:00:40. > :00:50.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. There's a cost of
:00:51. > :00:53.living crisis, say Labour. Oh, no, there isn't, say the Conservatives,
:00:54. > :00:55.as they release new figures they say show most people's incomes are
:00:56. > :01:02.rising. A new row over cartoons of the
:01:03. > :01:06.Prophet Muhammad. Could this Muslim Lib Dem candidate be forced to stand
:01:07. > :01:11.down after tweeting a link to the images?
:01:12. > :01:14.This is the scene in the House of Lords as peers debate more than 70
:01:15. > :01:18.amendments to the referendum bill, including one in Gaelic. Could peers
:01:19. > :01:19.be trying to sink the bill with an old-fashioned filibuster?
:01:20. > :01:24.And is this 18th-century philosopher the world's first feminist? Labour
:01:25. > :01:38.MP Gloria de Piero tells us why Mary Wollstonecraft is her favourite
:01:39. > :01:43.political thinker. All that in the next hour. And with
:01:44. > :01:49.us for the duration today, two of my favourite political thinkers. Well,
:01:50. > :01:57.of those in this studio anyway. It is a Friday! Not everyone hangs
:01:58. > :02:05.around. Steve Richards of the Independent, have you been sold yet?
:02:06. > :02:09.Me personally? Or the paper? I honestly don't know. And Isabel
:02:10. > :02:16.Hardman of the Spectator. Welcome to the programme. First today, you have
:02:17. > :02:24.probably heard of "offshoring". That is when firms move manufacturing
:02:25. > :02:27.abroad, usually to cut costs. But have you heard of "onshoring" -
:02:28. > :02:30.that's the opposite process where companies move back to the UK?
:02:31. > :02:34.That's exactly what the prime minister was trying to persuade his
:02:35. > :02:42.audience of the rich and powerful at the World Economic Forum in Davos to
:02:43. > :02:47.do in a speech this morning. In recent years, there has been a
:02:48. > :02:53.practice where companies move production to low-cost countries. We
:02:54. > :02:58.all know it will continue. But there is now an opportunity for the
:02:59. > :03:02.reverse. There is an opportunity for some of those jobs to come back. A
:03:03. > :03:06.recent survey of small and medium-sized businesses found that
:03:07. > :03:11.more than one in ten as thought back to Britain some production in the
:03:12. > :03:15.past year. Why is the prime minister making an
:03:16. > :03:18.issue of this? It is so marginal. Some call centres have been returned
:03:19. > :03:24.back to Britain because it was found that they were inefficient and not
:03:25. > :03:28.economic. But why would major manufacturing return to Britain?
:03:29. > :03:41.Well, he has found a phrase that is even more annoying than the global
:03:42. > :03:46.race with reshore. But we don't have lower energy costs. Well, he is
:03:47. > :03:52.trying to join up the fracking and the revival in during. This is
:03:53. > :03:58.happening in America. Over there, they call it the homecoming.
:03:59. > :04:01.Aluminium, rubber, Saran X, steel, also said heavy industries that
:04:02. > :04:06.America thought it had lost have been coming back. The reason? Energy
:04:07. > :04:13.costs in America are a third of in Europe. I assume that because it is
:04:14. > :04:18.so small in practice, he gets quite political in Davos. Before the
:04:19. > :04:21.election, he made a speech about corporate responsibility when he was
:04:22. > :04:27.trying to be progressive. I assume this is going to be part of a
:04:28. > :04:33.political message that Labour is a threat because of the burden this
:04:34. > :04:38.will place on business. They want to create an environment where business
:04:39. > :04:46.can wash. It is part of a broader message about business. As you say,
:04:47. > :04:53.the specifics are so small. Manufacturing by definition is
:04:54. > :04:59.energy intensive. We have 8000 -- 800,000 energy intensive jobs in
:05:00. > :05:03.this country. We have lost your production. Unless you are prepared
:05:04. > :05:11.to slash energy costs, they will not return, except maybe some very small
:05:12. > :05:16.ones with very high value added. And he did not add the sentence, we are
:05:17. > :05:25.going to slash energy costs to do this. It is government policy to
:05:26. > :05:34.double in lectures to cost between now and 2020. So I assume it is a
:05:35. > :05:41.party political point. As you were saying, the Chief Executive 's have
:05:42. > :05:47.turned on labour this week. Exact any. For some reason, he chooses
:05:48. > :05:50.Davos to make political manoeuvres. It would be interesting if he did it
:05:51. > :05:57.at a press conference in this country. But he doesn't like press
:05:58. > :06:00.conferences. He really doesn't. We are horrible.
:06:01. > :06:04.Most British workers have seen their pay rise in the last year? Really?
:06:05. > :06:07.That is according to new figures from the government. It is a
:06:08. > :06:11.challenge to Labour, who claimed that despite the return to growth,
:06:12. > :06:15.there is still what they call a cost of living crisis. It all comes at
:06:16. > :06:19.the end of a week of positive economic news for the UK economy. On
:06:20. > :06:25.Wednesday, new figures showed that the unemployment rate had dropped to
:06:26. > :06:30.7.1%, exceeding expectations and back to levels last seen in 2009. On
:06:31. > :06:34.Tuesday, the IMF revised up its growth forecast to 2.4%, saying that
:06:35. > :06:38.Britain row would grow faster this year than any other country in
:06:39. > :06:43.Europe. But that is not saying much. Earlier this month, it was revealed
:06:44. > :06:48.that inflation as measured by the consumer prices index fell to 2% in
:06:49. > :06:51.December. The Bank of England hit its target at last. It is the first
:06:52. > :06:55.time it has been at or below the government target since late 2009.
