19/06/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



is still indicating that any military


The Obama administration has shown signs of frustrations with Iraq's


Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, senior Republican Senate toe John


McCain has gone further, he has called on him to stand down, we are


joined by a Tory MP and a Kurd by origin, whose family fled Iraq when


he was nine, welcome. There was a lot of talk in PMQs that


Mr Maliki has to build an inclusive Government. He has to bring more


people in, and reach out. It is all too late for that. They are killing


each other. I think it is right for you to be sceptical, he has had


eight years to try and bring everyone together and said, instead


he hasn't been divisive, sectarian, which has led to the situation we


find ourselves in today, because ISIS is actually a relatively small


group of extremists, terrorist criminals, but they are effectively


being able to operate because some of the Sunni tribes were so fed up


for being disenfranchised by Baghdad, that they got to a police


where they would rather have evil people round than Nouri Al-Maliki.


In Baghdad yesterday of all the political leaders. It is right for


David Cameron and President Obama to say that they have too great an


inclusive government. It sounds like you were talking about Islington


council but you are not, it is Baghdad. It is over for that. Why


would suggest that what Mr Cameron says is irrelevant. Even what Mr


Obama says, it does not matter too much. The man he is worried about


was President Rouhani. He is a Rand's man. -- Iran. And the site


and beside him is the head of the rainy and Revolutionary guard with a


couple of brigades behind him. That is what matters. I suspect that Iran


does not want to see Iraq Nay have secured Kirkuk, they have secured


their area, they don't need additional help. That is what he was


calling for This maybe one voice. This is the official representative


of the Kurdish army. My view is we mustn't take sides. It is not for


us... It is up to the Iraqi political leadership to come


together. They have plenty of weapon, they have bought lots of


weapons. Maliki spent several billion dollars buying weapons. They


are all with ISIS now If they come together, Shia, Sunni and Kurd. If


they don't, then the situation could be dire. What is your view on this?


My view is that the viability of Iraq as a single state, if after


eight years it can't hold three elections, we reason back to the


situation pre-Saddam, that in order for that state to exist to be


stable, it has to have a dictatorship of the most ruthless


kind. That is an extraordinarily depressing view, I must say I have


very little confidence that this sort of political reconciliation


will happen, I think it is very dangerous to take sides, not just


because you are taking sides internally, we didn't do that for


Syria, and if you are seen to do it in Iraq, it becomes hugely


difficult. I think the whole Middle East, no-one is talking about


Israel-Palestine at the moment. It is not the big issue. It is not. We


are dealing with huge humanitarian consequences in Lebanon and that


region. It's a big day for Ed Miliband,


he'll be hoping to switch the focus from his poll ratings to


Labour's policies. This morning he's been setting out


how the party thinks it's going to solve one of


its biggest challenges ahead of the election - how to offer something


different from the Conservatives but Yes, Ed Miliband is continuing to


lay his policy paving, smoothing his Sensitive to accusations that Labour


are the party of public spending, he's keen to


show he doesn't think the streets lined with gold, promising 'big


changes not big spending'. To start with they'll pull up out


of work benefits for 18-21 year olds, replacing it with


a means-tested allowance that takes into account their parents' income -


but they'll only be entitled to it Labour claim this could save


the government ?65 They're also planning to add some


extra slabs to the contributory principle in the benefits system -


the idea that the more you put in, the more you should get out.


Labour is promising to increase the contributory JSA - that's


the amount people are automatically entitled to if they have been


working - by around ?20-30 They'll fund this by increasing


the number of years you have to work before you can claim it -


from 2 to five years. Here's what he had to say


about it a short while ago. How many times have I heard people


say, I have paid into the system but one that time came and are really


needed help, I did not get anything back.


one that time came and are really needed help, I did not Rewarding


contributions were, in fact, a key in support of the Beveridge report.


And it is a key intuition from the British people of what a welfare


state would look like. But the principle has been forgotten by


governments of both parties. And we're joined now by Labour's


shadow work and pensions minister Stephen Timms,


and by Esther McVey, she's Welcome to both of you. We have been


poring over his Apostles this morning. Why are they so, the gated?


The proposals have been endorsed by Ed Miliband. Let's start with IPPR,


because our viewers will not know what that is. It is a Labour


inclined think tank? Yes. And they had come forward with some good


prose Ozil is, about the high levels of youth unemployment. -- proposals.


