:02.democracy. -- as well as when them. I do think that kind of honesty will
:46:03. > :46:07.bring people back. The tragedy from the Hansard report is that many
:46:08. > :46:15.young people say they are determined to vote in 2014. And they have been
:46:16. > :46:21.hit most by austerity. They are in danger of being disenfranchised.
:46:22. > :46:26.Earlier in the programme we said old-age pensioners have been made
:46:27. > :46:30.sacrosanct part of the benefits budget because they vote. Young
:46:31. > :46:42.people are in danger of being disenfranchised. Voter turnout is
:46:43. > :46:47.down. If young people get out and vote they can actually get power
:46:48. > :46:54.back. What about the lack of political ideology, as many people
:46:55. > :46:58.see it. Having a powerful narrative is some past leading politicians
:46:59. > :47:04.had, because that has gone away, that in itself has meant that people
:47:05. > :47:17.are less interested? Well we have 24 hour news streaming, that has made a
:47:18. > :47:24.difference. But we have to engage with people in different ways. On
:47:25. > :47:35.the bigger issue, I think... Occupy, that did engage people. It
:47:36. > :47:39.caught their attention for a moment. And actually mobilise people as
:47:40. > :47:43.consumers. They have had an impact in terms of social media when they
:47:44. > :47:48.have said we do not like what you're doing. I think Ed Miliband touched
:47:49. > :47:56.on this at the weekend, there is more work to do on that. But could
:47:57. > :48:01.we get citizens advice involved in mobilising consumers and giving them
:48:02. > :48:04.a voice? That is an area to explore. Now, have the Conservative Party got
:48:05. > :48:09.a problem retaining their female MPs? Yesterday Jessica Lee became
:48:10. > :48:13.the latest Tory MP to say she was standing down at the next election,
:48:14. > :48:16.citing personal reasons. In the last few months Laura Sandys and Lorraine
:48:17. > :48:20.Fulbrook have also said they are leaving Westminster. The party
:48:21. > :48:26.increased its number of female MPs from 17 to 49 at the last election.
:48:27. > :48:32.But could that situation get worse rather than better in 2015? We've
:48:33. > :48:40.been joined by Andrew Gimson from the Conservative Home website. Why
:48:41. > :48:46.are so many Tory women finding life at Westminster itself on appealing?
:48:47. > :48:51.A great many Tory men find life at Westminster on appealing as well! I
:48:52. > :48:56.think three things are tough for women. One is the continued feeling
:48:57. > :49:03.that the series decisions are taken pretty much entirely by men. This is
:49:04. > :49:08.true also of the Labour Party. And you may be arise with some
:49:09. > :49:14.particular knowledge of some field of policy which are burning to put
:49:15. > :49:21.into effect and no one pays you the slightest attention. Then the hours
:49:22. > :49:26.are so long. It is difficult. Most women who have got to Cabinet level
:49:27. > :49:34.under David Cameron do not have children. Also if you have elderly
:49:35. > :49:39.relatives. And also the vulgar abuse you get from a certain type of
:49:40. > :49:51.horrible boorish man on social media. Has that not always been the
:49:52. > :49:56.choice? The pressures of public office versus the pleasures of the
:49:57. > :50:01.more private one and the strain on family life. That is true. Margaret
:50:02. > :50:06.Thatcher worked phenomenally hard and did not spend all that much time
:50:07. > :50:12.with her twins. The first job she was given was a highly technical job
:50:13. > :50:16.to do with pensions. None of the men thought it was of the slightest
:50:17. > :50:23.importance. It was a horrible job and for a long time she was
:50:24. > :50:29.excluded. But she came through. If David Cameron concerned about this?
:50:30. > :50:31.I think he is. As Leader of the Opposition one of the most
:50:32. > :50:38.conspicuous things he was doing was to get more women as candidates in
:50:39. > :50:45.sexy and he succeeded pretty well. -- in safe seats. There is now a
:50:46. > :50:52.danger that the numbers could actually fall back. The House of
:50:53. > :50:55.Commons authorities and various leading backbenchers have said they
:50:56. > :50:59.have done a lot to change life of Parliament. Is it still as
:51:00. > :51:05.incompatible with family life as it used to be? It is still difficult.