:06:56. > :06:59.Today the government has released data showing that most workers saw a
:07:00. > :07:06.real increase in their take-home pay in the last financial year. That is
:07:07. > :07:16.the one ending in April 2013. Mr say that take-home pay rose by at least
:07:17. > :07:21.2.5%, wants tax cuts have been taken into account. For some, it rose by
:07:22. > :07:26.as much as 4.8%. In the same period, CPI inflation was 2.4%. Labour said
:07:27. > :07:29.the figures are highly selective, they are only for one year and don't
:07:30. > :07:34.take into account changes to benefits. They said that families
:07:35. > :07:40.are on average ?891 worse off as a result of tax and benefit changes
:07:41. > :07:45.since 2010. Who is right and who is wrong, or is the truth in the
:07:46. > :07:47.middle? Joining me now, Rob Joyce from the Institute for Fiscal
:07:48. > :07:53.Studies. Let's begin with these latest government figures. They are
:07:54. > :07:57.clearly part of a Treasury fightback to take on the cost of living crisis
:07:58. > :08:02.mantra from Labour. What do you make of them? They are the right answer
:08:03. > :08:07.to a question. There is more than one data source. So they have gone
:08:08. > :08:12.to a perfectly reputable data source that tells you about earnings, and
:08:13. > :08:16.they compared earnings in April 2013 with earnings in April 2012. And
:08:17. > :08:22.over that period, earnings for most workers did grow somewhat faster
:08:23. > :08:26.than inflation. There are a few caveats to put alongside that. One
:08:27. > :08:31.is that it is a particular time period. If you look at another data
:08:32. > :08:34.source which gives you month by month earnings, it looks as though
:08:35. > :08:38.earnings growth was lower than that both just before that period and
:08:39. > :08:44.just after. It is also true that this is a measure of pay. They
:08:45. > :08:51.looked at pre-tax and post-tax pay, but they have not looked at the
:08:52. > :08:57.border measure of income. So it is not a comprehensive picture.
:08:58. > :09:01.Finally, slightly messily, there are different measures of average
:09:02. > :09:07.earnings. They should give you the same answers, but they don't always.
:09:08. > :09:13.Just to make things easy for us! Under Labour mantra that we are on
:09:14. > :09:17.average ?1600 worse off, that covers a longer period, takes us back to
:09:18. > :09:22.the election in 2010. But in its own way, it is also selective. Yes. At
:09:23. > :09:29.is capturing some of the very sharp falls in earnings that happened a
:09:30. > :09:36.couple of years ago. It is also selective in the sense that it does
:09:37. > :09:40.not account for benefit. If you are paying tax, a fall in your pre-tax
:09:41. > :09:43.income of ?1600 is a fall of less than that in your post-tax income,
:09:44. > :09:49.because some of that income would have taxed away anyway. But it also
:09:50. > :09:57.would not capture the effects of some of the cuts to in work
:09:58. > :10:01.benefits, so it is giving you a partial picture.
:10:02. > :10:06.Let's talk now to the politicians. Treasury minister cited Javid and
:10:07. > :10:10.the shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna. -- Sajid Javid. They make
:10:11. > :10:16.quite a double act on this programme! You have the same tyres
:10:17. > :10:22.and probably the same shirts! You ask for the shiny head, and you have
:10:23. > :10:28.got them. Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Who said politics was converging?
:10:29. > :10:33.Let me be clear what you have done here. You have taken one financial
:10:34. > :10:37.year ending in April 2013. You have excluded the richest 10% and you
:10:38. > :10:46.have said that when it comes to take-home pay, the average rise was
:10:47. > :10:51.2.5 cent. At a time when inflation by the CPI was 2.4%. So there is a
:10:52. > :10:54.difference of .1%, and you are claiming that she is living
:10:55. > :10:58.standards are rising? That shows that our long-term plan is starting
:10:59. > :11:03.to work. But we have also said all along that there is a long way to
:11:04. > :11:08.go. Our country went through the deepest recession in 100 years. That
:11:09. > :11:14.left the country a lot poorer. People are still suffering from
:11:15. > :11:21.that. April were left poorer. But our plan is starting to work. Let's
:11:22. > :11:27.get away from the rhetoric. You are saying in the end that you have
:11:28. > :11:37.managed to find one year in which take-home pay was .1% higher than
:11:38. > :11:43.price rises. That is the only year that this data series is available
:11:44. > :11:47.for. Hopefully, it will represent a further increase in income next
:11:48. > :11:53.year. As you say, with the exception of the richest 10% in this country,
:11:54. > :12:01.take-home pay, after the tax cuts, is rising faster than inflation. But
:12:02. > :12:07.by .1%. Do you use decimal points to show you have a sense of humour? Do
:12:08. > :12:15.you think anybody out there feels" oh, last year, I was .1% better
:12:16. > :12:19.off" ? If you look at another piece of important news, there are those
:12:20. > :12:23.who are getting jobs. Employment rose by the fastest rate on record.
:12:24. > :12:30.If you ask those people, are they feeling better off, they would give
:12:31. > :12:35.a solid answer. Let's take your series and move it from April 2013
:12:36. > :12:48.to the rest of 2013. What happens then? Wages rise by 0.9%, and the
:12:49. > :12:55.CPI rises by 2%. So since your figures of April 2013, prices have
:12:56. > :12:59.been rising twice as fast as wages. You are not comparing like with
:13:00. > :13:03.like. Our figures are based on take-home pay after tax and national
:13:04. > :13:09.insurance. Well, national insurance has not changed. I am just saying
:13:10. > :13:15.what the definition of take-home pay is. If you take account of that,
:13:16. > :13:20.with the increase in personal allowances about to take race in
:13:21. > :13:26.April, it shows that take-home pay will continue to rise. What do you
:13:27. > :13:29.make of these figures? They are slightly misleading. Granted, we
:13:30. > :13:33.have just heard what the ISS were saying about where you take your
:13:34. > :13:38.figures. -- the Institute for Fiscal Studies. One of the claims was that
:13:39. > :13:41.people in the top 10% are the only ones who have lost out. Of course,
:13:42. > :13:49.that ignores the tax cut for people earning over ?100,000 got in April.
:13:50. > :13:58.Because that did not come in until this financial year. That is right,
:13:59. > :14:03.and it references by weekly earnings measures as opposed to annual. We
:14:04. > :14:07.can talk about statistics all we like. But what matters is how people
:14:08. > :14:11.feel on the street. In my constituency in Streatham, I have,
:14:12. > :14:16.surgery this evening and I would be flabbergasted if it is not raised
:14:17. > :14:20.with me that "I am working harder, I am earning less and things are
:14:21. > :14:24.costing more". This debate tends to ignore that we have a bigger issue
:14:25. > :14:31.here. We need to refashion our economy so that we actually have, as
:14:32. > :14:35.a percentage of our labour market, less low-wage, low skilled jobs. If
:14:36. > :14:42.you look at the OECD, the Western developed countries, we rank fifth.
:14:43. > :14:46.So of course we need to do things at one end of the market, with tax cuts
:14:47. > :14:54.and strengthening the national minimum wage and living wage. Ed
:14:55. > :15:01.talked about a squeezed middle from the beginning of his premiership -
:15:02. > :15:09.premiership! I meant to leadership. Slight slip there. But if you let me
:15:10. > :15:22.finish, you have got a hollowed out middle as well. He talks about his
:15:23. > :15:29.own constituents. In his constituency the claimant count is
:15:30. > :15:40.down by 22%. He should ask those people whether they feel better off.