At the moment, unemployment was less than it was at the time of the


election and youth employment is 100,000 higher than it was at the


time of the election. Current policies are clearly not solving the


problem. We need a new approach and I think the IPPR puzzle is a big


change in the way we look after young people, keeping them in


training until they have a decent level of skills. You are shaking


your head. Youth unemployment is not higher than it was? That is the


wrong way round. It is nearly 100,000 less than it was. It is


falling consecutively. And the rates for 60 and 70... NEET rates are at


the lowest since records began, the lowest since 2005. It is a reversal


of what you have heard there. Youth employment is lower than at the


elections. People will find that out. There is youth unemployment, we


are agreed on that. Much too high. And what you were saying is that if


you are between 18 and 21, you will not get your benefit if you do not


take training? You will not get the allowance. You will get a youth


allowance and that will be conditional on you, if you are not


yet at level three, being in training. Is that a platform? It is


a level or Brad Sheppard. So unless you have some qualifications


already, you will not get this new welfare payment unless you are


prepared to get the qualifications? But if you have these qualifications


but no job, you will still get the payment? You will be on GSA. If you


have those levels of skills, or you have been in work for a year, you


will be on adult benefits. You will have to look at everybody to


determine the level of skill before they determine whether they will get


the payments? To determine what help they need in order to decide how


best to operate. And then you have to means test it? We will means test


as we do for younger people and as we do for people in higher education


at the moment. It will be means tested on the basis of parental


income. How much is that going to cost? The net cost is captivated by


IPPR as a saving of ?65 million. We will be spending more on support for


young people in further education but less on jobseeker's allowance.


Let me get this right, if you are between 18 and 21, you are now going


to have to be means tested, and you are going to have to be tested on


what your qualifications are, and depending on the qualifications, you


will then maybe get some money from the government if you take some


training? Depending on the support you need, that will depend on the


support you get. Are you saying that is not complicated? Anything can be


presented as being promulgated. This is. The reality is that there will


be a number of years were there will not be extra money to be spent so we


have to restructure within the system. And what IPPR has come up


with is a good way of doing that. A lot of this was floated last year


and you run away from it. What happened to your simpler policy to


young people? You said, if you cannot get a job, we will give you a


job but take that job or you will lose your benefits. What happens to


that? That is still in place. The job guarantee proposition, if you


have been out of work for a year, job guarantee proposition, if you


have been out of we will guarantee you the offer of a job and you will


need to take it once the offer has been made. Why not leave it there?


Cos we think we need to do more to support under 21 is to make sure


they have the skills. Why not offer them a skills arrangement? Why not


say, either take training or jobs, and we will guarantee you can have


one or the other, or you do not get benefits? We're saying to unemployed


young people, not in a job, that we will support you to get the skills


you need. We will also, after 12 months out of work, there will be


the offer under the compulsory job guarantee. What is the government


doing for these people? Obviously, a lot, because on employment has come


down. Looking at the statistics on the records from the 1960s onwards,


what they have found is really important is that the UK keeps young


people close to the labour market, whether it is jobseeker's


allowance, or whatever, from there you determine what support they


need. Is allowance, or whatever, from there


you determine it a trainee ships? That is if you have not got an NVQ


in maths or English. But we still have a lot of people who are


unemployed. What are you doing about that? We are working with business


and young individuals to see whether it is more employability skills that


people need. Not everybody needs to go through an academic route. But he


is not saying that either. They are. They are insisting it is an A-level


standard. Or an apprenticeship. Some people need to get a job with the


tactical application to see how they get career progression through that


job. What we're seeing is that providing work experience is


something that Labour was so profoundly against and that in


itself has had a huge impact. So why do we still have 900,000 people not


in education, employment or training? It has gone down to about


860,000. Near enough. I've rented it up.


training? It has gone down to about 860,000. Near enough. I've If you


take out those in full-time education, it goes down to 560,000,


so... But the NEETs does not include university students. How many of


them are there? Nearly 300,000. We have to work with them, which is why


we're doing a lot of pilots. How do we engage with young children who


have never engaged their school career? How can we say that they


will be at this level in three years? How can we engage them and


give them employability skills? How can we get them up in the morning.


