23/01/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. He doesn't like the


EU, he's against high immigration, and he's opposed to high taxes. But


what does Nigel Farage like? We'll be putting UKIP's policies under the


spotlight. As world leaders discuss the crisis in Syria, the Prime


Minister 's says he's open-minded about accepting refugees from Syria


is a compelling case is made. Could Labour and the Lib Dems team up to


force a change of policy? Should we just accept that women who choose to


have children are worth less to companies? One high-flying woman


disagrees and she'll be here to tell us why. And from pints to Chardonnay


- shocking news that one of Westminster's best loved watering


holes is going all posh. All that in the next hour. And with


us for the whole programme today is the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage.


Welcome to the Daily Politics. Now first this morning let's talk about


defence because a little earlier, the Defence Secretary, Phillip


Hammond outlined the latest round of cuts to the armed forces. Around


1,400 soldiers are to lose their jobs. Here's Mr Hammond, in action


in the Commons. For the men and women of our Armed Forces, I know


that this has been a painful process. But completion of this


final tranche will mark a turning point. With the bulk of our troops


back from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and coming back from


Germany over the next four years, as we build future Force 2020, they


will be able to enjoy the peace of mind that comes from belonging to


armed forces that are put a period of change and restructuring behind


them and focused on building their skills and capabilities for the


future. Nigel Farage, this latest and final round of cuts will end a


period of uncertainty for troops, do you agree? No! Weather would have


thought that a Conservative lead on government would slash army numbers,


people are wondering how this is going to work. His plan is, you cut


the number of regulars and you rebrand the Territorial Army and


build that up to 30,000 troops, it isn't going to work. I have got


family involvement in this, my father is president of the TA


regiment in London. He says the problem is that employers were OK


about a fortnight 's camp every year but suddenly, the TA has meant for


months here, five months there, and they are trying to get a full-time


army on the cheap through the reservists. People are going to


struggle, employers are not going to want their people to be in the Army


reserve and this isn't going to work. We have spoken to ministers,


and to some MPs who serve in the Armed Forces as reservists, they say


it can be squared. They say it is a sign of a modern army, that looking


ahead, employers will be convinced to come on board and support this.


Let's sit here in six months, I feel confident in saying that the Army


reserve will not be able to recruit the numbers it needs to make up for


the huge reduction in numbers. Let's look at the numbers, how big the


Army be under UKIP? We have been running at about 100 to 120,000 for


some time. We are now slashing it down to 82,500. People say this is


the final cut, I am not sure. You say that people will look again at


cuts? I think defence cuts have been the easy way for the government to


cut. We are now spending less than 2% of our entire budget on defence,


it is very low indeed. But UKIP themselves have said that you


wouldn't want to be involved in the sort of conflict we have seen in the


past, so what is the need? Because UKIP doesn't want to get involved in


endless foreign wars doesn't mean that we want to slash our defences


to the level... Let's just say, and the Falklands is much more heavily


manned and it was 30 years ago, let's just say the Argentinians did


establish a toehold on the Falklands and we had to try, militarily, to


get them back, we couldn't do it. So the point about having defences is


that you are there for the unforeseen event. It's like paying


the insurance on the house in case there is a fire. Having said he


wouldn't go into those sorts of adventures, if you can call them,


would you not have gone into Afghanistan? I fail to see, with all


these was, what our object to his work. In the case of Afghanistan,


all you have to do was reading five minutes of history to know it would


be unwinnable. So you wouldn't have gone into Iraq? It was a vengeance


will, we will end up with a three state solution, it will take about


15 or 20 years of a horrible civil war. I wouldn't have wanted Libya


and I don't think any thing we have done in the Middle East has made it


more stable or better. So what you need such a big Armed Forces, for


something that may never happen and actually is unlikely to? In some


ways. Since the Warsaw Pact disappeared, the world is even more


uncertain than it was. At least we knew what the potential enemy was.


There are some wars that you find yourself unavoidably getting dragged


into. Here we are, 100 years since the start of the First World War,


nobody thought that was imaginable. We just don't know. The former US


Defence Secretary said the Armed Forces cuts will diminish the UK's


military standing. Does that matter? I think it does. The point about


being a full partner to the US is when they say jump, we don't always


ask how high, after all Harold Wilson, when Lyndon Johnson came to


Downing Street said no, we're not going to Vietnam. The point is, we


can choose to the two things when they are right.


Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is which of


these has the largest number of followers on twitter? A) Nigel


Farage b) The official UKIP twitter feed c) UKIP weather or d) Godfrey


Bloom. Now, this show is obviously watched


by millions so the answer could well change by the end of the show. In


which case, Nigel, we'll have to take the answer as it was at the


time of writing which was about half past nine this morning! Compliance


at its best! As you're watching this programme I


reckon it's fairly safe to say you're an intelligent sort of person


with a keen grasp of the political world. Unless you are a student that


has just woken up! You don't need me to tell you that Nigel Farage's UKIP


want out of the EU, or for that matter, that they're not


particularly big fans of immigration. But what else do they


stand for? Jo's been going through their policies with a fine tooth


comb. Nigel Farage is the political


outsider who wants to change the system from within, and this


revolutionary has plenty of other battles to fight and rights to


right. The party is promising to reveal very soon how it intends to


reduce ?90 billion from our annual expenditure, without reducing major


public services. They aim to keep tax as low as possible, although


there's not much detail as to how they're going to do it. Their


pensions policy is as yet unclear although at the last election they


promised a flat rate, non means testable, non contributory, non


taxable citizens pension of ?130 a week. On crime, they promise not to


reduce spending on front line policing and they say they'll have a


tougher sentencing policy, life will mean life. On health, they will


restore free eye and dental checks and a UKIP government would make


sure doctors' surgeries stay open in the evenings. Climate change is so


last century, according to their energy spokesman Roger Helmer -


green taxes will be scrapped and nuclear power promoted. More money


will go into the defence budget although they say a UKIP government


would be less likely to get involved in foreign conflicts. Finally UKIP


support more grammar schools and they would bring back the student


grant. Of course it's over a year before until the next general


election and UKIP say a lot of their policies are still under review, so


just how revolutionary will Nigel Farage's UKIP be?


With us now is the Conservative MP, Priti Patel. So, comrades... I have


never thought of myself like that! An awful lot of policies, will any


of them make the manifesto? Wait and see. Our job is to fight the


European elections on May 22 on just the constitutional question but the


consequences of being an EU member, whether it is on immigration or the


effect on the City of London, we will focus on those things between


now and then. But UKIP has to do is to show people that it has a


domestic policy agenda, that it adds up. We have to show where cuts can


be made, considerable cuts can be made, we are also going to have to


have a strategy for growth, as that is one of the things this


government... There is some growth in the economy but what we will do


is talk particularly about the small businesses and what can be done to


get some growth there. At the last election he wanted to cut 90 billion


of taxes and spend an extra 30 billion. There is going to be too


much scrutiny on you at this election, I suggest, are you to get


away with an obvious nonsense like that. That is not an obvious


nonsense! Not if you can show where the cuts can come. Anybody working


for a quango or earning six-figure money in government is not going to


be voting UKIP. We believe that the whole public sector part of our


economy has ballooned out of control. But 90 billion cuts and 30


billion extra means you have to find 120 Ilion to do that. It's not


realistic, is it? It's very ambitious! I didn't put that


manifesto together, I was just a candidate, but I can assure you of


one thing, the 2015 manifesto will be similar in flavour. Do you still


plan to have a citizens pension? This idea has been taken up to large


extent by Iain Duncan Smith. But we have not decided what we're going to


do. You wanted to scrap employers's national insurance, that costs about


60 billion. For start-up company is, the idea of a holiday where you


don't have to pay that will be a short-term boost. I remember what


that manifesto said, it was a long-term ambition... It said you


would phase it out for employers, not the people but employers over


five years, recouping revenue through corporation tax, sales tax


revenue and lower spending. I would describe that as an overly ambitious


view of what can be done in five years! You once wanted a flat rate


tax system, now you want a two tier system. We want flatter, simple,


lower taxes. Flat rate is another. What you want? Our tax code is


12,000 pages long, we wanted radically reduced, it will still be


at downside simpler than the current system. We want no tax on them and


wait, that would incentivise people to get off benefit and back to work.