:15:41. > :15:45.I am pleased that more people are in work in the constituency. Week after
:15:46. > :15:49.week, the measure of living standards is earnings versus
:15:50. > :15:57.inflation. We have seen today that one of those measures shows that
:15:58. > :16:02.earnings are rising in real time. I also accept there is much more to
:16:03. > :16:10.do. Many families are facing hard times. You need a plan that works.
:16:11. > :16:19.Do you act sets that, on average, people are worse off than they were
:16:20. > :16:24.in 2010? -- do you accept? Our economy is smaller. The economy is
:16:25. > :16:31.smaller. The story for different people will be different. Those who
:16:32. > :16:36.have found jobs, 1.6 million. There will be some people that are still
:16:37. > :16:42.facing very difficult times. I have met them in my own constituency. We
:16:43. > :16:51.need a plan that deals with those concerns. Some people are worse off.
:16:52. > :17:01.On average, the figures are clear. People are worse off. Some are worse
:17:02. > :17:06.off by around ?891. The reason people may be worse off is because
:17:07. > :17:12.of the great recession. We have had that to deal with. I wonder if the
:17:13. > :17:15.terms of trade of the argument are not going against you. You have
:17:16. > :17:22.moved off a little bit on the cost of living. There is obviously no
:17:23. > :17:27.question that living standards have been squeezed and squeezed. The
:17:28. > :17:32.squeeze started under Labour and has continued under this government. If
:17:33. > :17:41.it is a crisis, as opposed to a squeeze, white and retail sales
:17:42. > :17:45.rising by 5%? You have quite a mixed picture. On average, you are right.
:17:46. > :17:50.People are earning less. The point of this gentleman is trying to make
:17:51. > :17:56.is it is a mixed picture. This we emphasise the point that we need to
:17:57. > :18:06.rebalance the economy. -- this emphasises a game the point. I am
:18:07. > :18:11.pleased that in my own constituency and implement has gone down but the
:18:12. > :18:21.squeeze is still there. Unemployment on average is 7.1%. In London, it is
:18:22. > :18:26.8.1. We need to rebalance the economy geographically. We need to
:18:27. > :18:31.make sure we have a better range of sectors contributing to growth. We
:18:32. > :18:37.have terrible statistics in terms of the trade deficit. We need to
:18:38. > :18:49.increase business investment. Have we gone from flat-lining and double
:18:50. > :18:56.dip to rebalancing? I have been talking about this since you were in
:18:57. > :19:01.short trousers. You may well have. It never happens. It is absurd to
:19:02. > :19:11.think you can rebalance the economy when you are both committed to
:19:12. > :19:16.rising energy prices. Let me come back to that after you patronising
:19:17. > :19:20.by saying I was in short trousers. I think it was patronising. I think it
:19:21. > :19:26.is possible to rebalance the economy. You may not agree but we
:19:27. > :19:34.need an industrial strategy. To some extent, there was a degree of
:19:35. > :19:41.cross-party consensus. Lord Heseltine was talking about
:19:42. > :19:50.fashioning industry back in the 80s. One thing I would say is that, often
:19:51. > :19:55.we do say, I do think one thing, we do need to celebrate some things we
:19:56. > :19:59.do have. We at the eighth or ninth largest manufacturing nation in the
:20:00. > :20:08.world. We want to be doing even better. Can I just come back again?
:20:09. > :20:15.Can you address the question I ask? If there is a cost of living crisis,
:20:16. > :20:22.not a squeeze, why are retail sales rising by 5%? One of the things we
:20:23. > :20:25.have seen, and there is a range of reasons as to why retail sales have
:20:26. > :20:32.gone up, we have just come out of the Christmas period. One of the
:20:33. > :20:38.worrying thing is that people are beginning to dip into personal
:20:39. > :20:41.savings to buy things. If you looked at the Office for Budget
:20:42. > :20:47.Responsibility 's Autumn Statement, and if you look at economic
:20:48. > :20:52.reports, the problem we have in many respects, we cannot go back to
:20:53. > :20:57.business as usual, which is a model where you have growth coming from
:20:58. > :21:03.private consumption, finance and house price inflation. The problem
:21:04. > :21:09.is that growth has been primarily fuelled by private consumption.
:21:10. > :21:14.Actually we want it to be coming from a greater, more long-term,
:21:15. > :21:21.sustainable economy. How can there be a squeeze on living standards? I
:21:22. > :21:27.think this debate, politicians need to tread quite wary on it. I am a
:21:28. > :21:33.pro politics journalist. I know what both of them are trying to do. On
:21:34. > :21:37.this, you could debate for the next 18 months, exchanging figures.
:21:38. > :21:41.Politicians have to lead debates on Europe as all the rest of it, on
:21:42. > :21:45.whether voters are feeling better off or not. I think voters will have
:21:46. > :21:51.a better idea as to whether they are feeling better off or not. My sense
:21:52. > :21:55.is that in 2015, and it is only a guess, is that most of them will
:21:56. > :22:00.still be feeling insecure and worried, even if they are in work.
:22:01. > :22:07.That feel-good factor, which famously came about in the 80s, will
:22:08. > :22:10.not be there. We can exchange as many statistics as we like but that
:22:11. > :22:19.is my sense of what they will be feeling. I see the word, security,
:22:20. > :22:25.is increasingly appearing in speeches by government ministers.