It is such a long journey to get them employed and then, through


work, you will say, I would like to learn more and have more skills. I'd


get the principle. The other thing you have done to comment on this is


that if you have been in work for a longer period of time, and you are


made redundant or you lose your lose your job, -- lose your job, you


will get a higher unemployment benefits. If somebody has worked for


four years and they lose their job through no fault of their own, white


should they get less unemployment benefit than someone who has worked


for five years? If you have paid in for two years and lose your job, we


think if you are paying in for longer you should see the benefit


and the calculation... Again, you have made it complicated and I would


suggest a bit unfair. I don't think it is any more complicated than the


current system. What we want do is reward people who have paid in for a


lengthy period o time. Fife years is a good period to go for. I would


suggest that most people who this will affect will have not a clue


what this means for them. I think that is, I am not sure that is true,


because they will have a clue. You were going to say it was true! I


don't think they will understand the complexities of it and the theory


behind it and the contribution of the national insurance contribution,


and all that. They will certainly understand it when they turn up to


pick up a Giro to get their benefit and find they are not entitled, they


will certainly understand it if they are a young person who find they get


no money or they have to go on a course. What makes me slightly


anxious is that a lot of these young people who are the NEETs, you are


playing catch up. These people have not in school got some of the soft


skills about... But teaching them soft skills when they are turned off


at 17 and 18, is not a substitute for some of the preparation for life


skills that our schools are not measured against and if they are not


measured against doing it, then they don't deliver. I don't want to lose


you both but we have to move on to, stick with us, don't go away,


because I am sticking with Labour. Former Labour cab neat minister


occasionally known as the prince of darkness, he is always known as the


Prince of darkness Peter Mandelson was asked about Ed Miliband when he


appeared on Newsnight last night. I think we could say his answer wasn't


exactly helpful. What Ed is trying to do is approach politics in a


different way from the way in which Tony Blair and Knowle approached it.


Do you think it is working? It may well work, I would say to you. May?


I think he has confused the party's message to business, I think that


what he needs to do is to embrace that model of a market based


economy, where we are supported business success, but where we also


want to see a socially inclusive society, with principles of social


justice, where we are creating opportunities for people, and


leaning against inequalities in society, in everything we do. How he


has muddled the message? He places a great deal of emphasis on the last


of those position, the social justice, the fairness, the leaning


against inequality, that is right for a Labour leader to do so.


Not resoundingly supportive and when asked Lord mannedlen son didn't say


whether he thought Ed Miliband was the best possible leader, merely he


was the leader you have, stating obviously the truth there. Do you


think he is the best possible leader the party can have? He is. I was one


of the first people to nominate him as leader of the party, I do think


she the best leader he could have. I think he is doing a difficult job. I


agree with Peter about that. We are having to deal with and some very


difficult problem, the fact the average household is ?1600 a year


worse Ofcom paired with the election at a time when there isn't going to


be much public money round for the next few years. If the public was


convinced about that in opposition that is a message you could use to


bolster your support, it seems to be working in the opposite direction,


the truth is no Dott the Government will argue -- no doubt the


Government will argue, Labour is struggling to get a message across


that is going to appeal to voters. One message is clear is there isn't


a great deal of confidence in the parties that are represented in


Parliament at the moment. The Government part toirs the


opposition. That sounds like an excuse We have a big job, all of us


have a big job to do, the outcome of the next election will be determined


by voters' judgment about who has the most compelling apps to deal


with the problems like the cost of living crisis we are facing.


Interestingly, the party, Labour is doing better than the leader, and


has done pretty consistently. That is a problem and a shame, you might


argue for the Labour Party, that you have managed to get yourselves a


message as a party, but your leader is just not gaining traction. Ed is


responsible for the party's me sarntion Ed has led us to this point


-- message. They don't credit him with that We have a lot of work to


do, I am enkaurnled by the overall poll rating but we have to do


better. Today's announce it is an important part. What are his selling


points? What he is doing is repositioning the party for a period


when we have a time of austerity, when everybody is worse off than


they were in the past. Positioning is a sort of Westminster speak, if


you like, it is jar develop for u I understand what you are saying, but


what are his strengths for the voting public? Name me a couple of


his real strengths as leader? I think one of his strengths is


correctly identifying the cost Offalying crisis as the big issue


that is facing the country at the moment. I think the speech he made


at the Labour Party conference talking about the need for a more


responsible capitalism. That was a far sighted speech. I think his


announcement about the energy price freeze which no-one else suggested


was a very shrewd judgment. Those are policies. The big judgments is


his big strength. And people may or may not like those policies, but


what about him? If you are comparing him to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown,


is he better leader than them? He is operating in a different environment


from Tony Blair. If you take them in isolation as three leaders is he


better? I think what Ed is very successfully doing is making sound


judgments about the state of the country at the moment, and our


future direction, that is what I want the leader of our party to be


doing. So why do the ratings not match up? They are going down. If


you look at the European elections it is clear there is a low degree of


confidence in all the parties in Parliament. We want to address that.


