:00:36. > :00:40.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. Gary Barlow has been
:00:41. > :00:44.ordered to pay back millions of pounds worth of tax, but should he
:00:45. > :00:47.be stripped of his OBE for his involvement in a tax avoidance
:00:48. > :00:51.scheme? Nigel Farage says his party is being
:00:52. > :00:55.targeted by antifascist groups, but is there really a campaign of
:00:56. > :00:58.violence against UKIP? We will bring the two sides together in the
:00:59. > :01:02.studio. Roll over Das Kapitall. Is the new
:01:03. > :01:15.bestseller Le Capital au Vingt-et-un Siecle a new manifesto for the left?
:01:16. > :01:22.Come on, these are the issues I know. It is not a leader's voice, is
:01:23. > :01:26.it? And it might make for a few laughs, but does it matter what
:01:27. > :01:30.politicians look and sound like? All that in the next hour and with us
:01:31. > :01:35.for the first half hour today is the comedian Matt Forde. You saw him in
:01:36. > :01:40.the clip and he used to be an adviser to the Labour Party, so he
:01:41. > :01:44.knows his political onions. And we won't be making fun of your voice.
:01:45. > :01:48.Welcome. First the case of Lord Hanningfield who faces a ban from
:01:49. > :01:51.the House of Lords until the next election and being ordered to pay
:01:52. > :01:56.back over ?3000 worth of allowances which were wrongly claimed for. This
:01:57. > :01:59.latest case comes after the once Conservative Peer was sentenced to
:02:00. > :02:04.nine months in prison in 2011 for fiddling his Parliamentary expenses.
:02:05. > :02:13.Let's speak to our political correspondent Eleanor Garnier. Let's
:02:14. > :02:19.talk about the reasons for the wrongly claimed amount of expenses.
:02:20. > :02:25.Lord Hanningfield was basically caught clocking on to the job,
:02:26. > :02:29.claiming for his expensive, but not doing any Parliamentary work. This
:02:30. > :02:34.has come about because of an investigation by the Daily Mirror
:02:35. > :02:39.that followed the peer around. It wanted to find out how much time he
:02:40. > :02:44.was spending in the house of lords. In essence you don't get a salary if
:02:45. > :02:52.you are a peer, but if you turn up and clock in, you can claim ?300 a
:02:53. > :02:56.day. The idea was to reduce fraud on expenses, make the system more
:02:57. > :03:00.transparent and honest. But the Daily Mirror found out that
:03:01. > :03:05.sometimes disappear was turning up for less than 20 minutes a day,
:03:06. > :03:12.clocking in, turning round and going home. He has tried to appeal this.
:03:13. > :03:17.But the house of Lords watchdog has said, no, the 11 days they
:03:18. > :03:23.investigated Lord Hanningfield was only in the House of Commons for a
:03:24. > :03:27.total of 40 minutes, not enough to make these claims. They asked him
:03:28. > :03:32.what work he had done across those 40 minutes and he could not point to
:03:33. > :03:38.any specific work he was meant to have done. They suggested he be
:03:39. > :03:44.suspended for the maximum amount of one year and he pays back ?3300.
:03:45. > :03:53.Once he has done that and it comes to 2015 he will be able to return to
:03:54. > :03:57.the House of Lords? Is that right? That is right. Peers effectively
:03:58. > :04:01.cannot lose their job in some respects. After the general election
:04:02. > :04:07.he will be entitled to take his place back in the house of lords.
:04:08. > :04:12.Today Lord Hanningfield said he admitted it was thoughtless to claim
:04:13. > :04:18.for the full amounts on those 11 days, but he maintains he thinks the
:04:19. > :04:23.allowance is basically a salary. He added he only claims for 100 claims
:04:24. > :04:28.a year, but he says he works every single day of the year. He will
:04:29. > :04:36.repay some money and go away for a little bit and he will be back in
:04:37. > :04:42.2015. It was thoughtless, he said, but otherwise this is a salary he
:04:43. > :04:46.can rightfully claim. If we all turned up, went on the Internet and
:04:47. > :04:51.then went home, that would be the end of it. He has got a
:04:52. > :04:59.constitutional role and he is messing about. We are talking about
:05:00. > :05:05.getting rid of some MPs, why can't we do that with the House of Lords?
:05:06. > :05:10.People will find it amazing that in this particular instance this man is
:05:11. > :05:14.going to be able to come back into the house of lords after the next
:05:15. > :05:20.election and presumably be able to claim that daily allowance again. It
:05:21. > :05:25.is beyond ridiculous. But think of Lord Archer and others who have even
:05:26. > :05:29.been to prison and two are still allowed to take their place in the
:05:30. > :05:42.House of Lords. It would not apply to the House of Commons. The damage
:05:43. > :05:44.this does to politics in general just reinforces the idea that it is
:05:45. > :05:47.now in the trough. You would want him kicked out? Yes, if he had any
:05:48. > :05:54.dignity, he would leave. What about reforming the House of Lords? If it
:05:55. > :06:00.were elected, people would be able to have a say in it. I'm not
:06:01. > :06:05.convinced about having an elected house myself, really. The time has
:06:06. > :06:10.come to elect people in a different way, but the danger is you would get
:06:11. > :06:15.one party dominating the Commons and also the Lords, so it would not
:06:16. > :06:20.provide the function it is meant to provide. I can't understand how you
:06:21. > :06:25.would get neutrality. What about the allowance? Would you keep this daily
:06:26. > :06:30.allowance that you get literally for turn it up? Absolutely not. It
:06:31. > :06:33.should be like an MP's wage. Pop star Gary Barlow found himself
:06:34. > :06:37.taking a few hits rather than making them after a tribunal ruling that an
:06:38. > :06:41.investment scheme he had put money into was actually used to just avoid
:06:42. > :06:43.tax. Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Commons Public Accounts
:06:44. > :06:47.Committee, called for a bit less take that and a bit more give back,
:06:48. > :06:52.saying he should show some contrition and return his OBE. This
:06:53. > :07:02.morning the Prime Minister was asked if he agreed. Margaret Hodge has
:07:03. > :07:07.suggested Gary Barlow may want to give back his OBE as an act of
:07:08. > :07:11.contrition, would you support that? I do not think that is necessary. He
:07:12. > :07:18.has done a huge amount for the country and has raised money for
:07:19. > :07:23.charity and I am not sure, because the OBE was in respect of that job
:07:24. > :07:27.that he has done, but it is right they pay back the money. We're
:07:28. > :07:32.joined by Mark Littlewood from the Institute of Economic Affairs, a
:07:33. > :07:37.free-market think tank. The Prime Minister said he should pay back the
:07:38. > :07:43.money. Why shouldn't people who abuse the tax system have the honour
:07:44. > :07:47.is stripped from them? If he was refusing to pay the money, that
:07:48. > :07:52.would be different. A lot of the problem is about how complex the tax
:07:53. > :07:57.system is. I have been looking into what this tax dodge was. It is
:07:58. > :08:02.because we have got an unbelievably complex loophole that allows you to
:08:03. > :08:07.invest money in creative industries and right of those losses in tax,
:08:08. > :08:13.that would encourage this behaviour, it is designed to encourage people
:08:14. > :08:19.to make losses by supporting movies, and it seems that Gary Barlow and
:08:20. > :08:24.others are only running losses. He has been found guilty in a court and
:08:25. > :08:29.it has been found the system went too far, but the only reason the
:08:30. > :08:34.system exists in the first place is the ridiculous complexity of the
:08:35. > :08:40.British tax code. It is legal, and I know he has been told to pay back
:08:41. > :08:47.the money, but this is not an issue of avoidance. What he is doing is