-- on the minimum wage. Will all be quango is go? I think a lot of them


will. Wouldn't a lot of the jobs just have to be redeployed into the


departments? If you look at the Environment Agency, it is a big


agency, big budget, you can't just scrap it and say that's it. A lot of


these things will go back into the Department of the Environment or


whatever it's called now. We have these parallel structures, we have


Whitehall departments, quangos, the ultimate radically shrinking our


bureaucracy is how powerful. Could you give as an example of a concrete


policy that will be in your manifesto? We will fight very hard


to bring back select the schools specific social mobility has fallen


in this country, the 7% to go to the fee-paying schools are dominating


everything, current affairs, sport, everything. So by selective schools,


you mean he would bring back, schools? What we call them matters


less than the principle of it. If you look at those bits we can define


about you Capcom he wants to get out of the EU, wants to be tough on


immigration, bring back grammar schools, spend more on defence, it


sells like what a lot of them is of the Tory party believed? The issue


is, but these are attitudes. When you are a party in Westminster and


in government, you have to make some very tough long-term choices which


is what we are doing in government right now. On the economy, schools


in particular. We agree we have had a terrible decade of failure in our


education system. So we are reforming education through free


schools, academies. Would you like to bring back grammar schools? I


support academies and I support a lot of schools in my constituency.


Would you like to bring back grammar schools? There was a plan to have an


extension and Michael Gove was beaten on that. I have got long held


views. I have been campaigning for a referendum a lot than Nigel Farage.


But, that said, you have to be a party in government, you have to be


a party in Westminster that can take legislation through Parliament. With


David Cameron and Philip Hammond announcing 1400 in cuts in defence,


you cannot imagine better people to have on your side who have been


loyal to this country for a decade after decade. You cannot be happy


with that. There are hard realities we have had to face around defence


spending. I remember in 2010 when we came to power we inherited a ?38


billion black hole in the defence budget alone. You have to make


difficult decisions. Coming up with political slogans that might sound


nice, are long way away from having a long-term plan that can deliver


change. But you cannot get out of bed in the morning and say, I am


proud to be a party that is slashing defence spending and adding 6


billion to international aid? It is the responsibility of generations


such as my generation to come up with the right long-term solution


for this country and you can only do that in government. To govern is to


choose. Are you proud to be supporting a government that is


slashing defence spending and increasing international aid? I am


part of a government that is facing up to the hard realities. But are


you proud of that? We have to recognise the tough climate that we


are in. It is quite clear from the way these questions have not been


answered that she is quite close to you on a number of issues, so why


are you going to put a candidate against heard that will make it more


difficult for Priti Patel to hold onto her seat? If she says she would


openly defy a three line whip and vote against her own government to


get Britain out of the EU, we might be talking. We are not going to have


a motion of confidence of that nature. I sent that for the first


time in 20 years it is in the front line of politics. I suspect Labour


will be forced into offering a referendum as well. There would not


be any debate about a referendum or any promise by Mr Cameron, although


he promised one once before, unless you can put the pressure on and you


get the votes in local elections and by-elections that we have got.


Perhaps the threat we pose not just to conservatives, but to Labour as


well is changing the debate. There has been harsh reality while we have


been in government and when David Cameron became prime minister that


Europe is simply not working. The institutions are all over the


place, they are not accountable and they are imposing their will on the


UK left, right and centre and there are issues such as their own budget


as well. The Prime Minister has exercised a veto. We know there are


problems, but you need a party in Westminster and you need the support


and lies across the EU effect change. What Cameron is trying to


sell us is fundamental change to Britain's treaty relationship with


the European Union. For somebody who spent 15 years in Brussels, that is


not even on offer. One of the region -- reason David Cameron's page has


not unite the party is one year on nobody knows what he intends to


negotiate. I do not support that. There is no doubt, and George


Osborne highlighted this last week in his own speech, that we know


there are big challenges. There are physical and financial challenges.


It is about the institutions of the European Union and it is about


fundamental issues like justice, human rights and immigration. The


list is endless. Status quo is not an option. I am still not sure what


separates you. UKIP is against replacing Trident. Yes, that is a


debate we have been kicking around for some time. So you are a


non-nuclear defence strategy for Britain. I am not sure where you got


that from. From your website. That is not the case. It was the case.


