:00:48. > :00:51.Politics. Is it time to shake up Prime Minister's questions? An
:00:52. > :00:55.internet campaign is under way to allow voters to ask questions via
:00:56. > :00:57.social media and new penalties for MPs who behave badly. Another day,
:00:58. > :00:58.another Labour policy launch. Ed Miliband promises to unleash the
:00:59. > :01:02.potential of England's cities by devolving ?30 billion of Government
:01:03. > :01:10.funding. Union baron Len McCluskey says Unite
:01:11. > :01:14.will stump up more cash for Labour's election campaign. We look at Ed
:01:15. > :01:19.Miliband's relations with the unions. It's tough being a party
:01:20. > :01:22.leader and trying to maintain an image, with less than a year to the
:01:23. > :01:24.general election can they change how voters see them?
:01:25. > :01:31.All that in the next 30 minutes. With me for the duration is the
:01:32. > :01:37.Times columnist Phil Collins. Welcome. Let's kick off with what
:01:38. > :01:41.the leader of Britain's biggest union, Unite's Len McCluskey has
:01:42. > :01:47.been saying about Labour, here he is on Newsnight last night. There's
:01:48. > :01:53.interesting debates taking place within the party. There are views
:01:54. > :01:57.and thoughts from thousands of Labour Party members, including, of
:01:58. > :02:03.course, trade unions. I think what's beginning to emerge is the
:02:04. > :02:09.likelihood of a positive cohesive programme that offers hope to the
:02:10. > :02:12.British electorate. Unite backing Labour and will put their money
:02:13. > :02:17.where their mouth is, so they say, what will they want in return? They
:02:18. > :02:20.were always going to get to this point, Labour's problematic
:02:21. > :02:24.relationship with business means they've nowhere else to go and Unite
:02:25. > :02:28.is the main funder these days and Unite recognises that as a position
:02:29. > :02:31.of power. What they'll want is not quite so straightforward because
:02:32. > :02:36.what they often get are people in seats. The control over the
:02:37. > :02:42.personnel in parliament is often more important than the policies.
:02:43. > :02:46.The process of getting a manifesto is a really complicated one and
:02:47. > :02:49.interestingly in its own right we don't know whether that's going to
:02:50. > :02:52.end up in a bold programme or a cautious one and that argument is
:02:53. > :02:58.still going on. Unite are amongst that. It would be wrong to say
:02:59. > :03:03.they're simply driving it. It's not true money produces influence in the
:03:04. > :03:08.most direct way. What about strike action? They voted for strike action
:03:09. > :03:12.one day next week, what does Labour do, condemn it? It's always
:03:13. > :03:15.difficult for a Labour leader in that circumstance. Ed Miliband will
:03:16. > :03:19.face a tough stance again. There will be voices on both sides of
:03:20. > :03:24.that. Again he will have to calculate what does this look like
:03:25. > :03:27.to the wider public, if I refuse to condemn something I would otherwise
:03:28. > :03:31.condemn in the week they promised me a lot of money? The message of that
:03:32. > :03:34.is obvious to everybody. He will have to judge it on the issue. He
:03:35. > :03:41.will have to have the courage to condemn February wants to. How does
:03:42. > :03:44.this stack up with John Cruddas, Labour's policy co-ordinator saying
:03:45. > :03:49.Ed Miliband is shying away from radical reform? Well, John, you have
:03:50. > :03:57.to remember, is trying to engineer a bold outcome. He is trying to
:03:58. > :04:01.balance - the difference here is this is gone from a private meeting
:04:02. > :04:04.to the newspapers. It's not unusual in itself that the leader of the
:04:05. > :04:08.process is trying to get the leader to sign up to everything. Not
:04:09. > :04:13.unusual either that the leader might think I am not sure about that, I
:04:14. > :04:17.don't know how I will sell that to the public. There is an argument
:04:18. > :04:20.going on about whether Labour should be explicitly left of centre and
:04:21. > :04:26.bold or whether it should creep back a bit towards the centre. It's good
:04:27. > :04:33.that argument is going on. I don't think we yet know the divided -
:04:34. > :04:37.where it's going to rest. We have a few months to find out. It's time
:04:38. > :04:43.for our daily quiz. David Cameron hosted a party for celebrities last
:04:44. > :04:45.night in the Foreign Office. My invite must be in the post! Who
:04:46. > :04:56.didn't turn up? Phil will give us the correct answer
:04:57. > :05:00.at the end of the show because I am sure he knows.