:08:48. > :08:51.deliberately avoiding tax, he has deliberately run losses in order to
:08:52. > :08:58.escape paying. Gary Barlow burns tonnes of money. In an era where we
:08:59. > :09:03.have always had normal jobs and you cannot avoid tax when it is
:09:04. > :09:11.compulsory to pay it. It is baffling. I avoid tax, I have got an
:09:12. > :09:15.Isa. But you pay income tax in that. I put more money into my pension
:09:16. > :09:20.than I otherwise would because of the tax benefits. I buy as much
:09:21. > :09:25.tobacco as I legally can when I am abroad because it is cheaper to
:09:26. > :09:31.avoid British tax. The problem is it is not about tax avoidance,
:09:32. > :09:37.aggressive tax avoidance has not been defined. If you have ever
:09:38. > :09:42.bought anything from duty-free, that is tax avoidance. It is different
:09:43. > :09:48.getting the odd, little treat when you come back from holiday? Is it
:09:49. > :09:56.the millions of pounds or the nature of avoidance? Both. Tax avoidance,
:09:57. > :10:03.you think that I'd differences in the scale. You probably do the same,
:10:04. > :10:06.you some of the Government ways of avoiding tax. There
:10:07. > :10:11.you some of the Government ways of between aggressive tax avoidance and
:10:12. > :10:15.those taxation is the Government encourages you to do. This was a
:10:16. > :10:20.scheme the Government encouraged people to do, to encourage very rich
:10:21. > :10:25.people to invest in the creative industries for a tax break. In a
:10:26. > :10:31.scheme that is created or could only be created to avoid tax. Is that
:10:32. > :10:36.right? I would scrap these tax loopholes. It is a deliberate act of
:10:37. > :10:40.public policy to get rich people to invest money in the creative
:10:41. > :10:45.industries so they can write losses against tax. So they can help
:10:46. > :10:51.flourishing talent I'm sure was the incentive. They were set up with the
:10:52. > :10:55.right principle, to nurture a flourishing, British talent in the
:10:56. > :10:59.industries. People like Gary Barlow and his accountant realise they can
:11:00. > :11:06.use it for something else. Barlow should have his OBE stripped for
:11:07. > :11:12.crimes against music! I will not have a debate about that, put that
:11:13. > :11:17.to one side. But why should he be stripped of his OBE? I think anyone
:11:18. > :11:21.who wants one needs their head testing anyway. It is bizarre to
:11:22. > :11:26.crave another level of status when he has already got so much heaped
:11:27. > :11:30.upon him. The Prime Minister seems to be reluctant to say his OBE
:11:31. > :11:37.should be taken from him because of the contribution he has made to
:11:38. > :11:42.society. He has also failed to make a contribution to society. The
:11:43. > :11:44.reason why we have a deficit and a Government cutting public services
:11:45. > :11:50.is because people like Gary Barlow do not pay their fair share. It
:11:51. > :11:55.would be colossal to our eyes, but it is a drop in the ocean compared
:11:56. > :12:00.to the overall deficit. I find the honours system preposterous, but if
:12:01. > :12:05.you are given an honour, you should only have that stripped away if you
:12:06. > :12:11.are shown to have done your service fraudulently or if you are convicted
:12:12. > :12:16.of a serious, violent, criminal offence like murder or armed
:12:17. > :12:19.robbery. This was an extremely complex tax issue. I understand
:12:20. > :12:26.Barlow and others will repay and that should be the end of it. The
:12:27. > :12:28.Prime Minister is being accused of being inconsistent because with
:12:29. > :12:34.Jimmy Carter he said it was morally wrong, but he has not said the same
:12:35. > :12:40.about Gary Barlow, and critics would say he is a Tory supporter and their
:12:41. > :12:44.poster boy. It is always a mistake for politicians to comment on
:12:45. > :12:49.individual cases. I do not want the Prime Minister to decide whether
:12:50. > :12:54.Gary Barlow is morally right or wrong. The court should decide that,
:12:55. > :13:01.not politicians on the morality or immorality of tax affairs. Do you
:13:02. > :13:05.think there should be laws to make some tax avoidance illegal and it
:13:06. > :13:11.would be clearer, or just not get involved in these cases if they are
:13:12. > :13:16.not legal? The problem is the law allows it. The only way you could
:13:17. > :13:23.legally stop it is to effectively closed the loophole. We have got the
:13:24. > :13:26.longest tax rule book in the world, about 14,000 pages long, seven times
:13:27. > :13:32.longer than War and peace. If you are going to have a rule book that
:13:33. > :13:36.long, people will find complex loopholes in it. I don't think you
:13:37. > :13:41.can get it all onto 14 pages, but that should be the aspiration. When
:13:42. > :13:46.you build well-intentioned incentives to help the creative
:13:47. > :13:49.industries, and pages of complexity, you are opening the floodgates to
:13:50. > :13:55.people who are using them not for the purposes for which they were
:13:56. > :14:00.designed, but to minimise their tax payments. Let's make it simpler and
:14:01. > :14:04.flatter. And you would still listen to Gary Barlow's music? I would
:14:05. > :14:08.never listen to it. UKIP leader Nigel Farage says he's a free spirit
:14:09. > :14:10.who hates having to be escorted by bodyguards. But he said he needs
:14:11. > :14:14.protection because anti-fascist groups such as Unite Against Fascism
:14:15. > :14:18.and Hope Not Hate are acting "violently" at UKIP meetings. Mr
:14:19. > :14:23.Farage also said that the two groups receive Government money and have
:14:24. > :14:26.ties to the Labour Party. UAF and Hope Not Hate deny using violence
:14:27. > :14:31.and UAF say they do not receive taxpayer cash. Here's the UKIP
:14:32. > :14:41.leader speaking to Andrew on the Sunday Politics yesterday. Sadly, we
:14:42. > :14:45.have a couple of organisations out there headed up by senior Labour
:14:46. > :14:50.Party figures who purport to be against fascism and extremism, who
:14:51. > :14:52.received funding from the department of the communities, who received
:14:53. > :14:56.funding from trade unions, who have acted in a violent way more than
:14:57. > :15:01.once. You are saying the Labour Party is behind the threats? I am
:15:02. > :15:07.saying that Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate are funded. I am
:15:08. > :15:10.happy for them to come to my meetings and have an argument with
:15:11. > :15:15.me but it is not so much fun when they are banging you over the head
:15:16. > :15:19.with banners. That was Nigel Farage and joining us is Weyman Bennett,
:15:20. > :15:23.joint national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, and Suzanne Evans,
:15:24. > :15:28.the UKIP communities spokesperson. Welcome. Have any of your members
:15:29. > :15:33.acted violently or threateningly to Nigel Farage in public? That is
:15:34. > :15:46.absolutely not the case. We have questioned him. Unfortunately that
:15:47. > :15:48.is the reality. If you stand as a politician, the public are allowed
:15:49. > :15:51.to question you. Some of the things he has said, we believe he has
:15:52. > :15:53.defended homophobic comments as he did yesterday. They said there was a
:15:54. > :15:56.problem with same-sex marriage. We also believe they are racist. If you
:15:57. > :15:59.do unpopular things like that then people question you and that is what
:16:00. > :16:04.has happened. As the questioning being in an intimidating way? Have
:16:05. > :16:10.members acted aggressively to Nigel freeride? According to opinion
:16:11. > :16:16.polls, 22% of people ain't UKIP is a racist party. That was not the
:16:17. > :16:20.question I asked. When they opposed the legitimate questions, did they
:16:21. > :16:26.do it in an intimidating way or a way which can be seen as aggressive?