Will you get it off your website? When it comes to websites I am not


an expert. Would you deploy regular armed forces on the streets? If


necessary, yes. Your website says they could man police stations while


officers are dealing with this order. Those flash riots we had a


couple of years ago came from nowhere and everybody was astounded


by the size of them and the lack of preparedness. You would have


deployed the Army? They would have been on immediate stand-by. That


situation was very serious. You want a compulsory dress code for taxi


drivers? Do we? That is not on the website, that is on one of your


documents. Under the last leadership in 2010 we produced a manifesto that


was 486 pages long, so you can quote me bits of it, but I might not know


all of it. Is it still policy to require our trains to be painted in


traditional colours? I have no idea what you are talking about. That was


a policy paper published in 2010. Is there a danger that if UKIP


continues to be strong in the polls, that when you go into the 20 15th


election and they cost you the election and if you take the poll


from last Sunday, the Conservatives are on 30, Labour on 35, to be five


points ahead at this point is not great for Labour. As a government


you are in striking distance, but UKIP is on 19%. Opinion polls say


what they are going to say right now, but the reality for this


country and the electorate is they have to go into the 20 15th election


and think about the long-term, economic prosperity of this country.


It is not going to be about voting for a party that is putting out


slogans. That is maybe why Labour is only on 35. If Labour is on 35, you


lose if UKIP get 19. At least people know what we stand for. The


Conservative voters have no idea what David Cameron stands for. Is he


for or against wind farms? The reality is for us it is all about


the economic future and prosperity of this country. It is about having


our finances in order and we inherited the worst fiscal legacy of


any government in 2010 and we are building a future programme for this


country and tackling many issues about Europe and immigration that we


have talked about. What kind of a uniform would taxi drivers are have?


Do not ask me. To ask a party leader about policies like that is silly!


Tenacity, sportsmanship, endurance, not necessarily qualities you would


associate with a politician, but sports men and women make the MPs?


Select Christopher Chataway, Olympic athletes and Conservative politician


managed to excel in both disciplines. But was he an


exception? A lot of sports people are into


politics and a lot of politicians play sport, but does being a


sportsman, a well-known sportsman, make you any good at politics? It is


a recipe for thinking you might be able to do it. As a sportsman you


learn about self-confidence, you train hard and you can get on and a


lot of people think it will transport itself to politics. I am


not sure whether it does. There are famous sports people who have gone


into politics. Sebastien Coe, Tony Grey Thompson and so Ming Campbell


ran in the Olympics in 1964. Sport will give you a sense of what is


necessary if you want to succeed. It is application. If it is doing an


extra day's training, if it is politics, it is reading more


background and information, treating it professionally. Sam Ming Campbell


has gone from sporting sprinter to political marathon man, rising to be


party leader. Baroness Danny Grey Thompson was always passionate about


politics and of course there is Sebastien Coe, sporting icon on the


track and then organising the Olympics, but was his political


career so glittering? He thought you could bring in the values of hard


work and training and being scientific about things and he tried


to do that with William Hague and most of us do not think that was a


roaring success. He had William Hague at the Notting hill carnival


in a baseball cap. Whether that helped William Hague being a good


leader of the Tory party no one quite knows. We will not know until


the European elections whether Olympic rowing success means James


Cracknell will cross the line and become a Tory MEP. Winning replies


dating that dedication and application and nowadays modern


politics is like that. One advantage of being a sports personality is


that you are well known. People will not slam the door in his face, but


he will still have to have something to say to them and if you appear to


be a distant figure who hobnobs with the world of sport, you might not


look like the kind of guy who knows how to help individual people with


their lives. But for a lot of people it is a head start. I never had the


intention of taking up politics, and I am not sure about squash a toll.