:22:26. > :22:30.They want to suggest you may not be in the sunlit uplands. If you stick
:22:31. > :22:34.with the Conservatives, you can have the security of knowing the economic
:22:35. > :22:40.recovery is finished. Some of these statistics are not very good and
:22:41. > :22:45.some are better. This will undermine the economic tracks by Labour. You
:22:46. > :22:49.have just mentioned employment figures in your constituency. It is
:22:50. > :22:55.very difficult for Labour to respond to good economic needs. You can
:22:56. > :23:00.understand why the Tories want to try to undermine opponents. I always
:23:01. > :23:13.want to be clear about this. Some people will say, this is a bad
:23:14. > :23:18.thing. It is about people. Even as a constituency MP... It means I get
:23:19. > :23:22.less people coming in to see me who are worried and anxious about
:23:23. > :23:28.putting food on the plate. I have less worried people that I
:23:29. > :23:34.represent. Sometimes we do not always see things like this. I am
:23:35. > :23:38.going to give you the last word. To stick to our plan is the most
:23:39. > :23:44.important thing. To continue to address living standard problems,
:23:45. > :23:48.you need to have a plan to deal with it. That means cutting the deficit,
:23:49. > :23:58.giving people the skills they need and cutting taxes they pay. What
:23:59. > :24:02.about raising minimum wage? We have made recommendations and I hope they
:24:03. > :24:14.can come out in agreement with us. That is an important part of having
:24:15. > :24:19.a plan that will work. On that, we will leave it there. Thanks to both
:24:20. > :24:22.of you. Now, if you were watching yesterday, you will have seen our
:24:23. > :24:25.interview with the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage. The party have been
:24:26. > :24:32.prominent on the issues of Europe and Immigration but we asked him
:24:33. > :24:39.about some of the party's policies. You want a compulsory dress code for
:24:40. > :24:49.taxi drivers? Do we? That is news to me. That is not on your website,
:24:50. > :24:54.that is on one of your documents. Under the last leadership, we
:24:55. > :24:59.managed to produce a manifesto that was 486 pages long. I will not know.
:25:00. > :25:09.That is why I have said none of it stands today. Nigel Farage, talking
:25:10. > :25:13.to me yesterday. Well, he's been doing the media rounds again this
:25:14. > :25:18.morning. Earlier, he was on LBC and asked again about the party's 2010
:25:19. > :25:24.election manifesto. He did not know the manifesto because it was 486
:25:25. > :25:28.pages of excessive detail. I said, we reject the whole thing and we
:25:29. > :25:35.will start again with a blank sheet of paper. There is nothing new in
:25:36. > :25:42.that story. I did not read it. Nick, I did not read it. It was drivel.
:25:43. > :25:49.Good to see LBC following up on the daily politics. Does it matter? Does
:25:50. > :25:54.it matter? Not immediately. The focus is so much Nigel Farage and
:25:55. > :26:00.this very appealing public projection but, I think, over time,
:26:01. > :26:05.UKIP are incredibly fragile and foldable actually. Perhaps not up to
:26:06. > :26:11.the European elections, where it will be all Nigel Farage. He is a
:26:12. > :26:19.brilliant TV advocate. Afterwards, the level of scrutiny could be so
:26:20. > :26:24.much they could implode actually. In the long-term, that is probably
:26:25. > :26:29.likely to happen. The long-term get them through 2015. All people care
:26:30. > :26:37.about is what they say about Europe and immigration. In some cases, they
:26:38. > :26:46.do not care about those policies. If you talk to even the Lib Dems, who
:26:47. > :26:50.have done focus groups around Lib Dem voters, they quiz them and ask
:26:51. > :26:55.them what it was they liked about Britain. They could not think about
:26:56. > :27:01.anything but, in the end, once said, its past. That shows how difficult
:27:02. > :27:09.the squeezed message will be. You cannot say, what a load of Tosh this
:27:10. > :27:13.was! The voters do not really care. People look at the polls. Mr Cameron
:27:14. > :27:18.is more popular than the Conservative party and Labour is
:27:19. > :27:25.more popular than Mr Miliband. That will suit Nigel Farage, went it? He
:27:26. > :27:30.is in a really strong position if it is about the leaders. I wonder if it
:27:31. > :27:35.also becomes about the credibility of the party behind him. I take your
:27:36. > :27:44.point completely, it will be Cameron versus Miliband. To some extent, he
:27:45. > :27:50.is brilliant that he cannot be a solo performer. I wonder whether
:27:51. > :27:54.pre-2015, that becomes a problem for him will stop however brilliant he
:27:55. > :27:59.is as a public performer, there is a connection between party and leader
:28:00. > :28:04.in Britain. I suspect posts the Euro elections, some of the stuff that
:28:05. > :28:08.you challenged him on yesterday, and all the other things that erupt
:28:09. > :28:12.every month or so, will add up to a problem for him actually. We will
:28:13. > :28:15.leave it there. Maajid Nawaz, the Lib Dem PPC for Hampstead Kilburn,
:28:16. > :28:18.and founder of the anti-extremist think-tank Quilliam Foundation, has
:28:19. > :28:27.found himself at the centre of a controversy after tweeting a cartoon
:28:28. > :28:31.featuring Jesus and Mohammed. There's been a petition calling for
:28:32. > :28:33.him to be deselected. But, much more seriously, he's faced a campaign of
:28:34. > :28:42.online abuse, including death threats. Here is talking about the
:28:43. > :28:48.cartoon during a debate on the BBC's Big Questions. He is debating people
:28:49. > :28:53.'s rights to wear T-shirts with the cartoon on them. When you do wear
:28:54. > :28:58.something that threatens our religion and our rights, that should
:28:59. > :29:03.be a concern for Muslims and others. Human rights are very important.
:29:04. > :29:12.When you do threaten our religion, we are not sitting here, mocking you
:29:13. > :29:16.in any way. That T-shirt does not threaten me whatsoever. It does not
:29:17. > :29:21.threaten my god or my fate. It does not threaten the Koran or any aspect
:29:22. > :29:25.of my religion. I do not feel threatened. Maajid Nawaz himself
:29:26. > :29:30.isn't here to talk to us. He told us he's been advised by the police not
:29:31. > :29:34.to come on the show. That is how serious it has become. But Liberal
:29:35. > :29:38.Democrat Mohammed Shafiq is in Leeds. He's one of those leading the
:29:39. > :29:45.campaign to deselect Nawaz. Kenan Malik writes about multiculturalism
:29:46. > :29:53.and free speech. A prospectively Dem candidate tweets a link to the
:29:54. > :29:56.cartoon, does not endorse it all show the cartoon, but just says he
:29:57. > :30:03.does not find it insulting, and you want to get rid of him? It is
:30:04. > :30:07.important to recognise that where he has the right to tweet that cartoon
:30:08. > :30:12.and tweaked the link to that offensive website, equally Muslims
:30:13. > :30:17.have the right to challenge that. Freedom of speech cannot be
:30:18. > :30:23.selective. We do not have the right to respond. Over the last few days,
:30:24. > :30:27.I have received death threats, racist abuse and have received a lot
:30:28. > :30:33.of hate from people who support the stance. I am not going to blame him
:30:34. > :30:36.for that stands. We are where we are now and the Liberal Democrats
:30:37. > :30:42.recognise it is a very serious issue. Potentially, there are a
:30:43. > :30:46.number of seats with a strong Muslim presents, where we could suffer.