Is it still true Eden Hazard been talked about in senior Tory circles


that Ed Miliband is your secret weapon in the election? At this


rate, when you are giving us the polling figures that is true. Where


I would look at it. I don't discuss it, I am discussing what I have to


do, I could give you an example in welfare, Ed Miliband and the Labour


Party has voted against every welfare change that we have done,


whether it is the overall benefits cap, everything, so they didn't watt


to do everything, they come up with an announcement which confuses the


system and saves a tiny amount of money. If I looked at what I thought


the announcement was about, it was about taking over 100,000 people off


the welfare count, because you are putting them on a traineeship, so it


is smoke and mirrors politics, not dealing with the situation. That is


what people have thought about Ed Miliband, he, it is all smoke and


mirror, you are not dealing with the core issues of the day but they will


put them on a different benefit which is off the claimant count.


Things obviously like energy prices, Labour did get traction with that,


but hang on a second, I must... It was the worse thing they could have


done, the whole of their price fell and they had to buy gas two years


ahead. Disaster for them. Your views on Ed Miliband as a leader? I think


he is not getting his message of his individual strengths and I do think


he has some strengths. What are they? I think they are honesty, I


think they are intelligence, I think he's thoughtful, and... Are your


priced the poll ratings are poor? I am... Partly surprised less


surprised because I somehow, he has never quite managed to be himself,


and create that identity with the public. I think one of the problems,


because a lot of the policy stuff is coming together and I think coming a


bit more coherent. When you cut Peter Mandelson off in his prime, he


was about to say it is the economic message, the, the how you create


that new sort of fairness, within a zero growth economy, not a score


growth, but public spending constraints. Which maybe would


probably have to stick to as well. And they have never managed to shake


off the unfair, I think, perception and Ed hasn't managed to do it,


no-one has managed to do it that Labour was to blame for the whole of


the economic crisis worldwide. Let us leave it there. Thank you. Than


do you two of you. You leave us at this stage. Whatever happened to


Lord's reform? You may remember it was a big deal in the first part of


this Parliament until the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives had


a big -- bit of a falling out. Giles has been catching up.


There have been serious attempts to reform the House of Lords for as


long as the oldest living peer who is 94 has been alive. Every attempt


has stumbled and bowed to failure or achieved a tinkering of the ermine


lined edged only. In 1997 Labour outlined with some Liberal Democrat


input the removal of most of the hereditary peer, leaving the life


peer, roles created in 1958, but apart from the Parliament Act of


1911 and these two milestones the story of Lord's reform is one of


failure and fudging. There was one man in this Parliament who thought


that was a record he could break. When you bear in mind that there are


four times as many members of the held who are over the age of 90 than


under the age of 40. House of Lords when over half are over the age of


70, you get the measure of the challenge of how much we need to


pull thefrom the 19th century into the 21st century.


In As we know, Nick Clegg's plan and dragged everyone involved down. The


real problem with Lords reform is that it is like an obstacle course


and there's a lot of obstacles. All of the parties agree they should be


reformed, and they put that in their manifestoes, but they could not


agree how much and what kind, and when they tried it, it did not work.


Then there's the problem that some of the Lords do not agree with their


own parties on reform and the Lords do not tend to vote for their own


demise. Turkeys do not fold for Christmas. Add to that, you cannot


prove that nobody cares but he can prove that lots of people care more


about other things. And one more thing... The House of Lords question


can wear people out. It is a Bermuda Triangle. Every generation, people


go into it and some never reappear. They come out battered and bruised.