:05:01. > :05:04.Prime Minister's questions has been described as feeding time at the zoo
:05:05. > :05:10.and now the campaigning website Mumsnet has had enough, branding the
:05:11. > :05:16.weekly run-in as outdated and unprofessional, they have created a
:05:17. > :05:21.we Tegs calling for the -- created a petition calling for the age-old
:05:22. > :05:27.feeding frenzy to be reformed after a survey found 80% of their users
:05:28. > :05:30.think it's ineffective. Half the respondents said the
:05:31. > :05:34.spectacle actively damaged parliament's reputation. What's on
:05:35. > :05:38.their menu for change? Out should go planted questions, scripted answers
:05:39. > :05:40.and media soundbites and in should come questions and answers and
:05:41. > :05:45.chances for the members of the public to throw in the odd morsel
:05:46. > :05:48.through social media. These are all suggestions previously put forward
:05:49. > :05:56.by the Hansard Society who have also called for a sin bin for badly
:05:57. > :06:06.behaved MPs. Are the public still hungry for a rowdy PMQs or is change
:06:07. > :06:12.afoot? Mumsnet CEO Justine Roberts joins us now along with Nigel Evans.
:06:13. > :06:16.Welcome both to the programme. First of all, one might say PMQs as it
:06:17. > :06:20.stands is a ratings winner, why would you want to change that? It's
:06:21. > :06:23.not a winner according to the Hansard Society, few people are
:06:24. > :06:28.watching and lots of people turned off. We know there is a lot of
:06:29. > :06:32.disaffection with MPs and politics and unfortunately what it means is
:06:33. > :06:37.we see a lot of people saying it's just politics, it's not for me.
:06:38. > :06:39.Unfortunately, it's putting people off getting involved. That's really
:06:40. > :06:44.important. That's a really important thing. It's a good show and I am not
:06:45. > :06:48.saying take away the scrutiny, the scrutiny is fantastic but it's not
:06:49. > :06:51.effective. It's stage-managed and putting people off the whole game so
:06:52. > :06:56.it's not worth it and we ought to change it. Should it be changed and
:06:57. > :07:03.how? The only thing I would change is perhaps putting it on at evening,
:07:04. > :07:09.for the vast majority of people I agree politics is as interesting as
:07:10. > :07:12.a sleeping stick insect but it's the most watched of all aspects of
:07:13. > :07:18.parliament. For instance the Prime Minister is questioned in more
:07:19. > :07:22.detail in a more mundane atmosphere with the liaison committee four
:07:23. > :07:27.times a year when a chairman is able to ask five or more questions
:07:28. > :07:31.indepth and in detail. Nobody watches that. Everybody watches
:07:32. > :07:37.PMQs, every Wednesday, because there is the cut and thrust, there is a
:07:38. > :07:39.liveliness about it. It's one of the most watched political programmes in
:07:40. > :07:43.the United States of America because they find it absolutely fascinate
:07:44. > :07:48.that the democracy is seen to be so vibrant. Do they actually consider
:07:49. > :07:51.it important? Why is there so much focus on PMQs, is it that
:07:52. > :07:58.representative of politics and parliament at large? It's not
:07:59. > :08:01.representative, it is the gladiatorial spectacle, when you see
:08:02. > :08:04.the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, this programme
:08:05. > :08:11.itself judges it as it's happening and after. I believe that it's one
:08:12. > :08:15.of the best-trending things on the internet following PMQs as what's
:08:16. > :08:18.happened on the Daily Politics. We are not suggesting scrapping that
:08:19. > :08:21.period of time when the Prime Minister is called to account by the
:08:22. > :08:26.leader of the opposition. It's a fantastic thing. But the idea that
:08:27. > :08:42.it has to be a bunch of people behaving like a group of... That is