:16:27. > :16:30.I think no. People said they were gay and they were here, and maybe
:16:31. > :16:34.Nigel finds that intimidating and I think that if the problem with
:16:35. > :16:42.UKIP. What would you say to that, Suzanne Adams others? Would you like
:16:43. > :16:48.to attract the allegation? No. The bodyguards tell me a very different
:16:49. > :16:52.story. This man has been arrested on conspiracy for inciting violence in
:16:53. > :16:56.the past. 58 of his supporters were arrested en masse last year.
:16:57. > :16:59.Violence seems to follow this group around whether we like it or not and
:17:00. > :17:03.I certainly don't like it. On Wednesday night I had seen it all
:17:04. > :17:09.finally when supporters of this man and his organisation stood up and
:17:10. > :17:13.assaulted verbally our speakers at a conference on Wednesday night. They
:17:14. > :17:17.stood up and called a black, 60-year-old, Jewish woman racist.
:17:18. > :17:24.They called her racist scum and had to be injected from the meeting. I
:17:25. > :17:27.have seen it all. This group is not antifascist. It is trying to close
:17:28. > :17:32.down free speech and democracy and does so in a violent way. Let's be
:17:33. > :17:36.absolutely clear. I don't consider UKIP to be fascist but I believe
:17:37. > :17:40.them to be pushing racist ideas and pushing the idea that if your
:17:41. > :17:45.neighbours are Eastern European or black sometimes or Maslin, then
:17:46. > :17:53.there is a problem with that. The candidates have made a statement.
:17:54. > :17:58.One said that same-sex marriages have caused floods. Can I finish my
:17:59. > :18:01.point? Firstly the idea of being verbally assaulted is being
:18:02. > :18:05.questioned. That is what it is called. If you ask me a question,
:18:06. > :18:12.that is not verbal assault. It is questioning the nature of my
:18:13. > :18:15.organisation. I think the idea of pushing division is something we
:18:16. > :18:20.have to reject and that is part of the problem. We have turned up, gay,
:18:21. > :18:26.black, from different communities, and questioned Nigel and I don't
:18:27. > :18:31.believe that his violent. We need to clarify. Verbal assault is not the
:18:32. > :18:35.same as physical assault. OK, let's talk about physical assault. The man
:18:36. > :18:40.that hit Nigel Farage over the head with a placard in Margate was a
:18:41. > :18:45.supporter of Hope Not Hate, closely affiliated with UAF. The same as the
:18:46. > :18:57.man on bail for a game Nigel Farage at the moment. A supporter of Hope
:18:58. > :19:02.Not Hate. -- a throwing the egg. Nigel Farage is not as popular as he
:19:03. > :19:07.would like to be. That is the same for every politician! It does not
:19:08. > :19:11.mean he deserves that. Nobody has argued he should be assaulted. The
:19:12. > :19:16.politics of UKIP are encouraging racism and division which I believe
:19:17. > :19:27.leads to real violence. So why are 12% of the non-white population
:19:28. > :19:32.voting for UKIP in the country? Why are you not attacking racist
:19:33. > :19:38.candidates from other parties? We have BNP members in the Labour and
:19:39. > :19:42.Conservative parties. You have kept silent on that issue. Let's be
:19:43. > :19:46.clear, UKIP is the only party that has put forward the idea that the
:19:47. > :19:50.biggest problem facing Britain at the moment is immigration and has
:19:51. > :19:59.run on that policy to the point where I believe if you ask... Can I
:20:00. > :20:06.finish? The poll that you reported was also reported that 22% of people
:20:07. > :20:11.said that UKIP was a racist party. Right, but what about the non-white
:20:12. > :20:17.candidates that are standing for the party? Why would they be in a racist
:20:18. > :20:25.party? I believe it is possible, in some sense, and... They are
:20:26. > :20:29.mistaken. They have made a mistake. Can I finish this one quick point?
:20:30. > :20:37.When Nigel Farage says that Enoch Powell is his hero... He did not say
:20:38. > :20:41.that. He never said that. I don't think he ever said that. While we
:20:42. > :20:45.have the claim and counterclaim, what is your response to the fact
:20:46. > :20:49.that Nigel Farage things he needs protection? He clearly needs
:20:50. > :20:52.protection because it does get assaulted and he does need it. The
:20:53. > :20:57.main problem the left has in campaigning against UKIP and that
:20:58. > :21:01.UAF have, is they want them to be racist and they want to campaign
:21:02. > :21:04.against the BNP. I would never vote for UKIP that they are not as
:21:05. > :21:09.extreme as the people campaigning against them want them to be.
:21:10. > :21:12.Reality is that you have to campaign against them as you would the Tories
:21:13. > :21:16.or the Lib Dems and fight on their record. People are not agreeing with
:21:17. > :21:23.what you are saying is because it does not chime with the reality.
:21:24. > :21:29.UKIP are not a racist party. If you say that you find gay relationships
:21:30. > :21:36.abnormal... That is bigoted and reactionary. Can I finish? But
:21:37. > :21:43.people have questioned them in a non-violent way. You are picking out
:21:44. > :21:49.individuals, tiny things, that do not represent the party. We have
:21:50. > :21:55.made this very clear. The idiots who have criticised us... Let him
:21:56. > :21:59.finish. Would you accept that you referred to another organisation
:22:00. > :22:04.that attacked Nigel Swaraj, that your leader has explicitly said that
:22:05. > :22:11.Unite Against Fascism has attacked people? -- Nigel Farage. You are
:22:12. > :22:17.changing your point. Nigel Farage, as you yourself, has had to account
:22:18. > :22:22.for people that you are calling idiots yourself. Do you understand
:22:23. > :22:27.that that does provoke a strong reaction? Of course. But we don't
:22:28. > :22:31.have a level playing field. Similar candidates in other parties have
:22:32. > :22:34.said even worse things. The Tory candidate councillor who talked
:22:35. > :22:40.about wanting to expel all Muslims from the country and destroy masks.