:51:06. > :51:11.The idea that you can pop home and give your child a bath and read to
:51:12. > :51:17.them in the evening is for most MPs entirely impractical. You're pulled
:51:18. > :51:23.in both directions. You are expected to do fantastic amounts of work in
:51:24. > :51:28.the constituency and also a great deal at Westminster. To have time
:51:29. > :51:33.left for family whether you are a man or a woman is very difficult.
:51:34. > :51:41.The more cynical view, after Louise Mensch step down -- stepped down and
:51:42. > :51:48.Nadine Dorries suggested that she had left because she thought she
:51:49. > :51:51.would lose the seat? She left actually because she married the
:51:52. > :52:00.love of her life who lives in New York. When Lorraine Fulbrook, she
:52:01. > :52:09.gave up in September, she did not cut and run like Louise Mensch. She
:52:10. > :52:15.said she had given 12 years of her life to her constituency and that
:52:16. > :52:18.that was enough. Unless you're extraordinarily strong minded it
:52:19. > :52:22.consumes every moment of every day if you're not careful.
:52:23. > :52:27.Does it matter if your local pub shuts its doors for good? This
:52:28. > :52:31.afternoon MPs will debate the issue of pub closures and what can be done
:52:32. > :52:34.to keep them open. One option available to local communities is to
:52:35. > :52:39.make use of a new set of community rights, which came into force over a
:52:40. > :53:00.year ago. We asked the Communities minister Stephen Williams to explain
:53:01. > :53:07.how they work. Here's his soapbox. I have supported Oxford United for
:53:08. > :53:12.more than a decade. It is an important part of my life. You
:53:13. > :53:18.cannot underestimate how popular this club is. The football club is
:53:19. > :53:28.really important to Oxford and Oxfordshire. This is the stadium,
:53:29. > :53:34.home to Oxford United. Back in May last year they succeeded in getting
:53:35. > :53:40.the stadium listed as an asset of community value. Now if the owner
:53:41. > :53:45.ever wants to sell the stadium the club will have six months to put in
:53:46. > :53:51.their own bid in order to buy it, so preserving it for future use. It was
:53:52. > :53:55.the first in the country to get this status and now joins 13 other
:53:56. > :54:00.stadiums. Football clubs are often at the centre of communities,
:54:01. > :54:03.bringing people of all backgrounds together. So we felt it was
:54:04. > :54:09.important for supporters to be able to protect their club. Just down the
:54:10. > :54:13.road we are in great Milton. This is the last remaining pub in the
:54:14. > :54:18.village but sadly the brewery put it up for sale. Through the community
:54:19. > :54:24.shares policy around 300 people came together to form a great Milton
:54:25. > :54:31.community Pub Co. They took it into community ownership last year and
:54:32. > :54:36.raised almost ?280,000 in shares. After our first meeting we had
:54:37. > :54:43.promises of over ?200,000 within a week. That enabled us to buy it and
:54:44. > :54:48.to refurbish it upstairs. It had been neglect did for some years.
:54:49. > :54:53.People volunteered their skills and expertise. We had teams of
:54:54. > :55:00.gardeners. All completely voluntary. It is not just pubs and football
:55:01. > :55:04.clubs. Tame was one of the first places in the country to vote on a
:55:05. > :55:08.neighbourhood plan. Residents planned and drafted where they
:55:09. > :55:13.wanted new homes and a school to be built. They prevented new houses
:55:14. > :55:22.being built as one mass development outside town and instead spread the
:55:23. > :55:25.houses across and around the town. People are at the heart of their
:55:26. > :55:31.community. Without them there is no market, no local pub. Now the
:55:32. > :55:36.government has given people a real chance to shape their own community.
:55:37. > :55:40.They can list assets of community value and develop their own town
:55:41. > :55:46.plan. People are now in charge of shaping how their community will
:55:47. > :55:53.look. That is surely a good thing. And Stephen Williams joins me now.
:55:54. > :55:59.Looked like a lovely pub! How many of these projects have actually
:56:00. > 0:49:05caught -- got off the ground? There are hundreds of project