:08:43. > :08:48.the bit that people like. It's like watching a fight. And
:08:49. > :08:57.disillusionment in our system. It's not a good outcome. Sometimes it
:08:58. > :09:02.gets too much excitement in the chamber. I am against the sin bin,
:09:03. > :09:07.it would be almost like a sport, we wonder who will be - wonder who will
:09:08. > :09:10.be chucked out this Wednesday. I think there is a liveliness about
:09:11. > :09:14.Prime Ministers questions and the fact so many people are watching it
:09:15. > :09:22.is possibly something that needs to be controlled but not reformed. You
:09:23. > :09:25.couldn't take your eyes off that questioning, the scrutiny and if you
:09:26. > :09:29.could have questions coming from Select Committee, real experts from
:09:30. > :09:34.real people as well involved, put it on later so over 55s could watch,
:09:35. > :09:44.there are many reforms that could be done. Yesterday we had the statement
:09:45. > :09:48.on Europe about David Cameron, but he was there for over an
:09:49. > :09:51.hour-and-a-half having questions from 86 Members of Parliament.
:09:52. > :09:54.That's a lot of scrutiny there. The real problem is the party control
:09:55. > :10:00.over it. This is spectacle rather than politics. You make a good point
:10:01. > :10:05.about the liaison committee, it's forensic and it's boring. But it's
:10:06. > :10:10.important. Very much so. PMQs is rarely boring, but is rarely
:10:11. > :10:14.important either. It's sometimes showcasing leadership but usually
:10:15. > :10:20.doesn't, get the choreographed responses. I remember I got elected
:10:21. > :10:25.in 92 and John Major had gone to Brussels, he was going to show
:10:26. > :10:29.Brussels what it was all about. Then he capitulated at whatever, I can't
:10:30. > :10:32.remember the issue, at Prime Ministers questions that day when
:10:33. > :10:36.normally there is a lot of choreography that goes on, a lot of
:10:37. > :10:39.whip management but the fact is only one person stood up on the
:10:40. > :10:43.Conservative side to ask a question off the Prime Minister. The
:10:44. > :10:48.pro-Europeans and the anti-Europeans were very unhappy with John Major in
:10:49. > :10:50.equal meshure and I think that showed -- measure and I think that
:10:51. > :10:54.showed the House telling the Prime Minister we are not happy. When was
:10:55. > :10:59.that? That was a long time ago but I remember it distinctly. Of course
:11:00. > :11:02.one would say you need more memorable PMQs in that respect. You
:11:03. > :11:06.have agreed the evening might make it then more appealing to a broader
:11:07. > :11:16.audience. Let's look at the planted questions. They really are ex-cruise
:11:17. > :11:24.ating, should they be taken away? A lot of constituents watch the
:11:25. > :11:28.questions and if you are too sycophantic then there would be
:11:29. > :11:31.groans around the chamber and the country. Even though you expect
:11:32. > :11:34.mostly the Conservatives to support their Prime Minister, doesn't happen
:11:35. > :11:36.all the time, and the people on the other side to attack the Prime
:11:37. > :11:42.Minister, doesn't happen all the time, you get some who actually ask
:11:43. > :11:49.questions - I have asked questions about constituency cases about a
:11:50. > :11:54.child dying, or extra housing and you do ask constituency-based
:11:55. > :11:58.questions, you have to. If they stripped out - constituency-based
:11:59. > :12:01.questions are different to planted questions, if you did strip out the
:12:02. > :12:04.planted questions and more questions through social media that they had
:12:05. > :12:09.to answer off the cuff would that improve it enough for you? I think
:12:10. > :12:17.it would improve it a great deal. I think it's a cultural as well. A lot
:12:18. > :12:26.of leaders are given lip service. Actually we know there are MPs who
:12:27. > :12:31.go in with the express intention of barracking. What are we going to do