:22:41. > :22:46.Awful things. Did that appear on the Unite Against Fascism website?
:22:47. > :22:50.Never. Does your group have ties to the Labour Party and trades unions?
:22:51. > :22:57.Yes, we have ties to trades unions, to mosques, churches, groups, and we
:22:58. > :23:02.are opposed to Fascism. We don't consider UKIP to be a fascist party
:23:03. > :23:10.but we are part of a campaign that says we should live in a society of
:23:11. > :23:14.tolerance and equality. Thank you for that note of agreement at the
:23:15. > :23:18.end! Politics is showbiz for ugly people
:23:19. > :23:23.according to the saying but only some politicians attain celebrity
:23:24. > :23:25.status. So what have they got that others have not?
:23:26. > :23:29.Actors playing politicians are of course trained to capture the
:23:30. > :23:33.audience. If you want something done, ask a woman. But there are
:23:34. > :23:36.some politicians like the late Margaret Thatcher who mastered the
:23:37. > :23:41.art of holding our attention so well, they seemed to transcend
:23:42. > :23:51.politics altogether, reaching a certain celebrity status. There are
:23:52. > :23:55.mishaps and plenty of missed mixed metaphors. My leadership chances, as
:23:56. > :24:00.I may have told you before, are about as good as my chances of being
:24:01. > :24:04.reincarnated as a baked bean. Whatever the London Mayor gets up
:24:05. > :24:11.to, there always seems to be a lot of love for Boris. Would you like to
:24:12. > :24:13.see him elected? I love Boris. And there is a certain something about
:24:14. > :24:17.the fellow public schoolboy and former banker now UKIP leader Nigel
:24:18. > :24:25.Farage, and his charismatic character. Scotland's first minister
:24:26. > :24:29.Alex Salmond has certainly got the hang of it but is there something
:24:30. > :24:34.that successful ones all share? Politics is largely an art form and
:24:35. > :24:38.therefore to really succeed in politics you have to be an artist,
:24:39. > :24:42.and that means being a great communicator, a great actor. Even
:24:43. > :24:46.when you are being completely fake and not authentic, you have to
:24:47. > :24:52.convey the sense that you are being utterly sincere and authentic.
:24:53. > :24:59.Putting on a show and doing a bit of acting is not easy. So what tricks
:25:00. > :25:04.to politicians have two win us over? British eccentricity. It have to be.
:25:05. > :25:11.Something quirky and different to what we are used to. Bull Garrity
:25:12. > :25:18.maybe could be one explanation. Charisma could be another. --
:25:19. > :25:23.vulgarity. Another master to add to the mix, Tony Blair. Here at his
:25:24. > :25:26.last Labour conference as Prime Minister, diffusing tension between
:25:27. > :25:31.his wife and Gordon Brown. At least I don't have to worry about running
:25:32. > :25:35.off with the bloke next door! In a way that I think is still
:25:36. > :25:38.underestimated, Tony Blair was a mesmerising orator. I used to get
:25:39. > :25:42.his speeches before he delivered them when he was leader of the
:25:43. > :25:46.opposition and read them and think what total rubbish. We are going to
:25:47. > :25:50.be a young country, a country reborn. And then he would stand
:25:51. > :25:54.there on the stage and say, we are going to be a young country, country
:25:55. > :26:00.reborn, and you would believe it. You would be utterly spellbound. How
:26:01. > :26:05.much of this is taught and how much is natural talent? You have got it
:26:06. > :26:09.or you haven't. The great artists just have it by instinct. They know
:26:10. > :26:15.how to communicate. They know how to appear sincere and to be funny. And
:26:16. > :26:21.they have just got it. And if you have got it, flaunt it. The longer
:26:22. > :26:25.politicians manage to keep the audience entertained, the longer
:26:26. > :26:28.they can stay in the limelight. Eleanor Garnier reporting. With as
:26:29. > :26:40.is the journalist and author Peter Hitchens. You are a big fan of Tony
:26:41. > :26:47.Blair. Why? Not only because office record but what they touched on
:26:48. > :26:51.there. Politicians make people excited and Tony Blair did that.
:26:52. > :26:55.What was wrong with Tony Blair? He was a great communicator and a lot
:26:56. > :26:59.of people believed that I voted for him over three elections. That
:27:00. > :27:03.cannot be delayed. Well, I don't know whether it can be denied or
:27:04. > :27:09.not. They did not do much for me. What is he a communicator off? He
:27:10. > :27:14.seems to be a communicator of drivel and vacuousness. Almost everything
:27:15. > :27:17.he said qualified as one or the other if not both and every speech
:27:18. > :27:21.he made, I wondered why people were taking it seriously. There was
:27:22. > :27:26.nothing there. I think the magic of Tony Blair was, and David has proved
:27:27. > :27:30.this, he was so vacuous that anybody who wanted to manufacture an image
:27:31. > :27:34.could have anything into him and have it come at the other end. David
:27:35. > :27:37.Cameron is considerably more intelligent and so his attempt to be
:27:38. > :27:42.a second Tony Blair has not really work because he has the intelligence
:27:43. > :27:48.to block the drivel valves. But he has not won on election, has he? No,
:27:49. > :27:51.he hasn't, but that is to do with Conservative Party debt which is not
:27:52. > :27:55.he hasn't, but that is to do with something we can do anything about.
:27:56. > :27:58.Not even David Cameron. Listening to that, he said he was vacuous and
:27:59. > :28:01.Not even David Cameron. Listening to not say anything, and therefore it
:28:02. > :28:05.was easy for everybody to project what they wanted to hear. Do you
:28:06. > :28:09.think it was true or was there a narrative, a passion, and he did
:28:10. > :28:14.believe in something? I think you did. If you looked at his vision for
:28:15. > :28:20.the country which was for the Labour Party to embrace the markets. That
:28:21. > :28:25.was significant. David Cameron may well be better educated and with
:28:26. > :28:30.better results... They are equally well educated. Both Oxbridge public
:28:31. > :28:34.school boys. If you have got vision, the only vision that Tony
:28:35. > :28:40.Blair had was the vision of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which
:28:41. > :28:44.were not there. Beyond that it was slogans, the kind of thing you have
:28:45. > :28:49.just come out with. Klaus four was dead before you were born. It was
:28:50. > :28:52.killed off by Harold Wilson and it did not matter. Anyone who knew
:28:53. > :28:59.anything about British politics knew that it meant nothing. It is
:29:00. > :29:03.personality we are talking about. Steve mentioned having an instinct,
:29:04. > :29:06.a likeability. Tony Blair said you have to be a member of the human
:29:07. > :29:10.race before you get into the political class. Wouldn't it be fun
:29:11. > :29:16.to have politicians that you dislike that have knowledge of what is going
:29:17. > :29:18.on? Who do you like and rate? Thinking back there was the
:29:19. > :29:23.generation that came to the Second World War, whichever side they were
:29:24. > :29:39.on, who knew something. Denis Healey is a good example. You can listen to
:29:40. > :29:42.him and you can hear there is some experience and knowledge of reality
:29:43. > :29:44.in this person. He has seen people killed and he knows what war is
:29:45. > :29:47.like, which so many of these buffoons do not, which is why they
:29:48. > :29:50.want to start them. I don't want to make that link directly to Boris
:29:51. > :29:52.Johnson but he does have personality and appeal. Does he have substance?