James Cracknell, double gold medallist, and Conservative


candidate at next made's European elections joins us now. What can a


top sports star bring to politics? There is a crossover in what you


need is a sportsman and as a politician, especially in Olympic


sports where there is a long-term plan and you have to deliver on that


plan on one day. It is about setting a goal at the outset that might seem


unachievable and working towards it and forming a team to deliver on


that goal under pressure. In some ways they are the skills required in


politics and there is the stamina required to undergo the long haul


and not be afraid to ask yourself tough questions. The stamina Nigel


will sympathise with. Why be an MEP and not an MP? I wanted a candidacy


for Westminster and I thought long and hard about it, and I am sure


Nigel will agree the next five years the crucial part of the future of


this country lies in Europe and it is trying to fight a situation where


the people in Britain are happy with our relationship in Europe and


offering a referendum of the back of it. Do you think we should remain in


the European Union? We cannot say that until we have been through the


process of renegotiation and to get a meaningful renegotiation, the


other powers have to believe we are serious about leaving. If we are not


serious, we are not going to get anything out of the renegotiation. I


agree if you want to get anything out of Europe, you have to walk into


the room with a great big stick. But David Cameron would report --


support a stake in vote in the referendum. We need to get Europe to


work for the people of Britain but as concept in itself, it is too slow


and dynamic, that needs to be changed. We also need the confidence


to back ourselves and think we can effect change for the benefit of


people in this country and on the continent as well. Do you think you


had an advantage in the selection process because you are well-known?


I can't walk down the street because... ! I know, don't you hate


it? ! I deliberately put myself in the same position as everybody else.


The biggest trust people can do is put their boat to you. I want to


show that on was worthy of people entrusted me with their boat. If I


fail on any step, I should hopefully be cut adrift, I worked to get onto


the list, to shine sure people it wasn't just a glamour thing. The


reality is that this isn't something I had to do, it's something I wanted


to do. To do that properly, you start at the same place. Were you


sporty at school? I was best at cricket and golf, but I follow all


sports phonetically. Do you think it helps if you are fit and have the


stamina? When you are a sportsman, you have a goal and you are working


on something a few years in the future, everything is leading up to


that event, and politics is like that too. Long-term plans. I think


we have two new people in British politics and have done nothing in


their lives at all but from work in research offices after Oxford -- too


many people. Let's have characters in politics with a broad life


experience. I think whether it is sport, business or the charity


sector, people should bring something in from the outside, if


you have performed well under pressure, which is a key part of


sport, you have the same with elections, I want to get there and


know if onlys. If only I hadn't... I want to look at the people, ask them


for their vote and say I understand the issues in their area. You both


suffered fairly serious injuries and both have continued with busy


working lives. How have those injuries affected you in terms of


the work you do and the schedule you have? I was back in hospital in the


them, I had major surgery as a result of that crashed, there were


some more bits and bobs of tidying up to do. It is like everything in


life, we all go through bad things, it is about how we respond to them


and in my case, it is a total refusal to accept that I cannot go


on doing what I was doing before. Has it made you more determined? To


firstly never take anything for granted, and focus on the things


that matter to you. The future of this country matters to me because


it is therefore my kids and grandkids. But the one I have been


surprised that and want to be part of affecting change is the limits,


whether they medical experts or in the sporting sense of people facing


limits of what you can achieve, if you listen to them, you will only


hit the ceiling. If you think, I want to get ahead, plot a pathway,


you may not get there but you will break through the ceiling. I think


somebody, who has had either a medical accident, a separation,


whatever it is, you shouldn't let other people placed limits on you.


How are you going to deal with UKIP? Who's that? What will your message


bid to combat the threat? We need to create a place where the founding


principle of the European Union is ever closer integration, which when


the people of Europe, they can reject that massively. That is the


first thing. There doesn't need to be ever closer integration. We want


a divorce! That is what the majority now want. They can get remarried.


Look at Liz Taylor and Richard Burton! We are going to have to let


you go, I'm afraid. Did a good golf swing inhibit or enhance your


batting skills? The two actually don't go very well together. You


have to choose. We could talk about this for a long time! Not now!


Thrilling though it is. As the Syria peace talks in Geneva enter their


second day, the dispute over how to deal with the humanitarian fall-out


rumbles on in Parliament. Labour want the Government to sign up to a


UN resettlement programme and take in 500 refugees - and are planning


to force a commons vote next week. Yesterday in PMQs David Cameron


dismissed the programme as tokenism. Some countries are using this quota


system as a way of saying, therefore I have fulfilled my obligations.