:30:47. > :30:50.Therefore, it is right that the party looks in a serious way with
:30:51. > :30:59.negotiating and discussing this with the party. The party is absolutely
:31:00. > :31:05.right to recognise this. You call yourself a liberal. You want to hang
:31:06. > :31:09.out to dry somebody who simply publishes a link to a website. You
:31:10. > :31:12.have to recognise that where there is freedom of speech for an
:31:13. > :31:18.individual to express his views, when he is a parliamentary
:31:19. > :31:24.candidate, standing in an election, he had to behave in a responsible
:31:25. > :31:26.way. That is my view. We need to allow those discussions between
:31:27. > :31:33.ourselves and the Liberal Democrats to take place.
:31:34. > :31:38.But on Twitter, you said "we will notify all Muslim organisations in
:31:39. > :31:47.the UK of his despicable behaviour" . You will also notify Islamic
:31:48. > :31:53.countries. You are organising a lynch mob, and you? It is offensive
:31:54. > :31:58.of you to suggest that, Andrew Neil. You can't link anything to me that
:31:59. > :32:01.says I have advocated violence. Why are you notifying other Islamic
:32:02. > :32:08.countries? This is about freedom of speech should. What has it got to do
:32:09. > :32:12.with other Islamic countries? If we were going to have a discussion, it
:32:13. > :32:17.would help if you let me answer your questions. What is the answer? A
:32:18. > :32:22.Parliamentary candidate who represents the Liberal Democrats has
:32:23. > :32:28.tweeted a cartoon is offensive to Muslims. There is a petition out
:32:29. > :32:32.there. A number of people find it offensive. I think we have made
:32:33. > :32:35.progress over the last few days. Maajid Nawaz has expressed his
:32:36. > :32:39.regret for tweeting this cartoon. And their discussions between the
:32:40. > :32:44.Muslim community and the Liberal Democrats. But what has it got to do
:32:45. > :32:48.with other Islamic countries? I am not going to negotiate with the
:32:49. > :32:51.Liberal Democrats to the Daily Politics or through you. We will
:32:52. > :32:59.have those discussions. Try and answer the question. What has it got
:33:00. > :33:01.to do with other Islamic countries? It affects every Muslim around the
:33:02. > :33:09.world when a cartoon depicts the holy Prophet. If you will allow me
:33:10. > :33:16.something without interrupting, we as Muslims find the depicting of the
:33:17. > :33:20.Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, offensive and unacceptable. It is
:33:21. > :33:24.offensive to Muslims in this country and around the world. My language
:33:25. > :33:30.that I have used over the past few days has been clear. We are engaged
:33:31. > :33:35.in the political process full is politicians in this country tell us
:33:36. > :33:40.that Muslims have to engage in the political process. We have engaged
:33:41. > :33:49.in the process. For anybody to suggest that I am advocating
:33:50. > :33:51.violence is deeply offensive. But he has already been threatened with
:33:52. > :33:59.beheading and so on as a result of your tweet. I am bringing in Kenan
:34:00. > :34:03.Malik now . What do you say? Some Muslims are offended by the
:34:04. > :34:10.cartoons, others are not. I am not. I don't consider myself a Muslim, so
:34:11. > :34:16.it is no good asking me. This is not a question of offence to a
:34:17. > :34:22.community. It is about a debate within a community, and there are
:34:23. > :34:26.many Muslim communities. The reason we imagine it is about offence to a
:34:27. > :34:30.community is only because those who see it as offensive are seen as the
:34:31. > :34:35.authentic voice of the Muslim community. It is about time we saw
:34:36. > :34:37.this not as an offence to a community, but as an open debate
:34:38. > :34:43.with that community which we should have. The trouble with seeing only
:34:44. > :34:48.those who see it as offensive as the authentic voice as the Muslim
:34:49. > :34:50.community is that that is the interest defence league few, the
:34:51. > :34:56.racist view. We should be challenging the idea that all
:34:57. > :35:00.Muslims are offended by the cartoons, that all Muslims would ban
:35:01. > :35:09.such things. We should be confronting that and putting forward
:35:10. > :35:13.a liberal view of what the Muslim community are like, rather than
:35:14. > :35:17.laying along with a racist view of the Muslim community. I am not
:35:18. > :35:22.suggesting that all Muslims are offended by that. I am saying that
:35:23. > :35:25.significant numbers who signed the petition are offended by it. You
:35:26. > :35:29.talk about freedom of speech for the rest of society to tweet offensive
:35:30. > :35:32.cartoons against Muslims and Christians, and then you say to us,
:35:33. > :35:36.you can't have the right to be offended. We have been
:35:37. > :35:40.constructive. I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats in the way they
:35:41. > :35:46.have dealt with this in the last 24 hours. We want a positive outcome.
:35:47. > :35:51.To be fair to Maajid Nawaz, he has recognised his mistake and his
:35:52. > :36:04.regret. Has he? This whole thing has been hijacked. Critics say, we are
:36:05. > :36:14.offended by it. That is part of free speech. If we prohibit things that
:36:15. > :36:18.offend some group or another, there is little we can say to each other.
:36:19. > :36:27.For example, the petition opens with the phrase of Jesus as a prophet.
:36:28. > :36:32.Most Christians would find that offensive, because for them, Jesus
:36:33. > :36:35.is the son of God. Are we going to say the petition should be removed
:36:36. > :36:40.because it is offensive to some Christians? It plays to populist
:36:41. > :36:45.petitions like the one in Holland who wants to ban the Koran on the
:36:46. > :36:52.grounds that it is offensive. Presumably, Mohammed Shafiq does not
:36:53. > :36:58.agree with that. What is fundamentally different between
:36:59. > :37:03.saying that some cartoons should not be shown because they are offensive
:37:04. > :37:06.to Muslims and saying the Koran should not be allowed because it is
:37:07. > :37:10.offensive to Christians? The point is that we need free speech, and
:37:11. > :37:16.that is free speech 41, not a particular group. -- free speech for
:37:17. > :37:20.everyone. People would be surprised that you are Liberal Democrats,
:37:21. > :37:23.because their ideological basis is John Stuart Mill. He would be
:37:24. > :37:29.turning in his grave at what you are suggesting. Andrew Neil, the Liberal
:37:30. > :37:35.Democrats are a Broadchurch. Within that broad church, there are people
:37:36. > :37:42.like myself who believe that freedom of speech comes with responsibility.