:29:53. > :29:56.Ultimately what unites politicians like Boris and Tony Blair is they
:29:57. > :30:00.have an amount of personality but ultimately you judge somebody on
:30:01. > :30:03.their record. The reason Boris was re-elected was people asking if
:30:04. > :30:08.their life was better or worse and Boris has been quite successful in
:30:09. > :30:12.London and that is why he was re-elected. What is your view on
:30:13. > :30:16.Boris? He is quite a good performer but something like Monty Python.
:30:17. > :30:20.People will wonder what they were laughing at. An engaging person and
:30:21. > :30:23.likeable, but he's not what he appears to be. Conservatives think
:30:24. > :30:37.he is hostile to the European Union and they would be quite surprised if
:30:38. > :30:40.they studied and thought about it. He is not what he appears to be,
:30:41. > :30:43.which may be the trick as well. Do we want that? Regular disappointment
:30:44. > :30:57.of the electric discredit the whole system. You do a good impression of
:30:58. > :31:03.Ed Miliband. What the hell is that voice all about, make? It sounds
:31:04. > :31:10.like Tony Blair with a cold. He would talk like that. Let's talk
:31:11. > :31:16.about it. As the years go by and his nose gets more bunged up it has come
:31:17. > :31:20.on. I want to talk about what is going on. Come on. These are big
:31:21. > :31:31.issues I know. It is not a leader's voice. Does it matter about the
:31:32. > :31:34.voice? A bit. William Hague was seen as a pipsqueak and a bit of a drip
:31:35. > :31:40.and he would talk at the top end of his vocal range and now he is
:31:41. > :31:46.Foreign Secretary, he talks in a deeper voice and it gives him real
:31:47. > :31:53.gravitas. Does that mean he would be more likely to be leader now with
:31:54. > :31:57.that voice? Argued bully, yes. If you are not doing so well and you
:31:58. > :32:06.are perceived to be a bit of a drip, having a silly voice helps you be
:32:07. > :32:13.lampooned. Is he being lampooned and hampered? He is always caricatured
:32:14. > :32:19.in particularly unflattering ways and the question is not whether he
:32:20. > :32:26.has got a different or unusual voice, the question is should it
:32:27. > :32:31.matter? It ought not to matter, but if it does, it is surely the duty of
:32:32. > :32:35.anybody who has got any role with politics and the public to make sure
:32:36. > :32:40.it does not matter. What matters is what he says and what he thinks, not
:32:41. > :32:48.whether it comes through his nose or mouth. Are you ever going to get
:32:49. > :32:54.away from the image, the look, the sound of a politician? Television
:32:55. > :33:02.infantilised as all who watch it. It does that and it is a terrible
:33:03. > :33:04.danger to freedom of thought. It makes people tremendously
:33:05. > :33:09.conformist. You can dismiss quite a substantial person on triviality and
:33:10. > :33:17.it is a tool by which you can destroy real politics. Are you
:33:18. > :33:21.guilty of trivialising politics? There is a right to mock
:33:22. > :33:28.politicians. Mocking somebody for their voice is not trivialising
:33:29. > :33:34.politics? Of course it is. Spitting image did that. It also did a lot of
:33:35. > :33:43.harm. Political discussion in this week has been the sense of a public
:33:44. > :33:50.schoolboy in 1958 dominating what we think. Nobody studies what they say
:33:51. > :33:57.or do. We have an infantile, political culture. Is that the fault
:33:58. > :34:02.of satire? Some people would say it engages people in politics. But if
:34:03. > :34:07.it engages people, but lessens the standard, it is not doing that. One
:34:08. > :34:15.of the reasons why this country is so badly governed is because of this
:34:16. > :34:19.childish attitude. If you compare British democracy took a lot of
:34:20. > :34:25.countries in the world, we have a vibrant democracy. Politicians know
:34:26. > :34:30.they will be scrutinised. We are one of the most indebted countries in
:34:31. > :34:34.the world, we make nothing, or our political statistics are fiddled,
:34:35. > :34:40.this is a bigger problem than what comes out of Ed Miliband's knows. I
:34:41. > :34:44.have studied Ed Miliband's voice for hours and hours, and I listen to
:34:45. > :34:52.what he says, and that is a good way to characterise someone. Thank you
:34:53. > :34:56.for being our guest of the day. In a moment we will get a beginning of
:34:57. > :34:59.the week briefing from two of Fleet Street's finest. They are waiting
:35:00. > :35:03.for us just outside Parliament. Now a look at some of the events taking
:35:04. > :35:05.place later this week. On Tuesday the Business Select Committee will
:35:06. > :35:08.scrutinise Pfizer's proposed takeover of AstraZeneca when bosses
:35:09. > :35:12.from both firms appear before the Business Belect Committee. On
:35:13. > :35:16.Tuesday MPs get a chance to grill David Cameron who appears before the
:35:17. > :35:19.Commons Liaison C ommittee. The Prime Minister will face Ed Miliband
:35:20. > :35:24.across the dispatch box for what could be the last PMQs of this
:35:25. > :35:30.session of Parliament. On Thursday Parliament could prorogue, which
:35:31. > :35:34.would give MPs a 19-day break. They would not return until the Queen's
:35:35. > :35:38.speech next month. Emily Ashton from the Sun and Andrew Grice from the
:35:39. > :35:49.Independent are standing by for us on College Green. The coalition row
:35:50. > :35:55.over education, how serious is it? This is not your typical row, this
:35:56. > :35:59.gets a bit personal. This is between Michael Gove who causes divisions
:36:00. > :36:05.quite a lot, and between David Laws. It is about how much funding
:36:06. > :36:09.is going towards free schools. Because the Lib Dems accused the
:36:10. > :36:15.Tories of diverging millions to free schools away from local authority
:36:16. > :36:18.places, they accuse Michael Gove of being ideological and obsessed with
:36:19. > :36:25.free schools. This gets to the heart of the hatred for Michael Gove
:36:26. > :36:28.amongst Lib Dems, but it is symptomatic of coalitions in general
:36:29. > :36:36.ahead of an election and it will get more bitter. Do you think this is a
:36:37. > :36:39.limited domestic row between the two coalition partners, or does this
:36:40. > :36:44.potentially risk more damage in a widespread way to the Government? It
:36:45. > :36:50.is a risk. The education Department and the Treasury, which is now
:36:51. > :36:54.getting involved, were the two departments in 2010 that worked very
:36:55. > :37:01.well together in coalition. That is a setback to the Lib Dems' desire to
:37:02. > :37:05.show coalition works. They have got to come out of the coalition next
:37:06. > :37:10.year and say the last five years have been good for the country and
:37:11. > :37:16.it is not easy to say that when it looks shambolic. Who wins this row?