:12:32. > :12:38.today? It's crazy. If they had the will to change it, they could. Nick
:12:39. > :12:47.Clegg does that LBC thing once a week and people can phone in and ask
:12:48. > :12:52.what they like. There is one other thing it does, it tote rip dominates
:12:53. > :12:56.the week -- it totally dominates the week of the Prime Minister who has
:12:57. > :12:59.to spend ages preparing for it. With a busy Prime Minister preparing for
:13:00. > :13:03.a pantomime every Wednesday is the best use of time? Tony Blair got rid
:13:04. > :13:07.of one of the weekly sessions so it's not to say you couldn't
:13:08. > :13:11.radically change it, could it be ever be got rid of it No, absolutely
:13:12. > :13:14.not. Tony Blair changed it from Tuesdays and Thursdays, quarter of
:13:15. > :13:22.April hour to half an -- quarter of an hour to half an hour ones win --
:13:23. > :13:25.on Wednesday. It allows the opposition six questions. The Prime
:13:26. > :13:30.Minister found it easier to just dismiss the questions from the
:13:31. > :13:34.leader. - the opposition. Some female MPs told the Speaker they
:13:35. > :13:37.were no longer taking part because of the atmosphere, that's a
:13:38. > :13:41.dangerous precedent. It certainly is. The fact that only 22% of the
:13:42. > :13:45.House is female is something that I am really concerned about. I hope
:13:46. > :13:49.that's something that we can address properly to get more females - to
:13:50. > :13:56.get more... How would you address it in the House as it stands at the
:13:57. > :14:00.moment in PMQs? I have to say no female member of parliament has come
:14:01. > :14:05.up to me and questioned the fact that it's as it is, the females I
:14:06. > :14:08.sit around really stick it to either the Prime Minister or the other side
:14:09. > :14:13.as much as anybody else in the House. They actually do punch their
:14:14. > :14:15.weight in the Commons. How far are you going to push this? The petition
:14:16. > :14:18.is there for people to sign you going to push this? The petition
:14:19. > :14:22.is there for people to if they want. I think it - we are not trying to
:14:23. > :14:28.get rid of PMQs but it could be effective and a better use of the
:14:29. > :14:31.Prime Minister's time and less offputing to other groups that look
:14:32. > :14:42.and think this is nothing like me and it's not normal and not for me.
:14:43. > :14:47.For journalists is it still the key event, how many Newslines do they
:14:48. > :14:51.get out of it? If they move it to the evenings I can not watch it in
:14:52. > :14:55.the evenings rather than not watch it in the afternoons. It's not
:14:56. > :14:58.particularly important. It occasionally drama tieses a
:14:59. > :15:01.leadership question, apart from that I get nothing from it. On both
:15:02. > :15:04.sides. People question the quality of David Cameron and Ed Miliband,
:15:05. > :15:10.Nick Clegg, it's all there. Thank you very much.
:15:11. > :15:13.Ed Miliband was going "local" in Leeds this morning, for the launch
:15:14. > :15:15.of another Labour policy for the next election.
:15:16. > :15:17.He's promising to unleash the potential of England's
:15:18. > :15:19.cities and regions, creating "economic powerhouses" to rival
:15:20. > :15:22.London. Here's some of what he had to say.
:15:23. > :15:28.Let's transfer ?30 billion worth of spending out of Whitehall, over a
:15:29. > :15:33.Parliament. Let's transfer it out of Whitehall and let's transfer it to
:15:34. > :15:36.local areas to make those local decisions about transport, about
:15:37. > :15:41.skills, about support for businesses, about how to get people
:15:42. > :15:44.back to work. Why? Not just because we think it is good for local people
:15:45. > :15:47.to make those decisions but because they will make better decisions
:15:48. > :15:51.because they have much more of a sense of what the local needs are.