When you have got almost half of a 9 million publishing at the risk of


displacement, fact that the French or the suite are going to take if


you hundreds, that is not fulfilling your obligations. -- French or the


Swedes. Where is the massive amount of aid that Britain is putting


forward is playing the most important role. We broadcast that


live. We welcome viewers from Scotland now, they have been


watching First Minister's Questions. And we're joined now by the Shadow


Minister for International Development, Gavin Shuker. How many


refugees should Britain take in? I think the government have got to


decide that in discussions with the UN. To give you an indication,


France, similarly sized country, omitted to take around 500. We are


looking to resettle about 30,000 made strikes me it would make sense


for us to step up to the plate. Why only 500? We have to do the due


diligence to work out what we can deliver effectively, bearing in mind


these are some of the most vulnerable people. That is why I am


asking why only 500. There are around 4 million Syrian refugees,


who are at the very least displaced, many of them across


borders. So why, as a wealthy, prosperous, caring country, would we


take in only 500? That is the point I'm making. We need to make sure we


have decent support arrangements for those people when they do come stop


we are talking about children who have lost both parents, who are very


vulnerable, people who are torture victims as well. We know who we are


talking about, why are Labour saying that only 500? For those people it


isn't she tokenism and politics. For those people it will make a massive


difference and it is a starting point. So how many would you


envisage? Beyond the 500? If you look at the process that has to go


forward now, the British government has to talk to the UN and decide


what number it can effectively take. We are not party to those documents


although starting point but we are saying something clear that David


Cameron is not. You can't just rely on asylum seekers to meet your


quota, would we want to do is make a difference for the most vulnerable


people. Sweden, population about 8 million, much smaller numbers than


us, have taken in 14,000 Syrians. And they are still taking more in.


Here is the British Labour Party, a country of 60 million people, per


capita income is higher than Sweden, and yet you are saying that we will


take 500. What is it about the Swedes that they can take in 14000


and the best you can come up with these most vulnerable people is 500?