:37:43. > :37:47.We have to behave in a responsible way. The idea that you start to
:37:48. > :37:51.restrict the rights of Muslims to be offended by this is deeply
:37:52. > :37:57.patronising. We have seen ex-Muslims, cuteness, atheists, the
:37:58. > :38:01.EDL and the BNP supporting the stance of my colleague in the
:38:02. > :38:04.studio. I am not good to take any lectures about freedom of speech
:38:05. > :38:12.from those with an agenda against Muslims. We seem to be moving in a
:38:13. > :38:17.world where witch Finder General 's pop up every day now, offended at
:38:18. > :38:20.something that body has tweeted. I find the idea that you have a right
:38:21. > :38:24.to take offence at one else expressing a view quite baffling. I
:38:25. > :38:28.am a Christian, but I don't take offence at the idea that other
:38:29. > :38:34.people disagree with me. It also seems personally like me -- to meet
:38:35. > :38:37.to take too much of an effort to get annoyed because somebody disagrees
:38:38. > :38:40.with you. You might as well get on with the more important things in
:38:41. > :38:46.life than trying to get someone silenced, which is what this is. You
:38:47. > :38:52.are effectively saying he should be deselect it because his views are
:38:53. > :38:56.not valid. The death threats should be no reason to stop him from saying
:38:57. > :39:00.it. That we are in a society where if you cause offence, you are
:39:01. > :39:05.expected to close the offence down rather than move on. I have one
:39:06. > :39:11.qualification, in the sense that when you are a candidate for a
:39:12. > :39:15.party, are you tweeting as an individual, free to say whatever you
:39:16. > :39:20.want, or are you there on behalf of a party? Candidates need to be a bit
:39:21. > :39:29.more careful than the rest of us when they are tweeting. But he
:39:30. > :39:34.simply linked a tweet -- tweeted a link. Evidently, it has caused a
:39:35. > :39:39.furore. I am not justifying that, but I think that politicians, as
:39:40. > :39:44.candidates, have to be more careful. What is wrong with tweeting to a
:39:45. > :39:48.link? Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, even as they can do
:39:49. > :39:52.that. But the fact that it has caused this row, with poor old Nick
:39:53. > :40:00.Clegg, having dealt with the Rennard affair. He leaves this like a hole
:40:01. > :40:04.in the head! Evidently, it has caused a row. Kenan Malik, I will
:40:05. > :40:12.give you the final word, because Mohammed Shafiq has had a good say.
:40:13. > :40:15.What does it say about a party or a society if a political candidate is
:40:16. > :40:21.not allowed to offend anyone or even to say, I am not offended by this
:40:22. > :40:25.cartoon or this book? What does it say about a party or a society if a
:40:26. > :40:30.small group from within a particular community is allowed to dictate what
:40:31. > :40:36.is or is not acceptable to be said about that community? Thank you both
:40:37. > :40:41.for taking part in a spirited debate.
:40:42. > :40:43.Now, David Cameron apparently have a woman problem. Nick Clegg is in
:40:44. > :40:47.allsorts of trouble with Lib Dem women over the Rennard affair. The
:40:48. > :40:53.status of women in public life could not be more topical, but it is not
:40:54. > :40:57.new. In the latest of our series on political thinkers, Labour MP
:40:58. > :40:59.Glorietta Piero has chosen an 18th-century political philosopher
:41:00. > :41:17.claimed to be the world's first feminist.
:41:18. > :41:22.It is unusual, isn't it? A modern portrait of an 18th-century
:41:23. > :41:27.philosopher. This is Mary Wollstonecraft, a campaigner for
:41:28. > :41:32.women's's writes, equality and education, who was well ahead of her
:41:33. > :41:36.time. I am in London to meet an MP who was a fan of hers long before
:41:37. > :41:43.the party made her a spokesperson on just those kinds of issues.
:41:44. > :41:48.For someone who questions so much about the norms of the society they
:41:49. > :41:54.live in, it is odd that we should start her story in a church that she
:41:55. > :41:59.regularly attended. Gloria, here we are in the pews she sat in in the
:42:00. > :42:02.church she worshipped in, that hosts to be the birthplace of feminism.
:42:03. > :42:09.Why do you like Mary Wollstonecraft? I remember first
:42:10. > :42:13.reading about her as an undergraduate at university. She was
:42:14. > :42:19.the first feminist, the first person to say actually, women are not
:42:20. > :42:23.inferior to men. She was saying this at a time in a century when
:42:24. > :42:29.political writing and philosophy were totally dominated by men. She
:42:30. > :42:35.was a pioneer in a man's world. And I work in politics, so I know what
:42:36. > :42:41.it is like. Thank you, Mary Wollstonecraft. You started us off.
:42:42. > :42:44.But our expert, Doctor Elizabeth Fraser of Oxford University, is
:42:45. > :42:49.clear that there is even more to thank her for. She is a very
:42:50. > :42:55.important philosopher of education. If we think of the field that we now
:42:56. > :42:59.know as cultural is buddies, -- cultural studies, opening up the
:43:00. > :43:05.relationship between culture, society and state, it is there in
:43:06. > :43:13.her. Gloria, I have brought you to London's oldest brick terrace. This
:43:14. > :43:18.was the home of the minister of the church. He is an Enlightenment
:43:19. > :43:23.thinker. He also host 's lots of Enlightenment thinkers at this
:43:24. > :43:26.house. Mary Wollstonecraft writes in her work, the vindication of the
:43:27. > :43:32.rights of women, just a year after Thomas Paine has written his right
:43:33. > :43:36.of man. And he was talking about the rights of men. This was the
:43:37. > :43:42.Enlightenment, and age when thinkers were turning their back on religion,
:43:43. > :43:47.tradition, folklore and saying, it is actually about science, reason,
:43:48. > :43:51.logic. Mary Wollstonecraft 's point was that if reason is where it is
:43:52. > :43:54.that, how come women are confined to their judicial normals? They should
:43:55. > :44:00.be able to use their talent in the same way as men. But we are not,
:44:01. > :44:05.because we are not educated. She said, I want women to be taught to
:44:06. > :44:12.think. And she packed in what she preached. -- sheep practised what
:44:13. > :44:18.she preached. So it was just around here that she set up a girls'
:44:19. > :44:21.school. There is a plaque over there which commemorates it. It was during
:44:22. > :44:28.her time at the school where she writes her first book. Thoughts on
:44:29. > :44:34.the education of daughters. Yes, which was a guide to female manners.
:44:35. > :44:38.Nonetheless, she earned ?10. She was very pleased about this. In letters
:44:39. > :44:43.which have been published subsequently, she wrote a letter to
:44:44. > :44:47.her sister saying, I hope you have not forgotten, I am an author.