:37:17. > :37:20.The Lib Dems are the Tories? It is tricky. The free schools are going
:37:21. > :37:26.ahead and I do not know if there are any winners. The Lib Dems still
:37:27. > :37:32.support free schools. I am not sure it is a debate to be one. It is more
:37:33. > :37:37.about hoisting the flag up the mast and saying, we don't like you
:37:38. > :37:41.becoming obsessed with free schools. Labour are due to make an
:37:42. > :37:47.announcement on the NHS. Tell us more about it. Ed Miliband is making
:37:48. > :37:51.a speech in Manchester tonight where he will address some of the
:37:52. > :37:57.problems, like waiting time appointments for GPs. It has work to
:37:58. > :38:02.do our economic credibility, but the NHS is an issue where Labour has
:38:03. > :38:07.always been strong and Ed Miliband will start with Labour's plan to
:38:08. > :38:13.rescue the NHS. They will be warning another five years of the Tory and
:38:14. > :38:19.Lib Dem Government would not leave the NHS in safe hands. There will be
:38:20. > :38:24.a major cash crisis by the NHS after the election and so Labour is trying
:38:25. > :38:28.to get that up in lights before the year's time. You could argue the
:38:29. > :38:34.Government is running out of things to do if they are going to break up
:38:35. > :38:40.on Thursday. What do you say? We do not know for sure, but that is the
:38:41. > :38:44.general speculation. The Commons office will not announce it until
:38:45. > :38:51.the business statement on Thursday morning. But if they do rise, that
:38:52. > :38:57.is 19 days before the Queen's speech and that comes two weeks after a two
:38:58. > :39:02.week Easter break and two weeks in February. A lot of people will say,
:39:03. > :39:07.we elect them to the House of Commons to debate laws and policies
:39:08. > :39:11.and they are not here. There is this claim of a zombie parliament that is
:39:12. > :39:18.running out of things to do because of a five-year fixed Parliament. And
:39:19. > :39:23.what about Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Talks of a public interest test
:39:24. > :39:30.being passed. Even if that was not passed, and Government block a deal?
:39:31. > :39:34.It is difficult. They want to put a bit of political pressure on Pfizer
:39:35. > :39:39.and Pfizer is talking about having a legal opinion, showing its
:39:40. > :39:43.guarantees about keeping jobs in this country would be legally
:39:44. > :39:48.binding. There is usually something in the small print saying if
:39:49. > :39:54.circumstances change, the company doing the takeover can change its
:39:55. > :39:58.position. MPs will be looking for long-term guarantees about jobs in
:39:59. > :40:02.this country. Pfizer has spoken about a five-year guarantee of
:40:03. > :40:08.keeping research and development jobs. I think the MPs will be
:40:09. > :40:12.looking for ten years. Thank you. Now, let's get back to that
:40:13. > :40:15.coalition row. It's over funding for school places that pitches the
:40:16. > :40:17.Deputy Prime Minister against the Education Secretary. Insults being
:40:18. > :40:20.traded include Michael Gove being accused of "lunacy" while
:40:21. > :40:24.Conservative sources have accused Nick Clegg of being "pathetic" of
:40:25. > :40:29.all things. So how did this latest verbal bust up begin? Well the Lib
:40:30. > :40:33.Dems are unhappy at what they see as Mr Gove's ideological obsession over
:40:34. > :40:36.free schools which they claim could lead to the loss of 30,000 local
:40:37. > :40:42.authority places in England as money is diverted to the free school
:40:43. > :40:46.programme. In fact it was the unlikely figure of Malcolm Bruce who
:40:47. > :40:49.landed a big punch on the BBC over the weekend when he said the budget
:40:50. > :40:56.for free schools was completely "out of control" and that Michael Gove
:40:57. > :40:58.needed to be "reined back". The Liberal Democrat deputy leader is
:40:59. > :41:01.unhappy at the Education Secretary for supposedly diverting ?400m from
:41:02. > :41:08.the department's basic-need funding to bolster his free schools
:41:09. > :41:10.programme. But the Tories have fought back, accusing their
:41:11. > :41:16.coalition partners of being "pathetic", saying that more school
:41:17. > :41:20.places were being created overall. In fact, the blue half of the
:41:21. > :41:23.coalition are accusing the Lib Dems of sour grapes after leaked e-mails
:41:24. > :41:26.showed senior officials within the Department for Education were
:41:27. > :41:29.concerned that Nick Clegg's policy of free school meals amounted to "an
:41:30. > :41:35.abuse of taxpayers' money for his personal ends". While it's not the
:41:36. > :41:37.first coalition row, this one seems particularly vitriolic as both
:41:38. > :41:43.parties look to strengthen their support base ahead of next week's
:41:44. > :41:46.local and European elections. I'm joined now by a panel of
:41:47. > :41:50.Westminster's finest, or at least the best we could muster together on
:41:51. > :41:59.a Monday lunchtime - Paul Uppal, Lisa Nandy and Julian Huppert.
:42:00. > :42:05.Welcome to you all. Is providing free school meals to infants and
:42:06. > :42:10.abuse of taxpayers' money? We have to look at the whole round. One of
:42:11. > :42:15.the things I have picked up over the debate, it is not just about the
:42:16. > :42:19.number of places, it is the quality of places. I have a free school in
:42:20. > :42:25.my constituency and that will provide a ladder of social mobility
:42:26. > :42:32.for many youngsters and it is providing a solution for so many
:42:33. > :42:37.meet youngsters. Do you accept free schools do not have to be set up in
:42:38. > :42:42.areas where there is a shortage of places? They can be set up anywhere
:42:43. > :42:47.and there is a shortage of places in certain parts of the country and
:42:48. > :42:54.money has been taken away to fuel this ideological obsession? There is
:42:55. > :42:58.more than adequate provision for need of places. Why is there a
:42:59. > :43:04.shortage of places in certain parts of the country? I have seen in my
:43:05. > :43:11.own constituency a free school that has been established there. In
:43:12. > :43:16.providing a number of places and the quality of places, it is paramount
:43:17. > :43:21.to meeting the need. Is Michael Gove obsessed with free schools? No, he
:43:22. > :43:25.is obsessed with providing a social ladder of mobility to help children
:43:26. > :43:33.meet the skills gap and escape from poverty. The Lib Dems were fully
:43:34. > :43:38.signed up, what is the problem? I think having more of that money
:43:39. > :43:42.towards basic needs is the right thing to do. There are people who
:43:43. > :43:47.are looking for more places and we need those to happen. Equally I am
:43:48. > :43:53.proud of the policy of providing free school meals at infant schools.
:43:54. > :43:57.There is evidence that shows it helps everybody, particularly those
:43:58. > :44:03.from lower backgrounds. Is It good we articulating what we would like
:44:04. > :44:08.to see happen. Malcolm Bruce said the education department is out of
:44:09. > :44:13.control. Is he right? Loo-mac this is nothing like as much as we saw
:44:14. > :44:21.with the Blair - Brown battles. We are two separate parties. But you
:44:22. > :44:30.have now completely fallen out. Lunacy on one side, and pathetic on
:44:31. > :44:38.the other. The free school meals policy was written on the back of a
:44:39. > :44:42.piece of scrap paper. There have been some bizarre comments. There
:44:43. > :44:48.has been a lot of research about free school meals policy. It helps
:44:49. > :44:52.people who are in particular are already getting free school meals.