As you know from your research, the majority of those are asylum seekers


coming in. What Winnie to make sure is we are able to greet those people


who are seeking asylum, to go through the right protesters. But


also make sure we have a programme that meets their needs. Which is why


around 500 is the starting point. But we have to make sure we are


meeting their needs. France is taking in 500. Other countries just


more caring than we are? They aren't fitting in the same levels of


investment in Syria that we are. -- putting in. That is humanitarian


relief, not investment. For those lives, it is investment. If you look


at the long-term challenge, whatever happens in terms of Geneva, we hope


we have a good result, you will get a point where this conflict is not


going to be resolved quickly, these temporary camps will be increasingly


more permanent. We have a long-term responsibility. I would suggest that


500 is neither here nor there. To many peoples surprise committee


suggested that we should take more Syrian refugees. But the... You then


spoiled it by saying we should take in Christian refugees. Christian


values would say to us that where there are people, genuinely fearing


for their lives, we have been the most accommodating country in the


whole of the world in offering refuge people. We have lost our


sense of British values. We are not having a proper debate because the


two big political parties in this country have made such a mistake


with total open doors to Eastern Europe that they are terrified of


the immigration debate. We opened the door up to unlimited numbers


from Romania and Bulgaria and closed the door to those who historically


we would have given shelter to. If we re-established our own


immigration policy, we could get back to Roger Chevalier 's. My point


about the Christian people is it is appalling for all these people who


have been displaced. There are thousands and thousands sheltering


in Turkey, the burden on them is huge. It is bad enough if you are


sheer or sunny, but at least in the region there are countries that you


can go to. One of the big difficulties, and we're back to


Iraq, one of the difficulties is that since the invasion, whole


region is becoming very difficult for Christians indeed. So I was


highlighting their flight. The Christians are now the most


persecuted minority throughout the Middle East. You wouldn't want to go


to Egypt now stop so maybe I'm the one hand, you think it is sectarian,


on the other, it may be practical. Before I came into the tics, I led a


Christian church and I have to say, Christian policy on this response is


to let in not only questions that the most vulnerable. -- when I came


into politics. They are not the only most vulnerable people. The most


vulnerable are the ones without parents, who won't survive in the


camps, who the UN are saying we should help. Isn't he on to


something when he says, you have let in 70 people in power, you are now


terrified of what immigration does -- let into many people. You know


you should be suggesting a lot more people. No, I think a lot more. On


that. Now, should women sacrifice having a


family to ensure equality in the workplace? Nigel Farage seems to


think so. His claims earlier this week that women make different


choices from men for "biological reasons" has prompted quite a


backlash. Let's see what he said. If you are building a career, and the


broking industry lets say, which is what I did for most of my career. If


you you are as valuable as the client base that will stick with you


and move with you. In many cases, women make different choices to the


ones that men make, simply for biological reasons. If a woman who


has a client base has a child and takes two or three years off work,


she is worth far less to the employer when she comes back then


when she went for a, because the client base will not have stuck to


her portfolio -- when she went away. If you look at the figures, actually


before the Big Bang it was still an old boys club in the city, one I


first worked there, it was a deeply sexist place. That has all gone


completely. I don't believe in the big banks and brokerage houses, in


Lloyd's of London, I do not believe there is any discrimination against


women. I think young, able woman who are prepared to sacrifice the family


life and stick with their career will do as well, if not better than


the men. With me in the studio is a woman who


has been very successful in the city. Louise Cooper is a financial


analyst and commentator AND a mother - and is champing at the bit to


discuss Nigel's comments. if you are a television presenter, you can have


a baby and come back no problem. If you are a dentist, you can take time


off and come back. If you are working on a brokerage desk, I would


not even take a fortnight's holiday because that was too long to be away


from those accounts. I was being specific. You said there was no


discrimination against women in city firms. They are far more hard nosed


and look at the bottom line. I do not believe the reason women are


paid less in the city is because we have greater discrimination. I try


hard not to lose my temper on air and I try hard not to insult people


but for you I am going to make an exception. What you are saying is


laughable, you are talking out of your bottom. For all the working


mothers out there who are battling a day to day, and I know lots of them


in the city, but not just in the city but elsewhere as well, who are


discriminated against who are paid less than their male colleagues, who


I looked over for promotion, I say on behalf of them shame on you and


double shame on you because you have daughters. What kind of example are


you setting to your daughters by saying what you said? Are you saying


that banks in the city of London are openly and clearly discriminating


today? Open and clearly is difficult, but they are


discriminating. You said women go away for two or three years. I had a


child and I had four months maternity leave. The maximum is 12.


Why do they go away for three years? Maternity leave, gardening


leave. Let me explain. In the city if you leave your firm you cannot


work for anywhere else for at least three months. Most firms have six,


12, 18 months of gardening leave. That costs the firm because you


leave on day one with your bin bag. The new firm are willing to wait 18


months for you to turn up. If it was so important for you to be there


every second of the day and not have three months maternity leave, why


does the city run on the let's poach other staff? Even more in the


brokerage industry there is a lot of gardening leave and people in


brokering firms are paying millions to guarantee somebody will arrive in


18 months time which is far longer than maternity leave. Do not give me


maternity leave, I say gardening leave back to you. The reason


gardening leave was put in place is because people know any time away


from accounts brings in the recent of risk. When I ran a company I had


somebody say, I am resigning and I am going to do the childcare at home


and there are now 1 million men at home bringing up children. In a


fiercely competitive world like in the brokerage industry, women are


disadvantaged if they have children. That is a single fact. You are


saying in the city they are discriminated against. I am making


the point that that lifestyle choice makes it harder. Some people manage


it. I do not accept the city of London discriminates heavily against


London. I do not accept that at all. You are saying women who have


families are discriminated against, so women who have children are


discriminated against? In a bottom-line business they make it


hard for themselves. Louise is not the only person who has been


screaming. We have achieved executive yet, we have a manager of


a bank, they all have children and pets or all at the top of their


game. Possibly the most powerful job in the Federal reserve, the head of


the Federal reserve, she has got children. I wrote about the ten most


influential financial women in the world. Eight of them have children.


One of them is the head of one of the most successful hedge fund


business in the world. Hedge fund is spend 20 hours a day at work. One


was private equity. Christine Keeler guard at the IMF. It is laughable


that because a person has a womb they cannot give the best to their


companies. Women are paid 30% less in the city and I am suggesting it


is because they make different lifestyle choices. Is that right? It


may not be right, but it is the way the world is. Some women are happy


to have a family and a big job, but it is difficult for them to do. If I


am wrong, we have gross discrimination in the city. The


reason why women are paid less in the city is because you played


deliberately to all the sexist boss is out there and allow and caused


this very problem. You have made the situation worse for all the working


mothers, not just in the city. Would they be worth less in your party


because they have children? No, I repeat I was talking about the


brokerage business, a very specific audience. Deliberately people choose


to have a row over it. I was being factual. It is not factual. I would


not take a fortune of in that job 02 weeks. Some of these women can


afford to pay for that childcare without losing the majority of their


salary and that can be a big problem. Again I said shame on you,


Nigel Farage. I say shame on you for all the daughters who are trying for


a career in the future and for older women who want to work and they


cannot work because childcare is so expensive. You are making the


situation worse. I was talking about one specific area. Are you finished?