They vowed never to do it again. Not everyone has, and for some, a fire


for an elected house has not died. everyone has, and for some, a fire


for an elected house has It is just the biggest offenders of the Lords


tend to be Lords. If you get my drift. This is one turkey that I


want you to know will be voting for Christmas at every possible


opportunity. One Lord thinks the big opportunity is the public replacing


the house. Perhaps suggesting amendments online or citizens juries


looking at proposed legislation. The end of the road is that we will be


able to abolish the House of Lords altogether and replace it with those


sorts of legislative improvements by the public, to use the public's


expertise and experience rather than a bunch of people like me who get


appointed for life, which is indefensible. The House of Commons


voted with clarity about the principle that it should be elected.


Now the difficulty is the detail. Ask somebody from Parliament, a


parliamentarian in the Commons or in the Lords, and everyone has a


different opinion about the detail. That is the tricky bit. But there is


more than that that is tricky. The Lords has a utilitarian purpose,


analysing legislation line by line. It contains people of white


expertise and no particular burning tribal loyalty. Yes, many of them


are old and there are hundreds of them, and all the parties keep


adding more, but one the -- 1p says he can give reasons for why it will


stay put. It is a unreformable, aside from the Grand Slam, and it


fulfils a utilitarian function. And it adds to, I think, the panache of


the British constitution. And the tourists love it. Who could want


more? The tourists love it? I will talk to my guests in a moment but


I'm going to welcome viewers in Scotland, who have been watching


first ministers questions. We are joined by one of the UKIP peers, who


used to be the party's leader. Is it unreformable? I do not think it is


unreformable. I think it is and probably should be unelectable.


Because there is this conflation between reform and election. I think


that every time you have proposals for an elected house, and Nick Clegg


was on that clip saying it was because everyone was old and had to


be thrown out, there are ways of dealing with old people which are


different from saying that we should have a bicameral system with two


elected houses. Because two elected houses in the UK, I think, would not


add to the quality of government, but caused terrible gridlock.


Malcolm Pearson, that is the will of the House of Commons, to have some


sort of elected chamber. When you come down to it, it is not, because


the House of Commons, in the end, does not want a second chamber which


is more powerful, undermining the present sovereignty of the House of


Commons. I feel that growing public disdain for the political class is


not caused by the House of Lords, so much as by the feeling that their


votes does not really count any more. And that comes, in part, from


our present system, first past the post, where only 60% of the


electorate bothered to vote and only 40% of those elect the government.


The government on the day is on 24%. I would start at the other end. This


is not UKIP policy, and we do not have a policy on this as far as I


know. I would start at the other end with the House of Commons. In fact,


if you read a debate that UKIP had in the Lords, lead by Lord


Willoughby, we suggested that the House of Commons should be reduced


only to matters of truly national interest. You not think the House of


Lords should be reduced? All the rest should be local with more


referendums. You not think the House of Lords should be smaller? It has


been stuffed full of party people. All the parties are doing it. The


Lib Dems have 98 and they will put more in. That is hardly going to


engage people with the process. And going back to your original


question, can you reform the house two act sullenly. -- can you reform


the house? Absolutely. But no one will agree how. Well, small steps.


We got a Private Members' Bill through. There is an agenda for


change about reducing the size of the house, having a retirement age.


But it is getting bigger. It is not the government's agenda for change.


Within the house itself... And cutting out those who misbehave?


Yes. Why have a Private Members' Bill to do just that. Let's talk


about representation. Three UKIP peers, is that enough? Know,


obviously. Why do you deserve more? Since he became Prime Minister,


David Cameron has put in 160 peers. Why does UKIP deserve more? At the


moment, we have three. And you had to 3.2% of the vote. The policy of


David Cameron and David Clegg -- Nick Clegg to make appointments to


the Lords, reflecting the votes cast that the previous general election,


was clearly idiotic. One of the strengths of the House of Lords is


that it does not reflect the composition of the House of Commons.