:44:53. > :44:58.We should help people from poorer backgrounds catch up and not fall
:44:59. > :45:03.behind. But do you recognise the Tory charge your school meals policy
:45:04. > :45:07.is leading to a cut in school places as council funding has to go into
:45:08. > :45:12.providing school meals rather than places? It came from other money and
:45:13. > :45:17.the Treasury and the Treasury announced extra money for this
:45:18. > :45:23.policy. Do free schools not provide school places in the fairway local
:45:24. > :45:28.authority schools do? We should focus on the experience a child is
:45:29. > :45:33.going to happen. Do you match need with where people want to open a
:45:34. > :45:38.free school? I am sure in some areas free schools are dealing with the
:45:39. > :45:42.need there, but in other places they will not be. We should be supporting
:45:43. > :45:50.pupils and their education where the need is. Is no doubt Labour is
:45:51. > :45:54.watching this with great amusement but there is a serious point here.
:45:55. > :45:59.If there is a shortage of places, which there is in some parts of the
:46:00. > :46:03.country, is it being met? I don't find what has happened in education
:46:04. > :46:08.policy funny at all. We have the free schools programme which is out
:46:09. > :46:13.of control. 1.5 billion so far. 40 brand-new schools in areas where
:46:14. > :46:19.they are not needed when we have a real crisis of school places. 90,000
:46:20. > :46:23.places will be needed in London by 2016. What about quality as well?
:46:24. > :46:28.They are not the schools that parents want to send their children
:46:29. > :46:32.to? There is another problem with this because free schools have had
:46:33. > :46:36.mixed results because they are frankly an experiment. They don't
:46:37. > :46:40.have proper oversight so we have seen real catastrophes. They don't
:46:41. > :46:43.outperform other schools. The question is this. The education
:46:44. > :46:46.secretary has been focused on a small number of schools and
:46:47. > :46:52.children, some of whom have done very badly and some have done OK,
:46:53. > :46:55.but the rest of the country is waiting and wondering what the
:46:56. > :47:00.education secretary has two say to them. We need a policy that speaks
:47:01. > :47:05.to all schools and all children. I think we can do better than we do at
:47:06. > :47:09.the moment. Are you happy to defend the experiment of free schools when
:47:10. > :47:13.only 22% of people support them according to a survey. And some
:47:14. > :47:17.schools have not got proper oversight according to Lisa Nandy.
:47:18. > :47:22.We are planting a seed and it will take time. Is it across-the-board?
:47:23. > :47:29.Two thirds have been excellent or outstanding in Ofsted. Why am I
:47:30. > :47:32.Conservative? The two years I was in a state school where because of the
:47:33. > :47:36.colour of my skin my teachers thought I could not speak English.
:47:37. > :47:43.One teacher engaged with me and provided a ladder of opportunity. I
:47:44. > :47:46.passionately believe these free schools can give this. Are you
:47:47. > :47:52.seriously arguing that state schools cannot give a ladder of opportunity?
:47:53. > :47:56.They have outperformed free schools in the Ofsted ratings. In the state
:47:57. > :48:07.system we have three boys in the state system getting five A stars.
:48:08. > :48:11.That is failing children. I am saying that the status quo is not
:48:12. > :48:15.good enough. There is plenty of money being spent. We have to
:48:16. > :48:19.produce academic excellence. This is not the answer, to squander money on
:48:20. > :48:23.a number of schools who have been proven to fail over recent years
:48:24. > :48:27.because there is not proper oversight. Anybody can walk into the
:48:28. > :48:31.schools and teaching them. We rely on whistle-blowers to know when
:48:32. > :48:35.things are going wrong. That is not raising standards. Would you like to
:48:36. > :48:43.see more money diverted to the free schools programme? This is a
:48:44. > :48:48.long-term project. Sure, but would you like to see more money diverted
:48:49. > :48:52.into the programme? I think any money that is providing those
:48:53. > :48:55.children with the right ladder, then that is absolutely crucial. So
:48:56. > :48:59.taking money away from local authorities and putting it into free
:49:00. > :49:05.schools. Do you agree with that? We should focus on providing the
:49:06. > :49:09.education that people need. So where you run to sign up in the first
:49:10. > :49:14.place and do you regret it? Some of my constituents have set up a school
:49:15. > :49:18.affiliated to the University of Cambridge so there are good things.
:49:19. > :49:23.You could criticise the Blairite academy programme, where there were
:49:24. > :49:26.similar concerns. We should talk about pupils and not just the
:49:27. > :49:29.organisations. There is grossly unequal funding across the country.
:49:30. > :49:33.Why should people in Cambridgeshire get a quarter of a million pounds
:49:34. > :49:38.per year for a typical primary school less than the English
:49:39. > :49:42.average? Why does a pupil in Cambridge deserve so much less? That
:49:43. > :49:51.is something the last Government did nothing about, leaving us at the
:49:52. > :49:53.bottom. Labour left us right at the bottom of funding for many years.
:49:54. > :49:56.Their 13 years we did not get the extra money and that has caused real
:49:57. > :50:02.problems. We need a fairer funding problem so that -- fairer funding
:50:03. > :50:07.solution. We will leave it there. Thank you.
:50:08. > :50:12.The CBI has warned that political uncertainty could pose a major risk
:50:13. > :50:15.to economic recovery. The revised up their prediction for greatest year
:50:16. > :50:21.but they also forecast an increase in interest rates in 2015 and said
:50:22. > :50:25.that politicians need to be aware of headline grabbing policies that we
:50:26. > :50:29.can investment opportunity and jobs. Whatever could they mean? Could they
:50:30. > :50:33.be talking about the policies that Ed Miliband and the Labour Party
:50:34. > :50:36.have been spouting recently? Intervention in the market at
:50:37. > :50:42.various levels, like capping rent and in the energy market. That poses
:50:43. > :50:45.uncertainty. Reading the CBI report this morning, they were saying the
:50:46. > :50:49.opposite. One of the problems with the growth we have seen is that it
:50:50. > :51:01.is potentially unsustainable and relies too much on a housing bubble.