:15:52. > :15:53.And if you can involve local businesses in those decisions, you
:15:54. > :15:58.are much more likely to succeed. With us now is the Shadow Business
:15:59. > :16:07.Minister, Toby Perkins. Welcome to the programme. Ed
:16:08. > :16:10.Miliband says a if you tour Labour Government would need to act because
:16:11. > :16:15.80% of recently created employment has been in London at the expense of
:16:16. > :16:18.the rest of the council try. -- future Labour Government. What is
:16:19. > :16:22.the evidence? It came from the Cities report based on the business
:16:23. > :16:27.register and employment survey, showing where you look at where the
:16:28. > :16:34.net jobs have been created. That more new job than those lost, 80%
:16:35. > :16:38.were based in London. How much of this is new? I have lived through
:16:39. > :16:42.Enterprise Partnership, Regional Development Agencies. They are all
:16:43. > :16:46.put up as an attempt to try to spread the wealth and focus of
:16:47. > :16:50.Government spending. It never seems to work? I think the difference with
:16:51. > :16:55.this is that it is about where the responsibility lies and where the
:16:56. > :16:58.budget goes. If you devolve this budget to combined authorities at
:16:59. > :17:02.city and county regions working together, combined with local
:17:03. > :17:06.enterprise partnerships, you actually send the money there,
:17:07. > :17:09.rather than accepting some Whitehall civil servants that will now have a
:17:10. > :17:16.Leeds postcode, you actually send the money and give local areas the
:17:17. > :17:18.opportunity to actually influence business support, infrastructure
:17:19. > :17:21.skills. All these things. What is the motivation for the local
:17:22. > :17:25.authorities to spend the money in the way you would like it to be
:17:26. > :17:30.spent, on businesses and not, for example in other areas, that they
:17:31. > :17:33.may feel is a priority? The specific budget is being devolved to them. It
:17:34. > :17:36.would be about combined authorities working together, remember than the
:17:37. > :17:39.vowed local authorities and working together on things like
:17:40. > :17:43.infrastructure, transport, skills, business support, all things that
:17:44. > :17:47.are vital to their local economy. So I think that what we are doing here
:17:48. > :17:52.is devolving specific frunds Whitehall, down to - or up to the
:17:53. > :17:57.regions, and this can only be a good thing. If you have phrases like a
:17:58. > :18:01.long-stem national framework for an innovation policy - whatever that
:18:02. > :18:04.means t sounds like a state-run industrial policy T harks back to a
:18:05. > :18:09.time of picking winners, if you like. -- it harks back. I think it
:18:10. > :18:11.is Duchess of Cambridge approach. It is about a revolution in devolution.
:18:12. > :18:12.It is about sending the responsibility to those great
:18:13. > :18:15.It is about sending the responsibility to those cities that
:18:16. > :18:20.should be the economic powerhouses but actually have been held back too
:18:21. > :18:25.often. Right, I mean they should be the powerhouses, why have they never
:18:26. > :18:29.been? Toby makes a great point. In the past there has never been money
:18:30. > :18:33.flowing, it has been a bureaucratic devolution. If you get the money,
:18:34. > :18:36.that changes it. But your question is a very important one - will the
:18:37. > :18:40.money come with strings attached? Will there be a central requirement
:18:41. > :18:44.of the locality? If there is not, if it is a straight-forward taking of
:18:45. > :18:47.the money from the centre to the locality that really is quite a
:18:48. > :18:51.change. Still reasonably small at the moment but it has the potential
:18:52. > :18:55.to grow bigger. The crucial question is whether you get strings attached.