Even so... Does UKIP deserve that? Absolutely agree with Malcolm. It


was idiotic. It would have meant that we had BNP members, 16 members


of the BNP in the House of Lords... If they hadn't commented the


coalition agreement. It was barking. Keep asking questions, to which


parties that contested the last general election though the rules


apply? I think it is important that the House of Lords is not a mini me


of the House of Commons, reflecting the political balance. Very quickly,


because we're running out of time. We got 27% of the vote in the NASA


national -- last national elections. We have 0.0% of the amount in the


Lords. I have friends who say they fought UKIP. I think David Cameron


should join us. Who? Give you extra time. No names. Am I surprised? Is


that what that look says. Speaking of barking... What makes


for a good MP? A local man or woman, born and


bred who knows the name of every Or a bright young thing, hand-picked


by the party high command and Well, research published yesterday


showed more and more candidates have links to


Westminster, leading to familiar warnings that all MPs will end up


looking and sounding the same. At most elections, there's


a competition to shrug off that image and demonstrate


your local credentials. Have a look at this poor candidate


doing his best in last year's And the man


being given a hard time by our Adam Do you know which favourites soap


opera was filmed in this constituency? I do not know. I know


that Ernie, the fastest Notman of the West was set here. Benny Hill is


from Eastleigh. That is me being a politician and avoiding the


question. I'm very proud of that. Howard is way. It was filmed in


Camberwell. As you say, it is not typical of here. Good information.


Thank you. Which soap opera character nowadays do you think you


are most like? As a person? Think I am probably... Bet Lynch in


Coronation Street. Behind the pub, serving pints. The ordinary people


of Eastleigh. Is that a good? That is rubbish. Don't use that. And we


would never dream of using it. And the man


being given a hard time by our Adam there was John O'Farrell, the author


and former Labour candidate. Was it a disadvantage not having


local roots in that by-election? It was. I had a three-week campaign. It


was a very difficult time. The public forum, they would ask me


about the gravel pits and it might have been a trick question. Daihatsu


sometimes try and make up policy on the hoof. He would have some Labour


want Pazzini a phone message and saying that they were against the


gravel pits. And they had a local councillor who knew the schools and


the area well, and that counts for something. They played up that they


were the local guy and you were parachuted in from the big smoke.


Yes, indeed, although I was selected by the local party and was a local


candidate against me. I've stood in my hometown against the reason me


and that has stood as a parachuted in candidate. And in the first one,


I came third and in the second I came fourth. As a scientific


experiment... It must've been an easier campaign in Maidenhead. When


people ask you about the nonexistent gravel pit, you could tell them that


did not have one. Also, I did not get lost going around in the car.


And you bump into people you used to know and you end up canvassing the


school bully. Is he going to give me a dead leg for being tall? But you


were different from the people that are chosen because there is a


identikit now from both parties. They have usually come from


Oxbridge, straight into a think tank like the IPPR commodity policy


exchange, and they become a special adviser and then a seat is chosen


for them, and they begin to sound and look, and almost say the same


things as well. This is a problem. We have too many identikit


politicians. But when you say a seat is chosen, it is a local parties


that have a responsibility to say, actually, these candidates may not


look like my idea of an MP. This is true in the Conservative Party were


lots of women will choose a man, and think it is encouraging that the


Labour Party has a majority of candidates, but I think and take


your point, but having people from different jobs, and if you wanted a


local person, why not a headteacher, for example, who knows


the community? But they will be taking a pay cut to become an MP.


Would you try again? I do not think that will try again for an


unwinnable seat because I have done that and they do not think you want


to be an MP. You would not like it? Part of me would, but I'm quite


enjoying being a writer and coming on to talk to you with no


responsible 80s. You do not have a microchip in your brain!


Do you think you would have told of the party line? I have been told ill


-- I have been called a loose but loyal Canon. I would like the Labour


Party to win the next will not stand, to be honest. Maybe the


constituencies should dig in their heels and resist those at the Labour


high command and Tory Central office are trying to impose? Often, they


can send signals. They can, and they can speak to the Labour Party and


union leaders, and encourage them to vote for particular candidates. We


want candidates who have a certain amount of Bruce Buck, and our


hard-working. That is more important than where they live, or who they


work for. I think I would like to get a good spread of candidates, but


really we want good politicians improving the image of politicians


in this country. You worried about the kind of singing this -- sameness


of the younger generation? The nickname of, and that cannot even


remember his real name, the Tory who won in Newark, we call Tim Mr


generic because he seemed, he seemed like a generic Tory candidate.


Knowing what you are talking about is tremendously important, and that


is something being something other than politics, now, I am not in a


good place to talk about this, because I was elected very very


young, but I was temperature first constituency I fought was Enoch


Powell's constituency, it was lovely because my dads was a dentist. -- my


dad was a dentist. But there, because Enoch Powell was such a


figure and the Labour Party had hopeless sort of organise,


organisation, I was chose bane woman member of the GMC told me, who we


need is a gimmick. And you were the gimmick. I was a 22-year-old


gimmick. On that shock news, we have to move on. Thank you, thanks John.