I have finished, yes. Justin Bieber has been arrested for


drunken driving and drag racing in Miami Beach! There's nothing he


cannot do to improve his street cred. Politicians across the land


are known for their probity, love of a quiet night in with a cup of


cocoa. One famous Labour hod, the Red Lion has been turned into a wine


bar. There is a metaphor in there somewhere. Before they all


disappeared Giles is back to give us his guide through Westminster's most


famous boozers. Two pints of Lager and a packet of crisps, please.


When it comes to Westminster's watering holes, the Red Lion is the


grand dad. It has been an establishment here since 1435.


Whilst we are speaking of the evil, remember Charlie Whelan? He tweeted


this is the pub where he told the Prime Minister Tony Blair we were


not joining the euro. It is a place where people meet. A lot of people


think it is a corridor with a bar in it. But this is the corridor where


people walk back and forth into Whitehall into the Parliamentary


estate. People gravitate around here. But it is not the only place


where people drink. If you are looking for a more right of centre


watering hole, it is this place, the Marquis of Granby, and on the


pavement you will often find Conservative headquarters workers,


party workers, several right-thinking think tanks around


the corner whose staff comes here. Nigel Farage celebrated his local


election victory in this place. But there is the Red Lion, there is the


blue bull bar, but there is one place where people mingle quite a


lot and it is not outside the Palace of Westminster. Inside Parliament


there are only two buyers. One of them is attached to the terrace. The


sports and social one tends to be for younger workers and only a


handful of MPs use that for a variety of reasons. Strangers is


where MPs entertain guests and talk to journalists and they might


actually tell you what they think. It has had a fight, including


head-butting, but it is the watering hole inside the Palace of


Westminster. That is all I know. Lord knows why they thought I would


know anything about this subject! He did his research. We are joined


by two pints Kevin Maguire from the Mirror. There we are. Get that down


you. I know you prefer champagne, Andrew. I guess the budget would not


go that way. It is a bit sad? It is and the Red Lion is where Tony Blair


was told by Charlie Whelan that Britain was not going to join the


euro in labour's first time. It should have a blue flag on the


outside! That politics is changing. Nigel is old school because he does


drink beer and has been featured in buyers because now it is more women


and family friendly hours. Now they are all having coffee in portcullis


house. Have they taken the decision the new generation of Westminster


people would rather be it a wine by about a pub? That is probably true.


There has been a lot of pressure to open a wine bar in the hands of


Commons itself, but that has not happened. Is it not the truth that


Robin Cook's family friendly changes may have been good, but they have


killed a bit of the nightlife of Westminster? It certainly has. You


get the odd punch-up, but not that many now. Not enough to keep you


hanging around. Eric Joyce is a rarity, but he took against the


conservative MPs. Don't the Labour MPs get a bit lonely? They go to


their own homes. If the choice is between a commercial pub like the


Red Lion or a subsidised drink inside the palace, they are going to


take a subsidised drink? Of course they are, they kept the pennies like


anyone else and they do not get ?400 a month lightly used to get. What


about the journalists? It is the same for journalists. A lot of


sparkling water. Last night there were more of us not drinking than


there were drinking. In the straitened times, time to find that


the answer to the quiz. Which of these has the largest number of


followers on Twitter? UKIP weather is new and enormous


fun. Let's hope it is that. Do you know? You are right it has 109,000


followers. You have 103,000. UKIP weather is the best. A man in


Peterborough went into a pub and ordered a glass of white wine,


council is on alert. A man won ?50 on a scratchcard. High winds at the


garden centre in Kent after two men were spotted heading towards the


plants without stopping to look at the ride on lawn mowers.


Time for a drink, I think. Thank you to all of our guests. I will be back


tonight on this week on BBC One with Alan Johnson, Michael Portillo,


Miranda Green, Nick Watt and comedian Russell Kane and a female


racing driver. I will be back at noon tomorrow with all of the


stories today. I do not drink pints, so I am going to hand this


over to you. I will drink it anyway!


The average person moves home eight times during their life.


So that's eight times we have to move the sofa.


Eight times we have to redecorate.


Download Subtitles