:18:56. > :18:59.The tendency of central Government is to think - you are not doing what
:19:00. > :19:04.we expected or wanted you to do, let's pull the control back, buts of
:19:05. > :19:08.genuinely letting go, I agree it has to be a good then. How is it
:19:09. > :19:12.different from what George Osborne was talking about, he talked about
:19:13. > :19:15.supercities in the north and a new high-speed rail link joining up
:19:16. > :19:17.cities. Is it any different? The point he went to Leeds
:19:18. > :19:18.cities. Is it any different? The point he went to and said - we can
:19:19. > :19:20.build you a train line, it point he went to and said - we can
:19:21. > :19:23.build you a train line, is not devolution, it is about investing
:19:24. > :19:27.money. That was a plan dreamt up in response to opinion polls. I think
:19:28. > :19:32.what this is actually about, the difrns is it is not about talk, it
:19:33. > :19:36.is do devolving money and responsibilities. Philip is right to
:19:37. > :19:40.say - if you devolve that, you have to accept you don't control
:19:41. > :19:45.everything it gets spent on but it is about saying to the local
:19:46. > :19:50.authorities, work with within your areas with the local business
:19:51. > :19:52.community and partnerships. Work on the infrastructure, collectively on
:19:53. > :19:57.your transport. That's something that politicians have not done in
:19:58. > :20:01.generations. Was that a spoiler, do you think by George Osborne last
:20:02. > :20:05.week? Was he trying to pre-empt what Labour has said this week? It is
:20:06. > :20:09.much more about the skefbs thinking they are not win in the north of
:20:10. > :20:10.England and they have to do something to breakthrough. --
:20:11. > :20:14.Conservatives. Now we are not against trainlines in the north of
:20:15. > :20:19.England. It is probably that a local consortium would decide they did
:20:20. > :20:24.need good train infrastructure between the cities. The question is,
:20:25. > :20:29.who is in charge? You have this alphabet soup of people involved. I
:20:30. > :20:31.wonder after the announcement and Andrew Dennison's work, who
:20:32. > :20:37.ultimately will make the decision T can be difficult to get this work
:20:38. > :20:40.done. As you know infrastructure problems are blighted by taking
:20:41. > :20:45.years. I wonder in the end, who is in charge? The other problem for
:20:46. > :20:48.Labour at the moment is the figures on economic competency are not
:20:49. > :20:52.improving. Do you think this is the sort of announcement will that help
:20:53. > :20:55.do that? That people will trust Ed Miliband and Ed Balls more with the
:20:56. > :20:59.economy when you bring out announcements like this or will this
:21:00. > :21:03.pass them by? I think it'll make a difference, people will look at the
:21:04. > :21:07.warm welcome it has had from the C bi. And the Engineering Employers
:21:08. > :21:10.Union but it is about a broader programme, the kind of economy we
:21:11. > :21:13.want to be, about getting more manufacturing into the economy,
:21:14. > :21:16.about spreading the growth. The devolution of business rate growth
:21:17. > :21:20.we have spoken B I think as people investigate this -- spoken about. I
:21:21. > :21:24.think as people investigate this, they will see this as real change.
:21:25. > :21:28.Another day another announcement. It is only aier ago people were saying
:21:29. > :21:33.Labour have no policies. -- it was only a year ago. Now we have decent
:21:34. > :21:36.policies. I think it is important we sell them to the public. Isn't it
:21:37. > :21:39.because they are being worried about being antibusiness, that they are
:21:40. > :21:44.worried about the economic competency. Do you think that's part
:21:45. > :21:48.of it? ? In 2010, Labour went into the election with no business
:21:49. > :21:53.support at all and they are clearly worried about doing the same in
:21:54. > :21:56.2014. 24 week is about trying to address that. -- this week. We also
:21:57. > :22:01.have an an opportunity Labour with Europe. The Conservative Party is
:22:02. > :22:04.vulnerable with business on Europe. A sensible pragmatic pro-European
:22:05. > :22:08.policy I think is exactly the right one and could help. But, underneath
:22:09. > :22:13.it all is the problem you suggested. Which is the stubborn numbers of
:22:14. > :22:19.economic competence. Can you win an election with figures like that on
:22:20. > :22:22.economic competency? It has never been done before a party with
:22:23. > :22:26.figures like that, plus its leader trailing the Prime Minister so far,
:22:27. > :22:30.has won. That would have to be done for the big time. Any big businesses
:22:31. > :22:34.supporting Labour so far, putting their money behind your campaign?