It is the news Westminster has been waiting for for day, forget Iraq,


the economy, what politicians and hacks really wanted to know was who


was going to be the new chairman of the Health Select Committee? After a


knife-edge vote the winner was announced yesterday in what can only


be described as a moment of high drama. In years to come people will


say I was there. This is how events unfolded.


Dr Sarah wall stop was elected -- Wollaston was elected chair with 226


votes. The other candidate in that round was Dr Philip Lee, who


received 195 votes. The NHS touches people's lives a million times every


36 hours. It is the most extraordinary achievement and the


most extraordinary challenge, the new Chief Executive of NHS England


has called on everyone within the NHS to think like a patient, and act


like a taxpayer. I think that the role of the Select Committee is to


ask those challenging questions, on behalf of patients and taxpayer's,


so this most cherished institution can continue to be there for all of


our constituents when they need it the most and thank you. --


taxpayers. I know as she the knowledge and the wisdom to be a


very good chair of the Health Select Committee and I wish her all the


very best. Gracious in defeat there Philip Lee and Sarah Wollaston join


us now, you are delighted Absolutely delighted. Are you spoken to Jeremy


Hunt? Yes he sent me a nice text, that was kind of him. Rumour as you


will know of people saying to backbench Conservatives don't vote


for Sarah, she is too much of a Maverick, too independent minds,


what do you say to that? What I hope to bring to this, I have had 24


years front line expense and I hope to be able to bring that experience


to the committee. My view is you have no business chairing any Select


Committee unless you are prepared to ask challenging question, in a


constructive way. But your pitch was you will be independent minded, you


won't be in the pocket of the Government, of the day, or the


medical profession. I am proud to be a Conservative. I make no bones


about that, the point is when you are in a Select Committee role, I


think that you should leave your tribal party politics behind because


you are there to do a job on behalf of patients and taxpayers, you are


holding health bodies to account. NHS England, the GMC, the regulators


and understanding how the system work, having worked within it, I


think gives you an advantage because you understand when people are not


being straight with you apart from anything else. Did you get a lot of


support from Labour MPs? I had support from across the house. I was


ahead in all the rounds, so I think it, it wasn't as naive edge as


perhaps it might be portrayed. It adds to the drama, you have been


very critical at times of the government's health policy and the


reforms and the Andrew Lansley reform, that is true isn't it? It


was constructive criticism, part of the initial outing of the bill and


make no bones about it, I had some concern, but you are not doing orjob


if you don't bring the concerns forward. I think the bill was better


after the pause to listen. Unless you express those concerns you are


not doing your job properly. You said someone had tossed a grenade


That was a miscoat. You obviously felt it wasn't the right way


certainly to go about reforming the NHS in terms of those reforms and


the upheaval. My view was that you can reorganise it, the NHS has been


reorganised so many time, when I used to teach, I gave up teaching


them the struckchur of the NHS because I knew it would have changed


by the time they qualified. Any major reorganisation risks if you


take your eye off the ball, there are many aspects to the reform I


welcome, I felt some of its aims could have been achieved in other


way, and it was my role, I think, to put some of those points forward. I


hope I put them forward in a constructive way, that would be the


way I think you should tackle these things. Do you welcome this


appointment, sorry election? Like her, you know to be elected as the


Speaker you couldn't do it on party vote. It is very, it gives you a


strength and authority, having been elected as she was and she is a


perfect example of what we were talking about before, which is


someone who has got a solid career behind them and brings that to


Parliament and works from that expertise. Let us look at the


current state of the Health Service, particularly about funding. How


worried are you about all the reports relating to the current


funding gap within the NHS, ?2 billion is the figure put round?