:44:48. > :44:51.Whatever Mary thought of herself, what others have thought of her has
:44:52. > :44:57.changed over time. She was vilified as a feminist full she was then
:44:58. > :45:04.saying did as a figure of the radical romantic movement. She was
:45:05. > :45:08.understood to be the founder of liberal feminism, with her emphasis
:45:09. > :45:14.on right. I now think we are coming to a point where scholars and
:45:15. > :45:20.historians are able to get to grips with the complexity of the work.
:45:21. > :45:24.Gloria, this is the memorial to Mary Wollstonecraft. She is not buried
:45:25. > :45:29.here. She dried -- she died at 38 after giving birth to Mary Shelley,
:45:30. > :45:33.the author of Frankenstein. What seems sad about her is that her
:45:34. > :45:38.reputation gets buried with her. Her reputation was trashed as some kind
:45:39. > :45:41.of moral fanatic, because of decisions she made in her personal
:45:42. > :45:45.life. She had an affair with a married man. She had a child out of
:45:46. > :45:51.wedlock, which was big news in those days. And these things were used by
:45:52. > :45:55.many as a stick to beat her with. And that attitude seems to last for
:45:56. > :46:00.almost a century. It is relatively recently that academics have said,
:46:01. > :46:04.hang on, let's look at what she was saying. The issues in her personal
:46:05. > :46:10.life are still the challenges we talk about as women today. Earning a
:46:11. > :46:15.living, having a career, falling in love, raising children - the same
:46:16. > :46:22.challenges. And that makes her special. She knew she was special.
:46:23. > :46:24.She once said" I was not born to walk on the beaten track". She was
:46:25. > :46:47.not short on self-confidence. Now in a masterpiece of political
:46:48. > :46:52.planning and programming, one of our guests today has actually written
:46:53. > :46:58.about her at university. Is she everything that Gloria makes her out
:46:59. > :47:06.to be? I am not a massive expert but I loved her book. She is one of my
:47:07. > :47:12.favourite writers. Women have education now. We are not being
:47:13. > :47:16.infantilised by men or educated purely for the entertainment of men
:47:17. > :47:20.but there is a sense culturally that women are encouraged to think about
:47:21. > :47:26.appearance and other aspects of behaviour. We buy women's magazines
:47:27. > :47:31.that make women feel guilty about their bodies and sex lives. It makes
:47:32. > :47:36.them feel less about their minds than appearance. There are many
:47:37. > :47:41.issues that are relevant to what she was writing about a long time ago.
:47:42. > :47:48.What she wanted, a lot of that has been achieved that her work is still
:47:49. > :47:52.unfinished. This is a neat balance and lapses into terrible
:47:53. > :48:00.stereotypes. I have not read her. I am going to now! It is very
:48:01. > :48:03.interesting what is going on at the moment. In terms of political
:48:04. > :48:09.representation, there is still a huge way to go. In a way, the only
:48:10. > :48:12.way that people like Gloria got into the House of Commons was through the
:48:13. > :48:17.positive dissemination that Labour has and the other parties do not
:48:18. > :48:21.dare quite do. Culturally, we are discovering, in a way I had not
:48:22. > :48:25.quite clocked how much further we have to go with all of these things
:48:26. > :48:31.going on at the moment. That is quite extraordinary and will bring
:48:32. > :48:36.about profound change. A huge leap, actually. Now time for our regular
:48:37. > :48:39.Friday Referendum Bill slot. It's a feature that we've been running for
:48:40. > :48:42.the last couple of months as the Private Members Bill paving the way
:48:43. > :48:45.for a referendum on our EU membership wends its way through
:48:46. > :48:49.parliament. Today it's back in the Lords where more than 70 amendments
:48:50. > :48:52.had been tabled, including ones in Gaelic, Cornish and Doric. A
:48:53. > :48:57.filibuster designed to make sure the bill runs out of time? Surely peers
:48:58. > :48:59.wouldn't be so cynical? Our political correspondent, Louise
:49:00. > :49:14.Stewart, spoke to Labour peer Lord Foulkes a little earlier. I am
:49:15. > :49:20.joined now by Lord Foulkes. This is pretty cynical politics, isn't it?
:49:21. > :49:22.You are trying to scupper the bill. There are other private members
:49:23. > :49:28.bills which have had much more amendments in the past. The bill
:49:29. > :49:33.from David steel about improving the House of Lords had over 160
:49:34. > :49:38.amendments. This is not unusual. What we are trying to do is examine
:49:39. > :49:43.carefully a bill that has been very badly drafted, is totally
:49:44. > :49:49.inadequate. There are no schedules outlining the arrangements for the
:49:50. > :49:53.referendum. This is a very bad bill which needs careful scrutiny. What
:49:54. > :49:57.has happened is we have been given an artificial timetable, an
:49:58. > :50:02.artificial deadline, to complete the bill. If we do not get it through
:50:03. > :50:06.without amendment by that time, we are scuppering the bell. That is not
:50:07. > :50:13.the way that legislation should be dealt with in the United Kingdom.
:50:14. > :50:19.Unelected peers, if you do go ahead and manage to do this bill, you are
:50:20. > :50:28.preventing the public having it safe. You are talking about
:50:29. > :50:33.unelected peers. We deal with this all the time. This is the structure
:50:34. > :50:37.we have. We are not against the principle of a referendum. This bill
:50:38. > :50:42.is totally inadequate. The question is wrong. The timing is wrong.