:22:35. > :22:37.Time will tell on that. One of the important things is that Ed Miliband
:22:38. > :22:41.set out in the start of the leadership is to make Labour Party
:22:42. > :22:47.the party of small business. Small businesses have been ignored for too
:22:48. > :22:51.long. And bringing forward proposals has revolutionised our relationship
:22:52. > :22:56.with small businesses and they are just as important as big businesses.
:22:57. > :22:58.Do you have trouble eating a bacon sandwich?
:22:59. > :23:02.Or do you find that students boo you in the street?
:23:03. > :23:04.If so, welcome to the world of the party leader,
:23:05. > :23:07.who - despite the best efforts of a coterie of advisors -
:23:08. > :23:10.face a daily battle to control the public's perception of them.
:23:11. > :23:13.So what to do if you find you have an image problem?
:23:14. > :23:23.Politicians trying to project a positive image can be... Gold medal.
:23:24. > :23:28.A, a bill prone to wondering off script. About, caught out by events
:23:29. > :23:32.out of their control like being egged and C, simply standing in the
:23:33. > :23:37.wrong place at the wrong time. And there is no shortage of advice for
:23:38. > :23:42.political leaders. Like many before them, these three all have their own
:23:43. > :23:46.individual image problems. The you will vulnerabilities they have is
:23:47. > :23:49.for David Cameron he is arrogant and out of touch.
:23:50. > :23:51.will vulnerabilities they have is for David Cameron he is For Ed
:23:52. > :23:55.Miliband, quite the same that they are weak and out of depth and Ed
:23:56. > :23:59.Miliband has an associated problem with that, which is that some people
:24:00. > :24:04.find him a bit weird. Oh dear, weird, out of touch, weak, that
:24:05. > :24:09.doesn't sound good. In the world of communications and PR, there are
:24:10. > :24:14.some key buzz words and phrases politicians need to be associated
:24:15. > :24:18.with if they want to be a success. Think strong, and perhaps gravitas.
:24:19. > :24:20.I Think strong, and perhaps gravitas.
:24:21. > :24:25.think if spin doctors could design a politician, they wouldn't design me.
:24:26. > :24:31.That perhaps is why Labour recently advertised a vacancy, as head of
:24:32. > :24:35.leader's broadcasting, tasked with advicing Mr Miliband and improving
:24:36. > :24:40.his TV appearances. Expertise which could have been useful in May at
:24:41. > :24:43.this early-morning media convenient. There is undoubtedly bullying going
:24:44. > :24:47.on in the media. People take photographs of Ed and try to make
:24:48. > :24:52.him look weird or not norm A he has to ignore all that -- not norm A he
:24:53. > :24:57.has to ignore that. He has to play to his strengths. Which are out on
:24:58. > :25:03.the ground, on a doorstep on soapbox he convinces and connects with
:25:04. > :25:09.people. The question is who will look prime ministerial and do the
:25:10. > :25:12.best for the country. It is on the doorstep that Nick Clegg is said to
:25:13. > :25:18.be toxic, bruised from being in coalition and advice - brutal
:25:19. > :25:21.honesty. Nick Clegg is a politician, he comes from the political class.
:25:22. > :25:25.He has been involved in politics in one thing or another for decades
:25:26. > :25:29.now. He very much understands the political system. That's a weakness
:25:30. > :25:34.if you tray to pretend you are somebody else but it can be a real
:25:35. > :25:38.strength. If you say - I have been there, I understand what the system,
:25:39. > :25:43.how it works I want it change and I can do that. And for David Cameron,
:25:44. > :25:46.playing the part of PM, it is about turning weaknesses into strength. If
:25:47. > :25:50.he is arrogant and out of touch, is David Cameron also quite
:25:51. > :25:58.firm-minded? Does he have a plan he is prepared it stick to? Leaving up
:25:59. > :26:05.to strategist's buzz words like "credible" isn't easy being human,
:26:06. > :26:09.hopefully not too difficult. And plumping for a relaunch now, is
:26:10. > :26:11.like admitting you have already failed.