:51:02. > :51:02.They are calling for what we are calling for, investment in
:51:03. > :51:04.infrastructure, building new schools, roads, homes and hospitals,
:51:05. > :51:07.but particularly house-building. Increasing the supply so that house
:51:08. > :51:10.prices do not continue going up and then far too many families cannot
:51:11. > :51:14.afford to own or have stability in their own homes. That is why we have
:51:15. > :51:17.said we want to intervene in the market and increase the supply and
:51:18. > :51:21.make sure people can get onto the housing ladder in a sustainable way
:51:22. > :51:28.if they want to, but also to boost jobs and growth this country not
:51:29. > :51:32.just in London. Do you support your party's policy for capping the
:51:33. > :51:36.increase in rents? We want to make sure people have stability in their
:51:37. > :51:41.homes so that when you sign up to a contract, that read that you have
:51:42. > :51:46.agreed to remains for the duration of the contract. -- that rent. We
:51:47. > :51:51.want the contracts to be longer. As someone who has rented for many
:51:52. > :51:55.years with many friends with families in rented accommodation,
:51:56. > :51:59.that stability is the basis of a decent life. I cannot understand for
:52:00. > :52:04.a moment why the Conservatives are so opposed to it. Why are you? I
:52:05. > :52:08.have worked in the centre for 20 years and lived through this. For
:52:09. > :52:12.those that remember the regulated tenancies, we have been here before.
:52:13. > :52:16.It actually decimated the rental sector completely in terms of
:52:17. > :52:21.investment. It had the opposite effect. There are unintended
:52:22. > :52:32.consequences. It is very easy for politicians to say, look, if it
:52:33. > :52:35.scores high on opinion polls, let's follow it, but it is short-term and
:52:36. > :52:38.does not fix the long-term problem. That is having enough houses to meet
:52:39. > :52:41.supply. All right, we will leave that there. You have heard of Das
:52:42. > :52:43.Kapital but what about Le Capital Au XX1e Siecle? Apologies for my French
:52:44. > :52:49.accent. That is capital in the 21st century. It has been written by
:52:50. > :52:52.Thomas Piketty, a Frenchman, and the 640 page tome has been sitting at
:52:53. > :52:56.the top of the bestsellers list and some people who bought it have
:52:57. > :53:01.actually read it! This is Adam Fleming.
:53:02. > :53:06.Reading Le Capital Au XX1e Siecle takes a seriously long time but
:53:07. > :53:14.don't worry. Here is a quick summary. Thomas Piketty has analysed
:53:15. > :53:19.centuries worth of economic data. His conclusion? Inequality is
:53:20. > :53:25.increasing. But not just that, it is hard-wired into capitalism. The only
:53:26. > :53:29.times things get more equal is one was destroy inherited wealth or
:53:30. > :53:41.governments do serious redistribution. -- when governments
:53:42. > :53:47.destroy. The rich are destined to get richer while the rest of us stay
:53:48. > :53:57.the same. The author sums it up in a now infamous equation. R is greater
:53:58. > :54:01.than G. It was briefly in the Amazon top ten, selling better than the
:54:02. > :54:14.diet books but not as well as beriberi. -- Mary Berry. It is doing
:54:15. > :54:19.well in London. This think tank had to find a bigger venue to
:54:20. > :54:25.accommodate all of his fans. I think it will stand up well with Karl
:54:26. > :54:31.Marx's Das Kapital. It will change how we view capital in mainstream
:54:32. > :54:35.economics and politics, yes. And it shows changes in intellectual
:54:36. > :54:41.thought in this century. It is that big a deal? Yes. So how do I say his
:54:42. > :54:47.name? Thomas Piketty, I think. We hope! If you get to the end, you
:54:48. > :54:51.will find the professor advocating a new tax rate for the rich of 80%.
:54:52. > :54:57.But won't that make it harder for them to buy the book? Look how much
:54:58. > :55:01.it costs! We will leave the big question of how to pronounce the
:55:02. > :55:08.man's surname. We will say Thomas Piketty. Do you agree with the main
:55:09. > :55:14.thrust of his economic thesis, which is that if there is more growth in
:55:15. > :55:19.capital assets than what you earn, income, then inequality will become
:55:20. > :55:24.greater? There is a lot to that, but I don't agree with his conclusions
:55:25. > :55:28.like the 80% tax rate. OK, but in recent years if you have been
:55:29. > :55:35.sitting in a house in London that has grown a huge amount in value,
:55:36. > :55:38.outstripping what people can earn in a day... Yes. We tax income more
:55:39. > :55:41.than wealth for many years in this country and we have argued that
:55:42. > :55:48.should change for many years. They have done things like changing stamp
:55:49. > :55:52.duty for example. But we would also like to see a mansion tax, which we
:55:53. > :55:57.have pushed Bob. You're not going to get that in coalition with the
:55:58. > :56:02.Conservatives. No, but I still think it is the right thing to do. Out of
:56:03. > :56:05.Government you were suddenly more interested in it. But he would not
:56:06. > :56:12.back it. I hope it can happen because we need to rebalance it and
:56:13. > :56:18.focus on wealth. That is a fairer way to run public services. Whenever
:56:19. > :56:23.Labour decide to sign up to mansion tax, they have taken that half of
:56:24. > :56:29.the equation. But you still want higher tax rates. You want people to
:56:30. > :56:32.keep their earned wealth and tax the inheritance or their property. We
:56:33. > :56:37.don't want higher tax rates for the many. We want the 50p rate of tax
:56:38. > :56:43.restored. This is what Thomas Piketty, however you pronounce his
:56:44. > :56:48.name, is actually saying. In Britain there is an astonishing fact. 50% of
:56:49. > :56:53.people only three to 4% of our wealth. That cannot be right. One of
:56:54. > :56:56.the solutions to that is taxed but there is another solution which is
:56:57. > :57:00.to make sure that people are enough in the first place to have a decent
:57:01. > :57:17.standard of living, which is one of the problems we have got in this
:57:18. > :57:22.country. -- earn enough. But people earning ?10,000 a year need that 750
:57:23. > :57:26.quid. They are desperate for it. Let me explain it to you. If you raise
:57:27. > :57:31.the minimum allowance before people pay tax, the threshold, it helps
:57:32. > :57:38.people like me and Hugh who pay ?65,000 a year as much as it helps
:57:39. > :57:43.them. There are better ways of doing that. No, it is less progressive.
:57:44. > :57:50.Independent studies have shown it is less progressive. Would you ever
:57:51. > :57:56.look at a mansion tax? I actually don't think it would work. I am an
:57:57. > :58:03.East African seek. If you follow this argument through logically. And
:58:04. > :58:09.we have business in Kenya, then this is about compensatory taxation. We
:58:10. > :58:13.lost everything and came to the UK. The same Government who asked us to
:58:14. > :58:18.leave asked us to come back in 1980 and we said not ready. We are happy
:58:19. > :58:23.where we are. Can you use that example in terms of rejecting a
:58:24. > :58:27.policy that would tax wealth here? I think in some elements of the book,
:58:28. > :58:31.if you look at the US, there is some resonance. But if you look at the
:58:32. > :58:36.UK, and Allister Heath has written about this extensively and I will
:58:37. > :58:41.not recited Verbatim... No! You jumped to that quickly! The
:58:42. > :58:45.discrepancy between dividends and rental income has not happened over
:58:46. > :58:50.the last 70 years. That is a good point to leave it on. Thank you for
:58:51. > :58:52.joining us. The News At One is starting on BBC One now and I will
:58:53. > :59:08.be back tomorrow at midday. Goodbye. MUSIC: "Mas Que Nada"
:59:09. > :59:10.by Sergio Mendes