:50:43. > :50:48.Arrangements are wrong and it needs to be improved. After all, we cannot
:50:49. > :50:52.bind the next Parliament. If David Cameron wins the election, and I do
:50:53. > :50:57.not think he will, if he does, he can decide to have a referendum
:50:58. > :51:03.whenever he wants. It looks as if you do not trust the public. Most of
:51:04. > :51:09.them are drawing pensions now. It is 60 years ago since he had his
:51:10. > :51:16.chance. I did campaign on that occasion. There is actually an act
:51:17. > :51:21.on the stamp duty -- on the statute which is, if there is a major change
:51:22. > :51:26.in the competencies of the EU and any transfer of power, there has to
:51:27. > :51:30.be a referendum. There are provisions for a referendum. Thank
:51:31. > :51:34.you very much for joining me. And peers are still debating those
:51:35. > :51:36.amendments. Here's the scene in the Lords now - busier than normal for a
:51:37. > :51:43.Friday. The Conservative peer Baroness
:51:44. > :51:52.Browning has been taking part in that debate but has left the chamber
:51:53. > :51:57.and joins us now. Welcome. Is this going to get through? Looking at the
:51:58. > :52:02.number of people in the House of Lords, I voted not content to this
:52:03. > :52:05.amendment before I came here. I am not sure how it will go. I think
:52:06. > :52:10.this bill could be killed on the numbers of Liberal Democrats and
:52:11. > :52:16.Labour turning out to spike it. What would then happen? What with the
:52:17. > :52:19.Government do? Unless the Government bring something forward in the next
:52:20. > :52:25.session, the last session of this Parliament, clearly they can put a
:52:26. > :52:31.manifesto pledge forward. One of the strengths of this bill is that the
:52:32. > :52:37.body politic has let people down of all parties. People want a
:52:38. > :52:40.referendum, we know that. People have promised a referendum for many
:52:41. > :52:46.years. Every time there is a reason why not to. If this bill was passed
:52:47. > :52:50.and it had all-party support, as it did in the House of Commons, at
:52:51. > :52:54.least the public would know that whatever the outcome of the next
:52:55. > :52:59.general election they will get their say. In a sense, has it not been a
:53:00. > :53:06.public relations exercise for Mr Cameron? He wanted to do something
:53:07. > :53:11.to show I really, really mean we are going to have a referendum, so he
:53:12. > :53:15.wanted to get this through this side of the election. You will know this
:53:16. > :53:18.Parliament cannot find the next Parliament. It could easily have
:53:19. > :53:25.been repealed by the next Parliament. It could. I would not
:53:26. > :53:30.say I do not envisage that if it did get through, when it came to putting
:53:31. > :53:35.it into practice, there would not be some slight revision of it. The date
:53:36. > :53:38.needs to be set. There is quite a lot of tweaking needed. It is the
:53:39. > :53:42.underlying principle to the people of this country that what they have
:53:43. > :53:47.clearly stated they want, and that is a say on the EU matter. When it
:53:48. > :53:53.went through the House of Commons, there was no opposition to it at
:53:54. > :53:55.third reading. There was no opposition to it from the Liberal
:53:56. > :53:58.Democrats and Labour at second reading. You would believe both
:53:59. > :54:07.those key parties were in favour of it. Now it is in the House of Lords,
:54:08. > :54:11.over 80 amendments are down. I think we would be better still tomorrow
:54:12. > :54:17.morning should we do it today. There is now an attempt to frustrate and
:54:18. > :54:24.kill it. The difficulty is, Labour and Lib Dems do not want their
:54:25. > :54:28.fingerprints on it. They get good old timers, who is a past master at
:54:29. > :54:34.the filibuster with a very straight face, and others who do not really
:54:35. > :54:42.want a referendum, to try to kill this off in the House of Lords. Are
:54:43. > :54:45.you going back to vote again? I am going back to bed many times, I
:54:46. > :54:49.suspect, today. Now, feel you've missed out on the big political
:54:50. > :54:51.stories of the week, don't worry. In the true spirit of public service,
:54:52. > :54:55.we've condensed the important stories and some of the trivial ones
:54:56. > :55:03.down to just a minute. Here's the David Thompson with the week in 60
:55:04. > :55:09.seconds. Double trouble for the Lib Dems. Thus the party teetered on the
:55:10. > :55:14.brink of civil war over the Lord when aunt affair and then Mike
:55:15. > :55:19.Hancock was suspended over claims he made unwanted sexual advances
:55:20. > :55:26.towards a female constituent. David Sonesta claimed recent floods where
:55:27. > :55:32.divine retribution and legalising -- over legalising gay marriage. They
:55:33. > :55:37.mocked up these pictures of the UKIP leader doing some cleaning in his
:55:38. > :55:49.pants. Good luck getting that image out of your head? David Miliband
:55:50. > :55:54.reinforced claims. Fellow conservatives were called upon to
:55:55. > :55:59.hate less. Eric Pickles declared war on biscuit munching ministers. He
:56:00. > :56:01.has been banned from tucking into taxpayer funded snacks in an attempt
:56:02. > :56:14.to cut costs. A quick word from you on this
:56:15. > :56:18.immigration Bill. It is another embarrassment for Mr Cameron. There
:56:19. > :56:23.are more amendments on the way. They had crisis talks this week in
:56:24. > :56:27.Downing Street with Nigel Mills, the backbencher who tabled this
:56:28. > :56:32.amendment. He refused to back down. They have tabled other amendments to
:56:33. > :56:38.help siphon off support. I am going to come to you on immigration. Nick
:56:39. > :56:41.Clegg has been talking about the trouble surrounding the Lib Dem MP
:56:42. > :56:50.for Portsmouth, Mike Hancock. Let's see what he had to say. I was
:56:51. > :56:53.appalled at those revelations. When I was given the specific allegations
:56:54. > :56:57.at the beginning of last year, for the first time, I immediately asked
:56:58. > :57:02.the Chief Whip to investigate. As a result, he ceased to be a Liberal
:57:03. > :57:06.Democrat MP. When the allegations were supported by the QC 's report
:57:07. > :57:10.which have come to light this week, we acted immediately and he has been
:57:11. > :57:19.suspended from the Liberal Democrats altogether. We have had a little bit
:57:20. > :57:33.of fun about the Lord when I business but there is no fun to have
:57:34. > :57:38.about the Mike Hancock business. Psion I have a degree of sympathy
:57:39. > :57:47.for him. He has very limited levers to pull. He has done what he can. He
:57:48. > :57:56.originally got suspended from the Whip but now he has been suspended
:57:57. > :58:03.from the party. He has done what he can. The image is, the Lib Dems have
:58:04. > :58:07.always had an image of being eccentric and so on. When you have
:58:08. > :58:11.all the stuff you willing around and Nick Clegg popping up and saying, I
:58:12. > :58:16.have tried to do what I can. It looks really bad, as they are
:58:17. > :58:23.acutely aware. It does not look as if it will get better quickly. There
:58:24. > :58:27.is this row we have discussing -- been discussing which is rumbling
:58:28. > :58:35.on. That's all for today. Thanks to all our guests. The one o'clock news
:58:36. > :58:38.is starting over on BBC One now. I'll be back on Sunday with the
:58:39. > :58:40.Sunday Politics on BBC One where I'll be speaking to the Transport
:58:41. > :58:51.Secretary Patrick McLoughlin. Do join me then. Bye-bye. Have a
:58:52. > :59:10.nice weekend. Our number-one priority
:59:11. > :59:11.is moving the child or baby.