:26:12. > :26:16.So, Phil, we talk about these things in the lead-ups to all elections but
:26:17. > :26:19.however much party leaders and their advisors like to talk about policy
:26:20. > :26:22.and the message, it is still important in the age of television
:26:23. > :26:25.and democratic politics, it is about instinct and your ability to
:26:26. > :26:30.connect, isn't it? It is, but there is a lot of information contained in
:26:31. > :26:34.those images. Theismcations when we say someone has an image problem is
:26:35. > :26:38.somehow the imaction is false and beneath the image there is a truth
:26:39. > :26:41.which the public has somehow not understood. That's rarely true.
:26:42. > :26:44.Usually when someone has an image problem, they have a problem, and
:26:45. > :26:48.the image is telling you something which is true, not false. I think
:26:49. > :26:50.you can see that in all three party leaders at the moment. Their images
:26:51. > :26:55.are exaggerated versions of themselves. They are in a sense a
:26:56. > :26:58.caricature. But a caricature is defined by the thing which is true
:26:59. > :27:04.about it, not the thing which is false. So when Ed Miliband has an
:27:05. > :27:08.image of being geeky and sometimes a bit indecisive and sometimes a bit
:27:09. > :27:12.left-wing and the swirling parts don't add up to a picture, it is
:27:13. > :27:17.quite a good component part of what he is. David Cameron's image so much
:27:18. > :27:21.the same. He has an image of being arrogant, out of touch, as was said
:27:22. > :27:24.in the film but at the same time that staples translates into being
:27:25. > :27:28.quite authoritative and again there is a lot of truth in that. Neglect's
:27:29. > :27:32.image, when they say students boo him in the street. That's not
:27:33. > :27:36.because of an image problem, it was a substantive policy problem on
:27:37. > :27:39.tuition fees. These snippets we get through images tell us something
:27:40. > :27:44.important about the leaders. You have talked about all three of them.
:27:45. > :27:50.You have talked. It seems that Ed Miliband has more of a problem trab
:27:51. > :27:56.transcending his image, if you like. Is that true? It is for but for real
:27:57. > :27:59.recent. I I don't think there is a magnificent under the radar and they
:28:00. > :28:03.send out this character from a cartoon to go on to the TV. I think
:28:04. > :28:06.what you get through his visual representations is a snippet of what
:28:07. > :28:10.you are getting in policy terms. So my own view is that the Labour Party
:28:11. > :28:13.are camped in the wrong position and that that sense, not particularly
:28:14. > :28:18.well-defined, is coming out through the image that Ed Miliband portrays
:28:19. > :28:22.on TV. So it is not that he has an image problem, in my view, it is
:28:23. > :28:26.that he has a problem. All right. Let's leave it there. There is time,
:28:27. > :28:32.before we go, to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was:
:28:33. > :28:36.David Cameron hosted a party for celebrities last night
:28:37. > :28:38.in the Foreign Office but who didn't turn up?
:28:39. > :28:40.Was it a) Cilla Black, b) Claudia Winkleman
:28:41. > :28:41.c) Noel Gallagher or d) Bruce Forsyth?
:28:42. > :28:47.Kew I think it is a trick question. I think you are expecting me to say
:28:48. > :28:53.Noel Gallacher. I think you are expecting to me to say all of them.
:28:54. > :29:00.No, the trick was it wasn't a trick question, it was Noel Gallacher.
:29:01. > :29:03.Thanks to Maurice Saatchi and all my guests today.
:29:04. > :29:05.Andrew and I will be here at 11.30 tomorrow with