This is something the committee has been looking at. We are in our fifth


year of near flat funding of the NHS. That would be the case whoever


was in power. I remember the challenge being set out before I


entered Parliament, so this is a long running issue, we spent nearly


?110 billion on health but what we must be clear about is we get the


best value and address things like safety agenda, how we get the


structural changes... What the committee has found up to now is


that a lot of those have been been achieved through wage restraint, and


they haven't been sufficiently achieved with the sort of major


shift we need have in more prevention work in the NHS and have


people treated closer to home so they don't need to be in hospital in


the fist place. That will take a long time, that is the way I am sure


politics argue, but that will take time, how would you deal with the


funding gap now? That heavy lifting hasn't been done. One of the jobs


for the is Select Committee is holding those institutions to


account, saying how are we making them happen? You may have heard of


the Better Care fund, a shift into primary care and through social, how


we get care in the community, but unless we see that money putting in


place changes that people people don't have to go into hospital in


the first place, the system will be under enormous pressure. Should the


health budget be ring-fenced again? We spend about 9.4% of GDP on


health. Whoever is in power we are unlikely to see that significantly


change. What I would like to see is more ring-fencing within social care


budget, because what happens there has knock on effects on the Health


Service. Thank you. Right we are getting news of a


security alert in Westminster. A device has been found in the main


visitor centre, in Westminster Hall, near Westminster Hall the oldest


part of Parliament. Going back to medieval times with the beautiful


wooden ceiling there, MPs sit there as well as in the Commons chamber,


parts of the Westminster, the Palace of Westminster are being cleared,


the police are saying this is not a drill, this is real, but we don't


know whether that device is of importance or not. It is disrupting


things at the moment, we will keep you across that. Now, Mr Paxman has


left Newsnight and we are only on for a mere six hours a day, six days


a week, many politicians feel they don't have enough tough questions at


them, come on in. They are resorting to go in radio phone in shows so the


public can bombard them with questions on housing to whether they


have a onesie, Boris Johnson and Nick Clegg have their regular slots


on radio now Harriet Harman said she will have a go. We will talk to her


in a moment. That security alert allowing, it will have to be on the


phone. Let us look at how the politicians have got on so far.


It is Boris here from Islington, I want to ask you, when are you going


to get all those Government ministers out of their OK Olympo-s


and on to public transport. -- limos. He is not on the line. No, he


recorded it earlier. We want the opportunity to express a point of


view on behalf... I am grateful for that Bob. There is a table to be sat


round, by you and your team. We can't do it while you put a gun to


our head. When did you last buy underwear from


marks and Spencers because they have posted poor trading figures as you


may be aware. The trouble with Twitter the instantness of it is, I


think, too many twits might make a (BLEEP).


You said I forgot my anniversary and I ask you to hold that thought. We


have had a special cake and I must thank the Cake Store based in


Sydenham. The first time you appeared the final question was do


you own a onesie, you replied yes. This is to celebrate our first, you


will wish we never started this. There you are in your onesie, and I


wonder if I could ask you to cut the cake. Can Nick Clegg eat a bacon


sandwich and how will it work on the radio? One bite. I will try. Very


good! Didn't his mother tell him never to


speak but mouth full. We had hoped to be joined by Harriet Harman who


was going to the third of our national politicians to get their


own radio show but she has been detained in the Palace of


Westminster because of that security alert, so, it is down to you to talk


about this! Would you like to have your own radio show? I am not sure I


would like to have it now, because you are on television as well,


because everyone can watch you and see you. It is all done on


webcameras I used to love doing radio, because you couldn't be seen,


you got more time to talk, a little more length about things and even


when I was a minister and you had to do the Today programme at 7.30 in


the morning, it could be a dressing gown in the radio car job. You can't


do it on in sort of stuff now. Why do you think they want to do it? Why


do they think... ? I think partly they want to cut out the middle man.


They do. That is why we are against it Absolutely, I can see that. We


are Luddites when it comes to this I can see that. Back to Ed Miliband


and the sort of press that he gets. But equally, to have, to be able to


connect directly with individuals, which you can do on a phone in, I


think is sort of gold dust, it is high risk, because you can get it


very wrong. You get asked questions like have you got a onesie, what is


the answer? Me? ! God forbid! All right. Let us. I like you selected


that one from the list of questions. The other was can you eat a bacon


sandwich? That is it for today. Our thanks to our guest, the one clock


news is starting on BBC One now, but listen carefully, I am back tonight


for This Week with Michael Portillo, Diane Abbott and guests, and the


star of The Killing. Maybe she will wear one of her famous jumpers. This


is the bit we are not on BBC One because of something happening in


Brazil. We are on BBC Two after Newsnight.


See you then. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles