01/10/2013 Newsnight


The Daily Mail come on Newsnight to justify their attacks on Ed Miliband's father. And live Conservative Party Conference coverage. With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Why are we falling out of love with political parties. Once upon a time


the Conservatives claimed to have two million members, now it is


something like 134 thou,000. Here in the town Manchester, site of the


Conservative Party Conference, we have once loyal party members who


have now left, many of them for UKIP. Can the chairman of the


charity persuade them they have made a terrible mistake? The Daily


Mail savages Ed Miliband's father and refuses to retract. This paper


is saying that he hated Britain. and refuses to retract. This paper


And that is a lie. That is a lie. And I'm not willing to let it stand.


We will be asking the deputy editor of the Daily Mail why they won't


apologise for trashing a dead man's name. Why have we spent all day


baking a fancy granary loaf? Oddly enough the most fierce


conversations haven't happened here but between Ed Miliband and the


Daily Mail. They claim he hated the church the army and wanted a


revolution. The visible fury of the the Labour leader today, tested to


the limit the old axe I don't know that all is fair in love, -- axion


that all is fair in love, war and politics. There was no doubt it was


a hatchet job, what Ed Miliband objects to was the fact it was


directed at his dead father. The Daily Mail is having none of it and


printed his rebuttal alongside an editorial saying it proved why


politicians shouldn't be allowed anywhere near regulation of the


press. We report. He will use this soapbox during the


general election to get down and dirty with the voters. Last week on


this box Ed Miliband said he wanted to bring back socialism. Will you


bring back socialism? Well that's what we're doing, Sir. He got a


taste of the campaign to come. Politics got even dirtier. At the


weekend the Mail published an article about the Labour leader's


father, "the man who hated Britain", he promoted Marxist dogma, and


hated the skween, the church and the army. These were lies, Ed


Miliband said, this morning the Daily Mail published his reply and


reprinted their original piece, alongside an editorial justifying


that article. Next the Labour leader took his


dispute to the air waves. It saved his wife and this paper is saying


that he hated Britain. That is a lie, that is a lie, I'm not willing


to let it stand. The Prime Minister appeared to agree. If someone


attacked my dad, who I think about a lot and I miss him every day, I


would definitely rush in to print and defend him as best I could. Ed


seems to be doing exactly the same thing. So very personal, yes, but


about principles too. This is too dirty for a general election Labour


thinks. One right-wing blogger sees more calculation. I think Ed knows


that the Tory press is going to be gunning for him in the up to the


election. This is a pre-emptive opportunistic fightback so that


when this comes he's kind of put opportunistic fightback so that


down a marker that the Tory press is being horrible to him and his


family. There was another consideration, Ed Miliband has


supported Lord Justice Leveson's plans to regulate the press. Today


supporters of self-regulation said he should back off. My view is it


is really important that newspapers are allowed to be pugnacious, and


take politicians down a peg or two. Do you think the Mail had a point?


It is really important for me not to pass judgment on any particular


newspaper. In a way that would be a politician trying to teach an


editor how to do his job. And there is a proper division between


editors running newspapers and politicians running their parties


or their Government departments. Ed Miliband said he wasn't trying to


censor the Daily Mail as correct them? Look the Daily Mail publishes


what it publishes. It is not about regulation. But it is about me you


know using the platform I have as a son, really, to defend my father.


And in the end the British public have to make a decision about what


they think and whether they think it is fair or not for the Daily


Mail to act in this way. My understanding is that team Ed


Miliband did value the relationship with the Daily Mail, it had


something called the three Ms strategy, the Metro, the Mirror and


Skup the Mail, it is Daily Mail is a formidable opponent in a general


election, as they have lost it. It a formidable opponent in a general


is another defining moment for the Labour leader, but it is simpler


than that, his family has already paid a high price for his political


ambitions, his David is abroad, his father may only be with him in


memory, but that memory is defended. Blood is thicker than ink.


We are in London with the deputy editor of the Daily Mail and


Alastair Campbell. We have the deputy editor with me,


and joining us from Nottingham Alastair Campbell in a moment.


Thank you for coming in. Your paper wrote and you restate today that


raffle Miliband, who fought for this country -- Ralph Miliband, who


fought for this country in the this country -- Ralph Miliband, who


Second World War hated Britain, how can you claim that? It is simple,


we examined Ralph Miliband's views as they were put forward in his


writings. His diaries, his book, his speeches. Those views conveyed


an impression of what he thought about Britain. Which is very anti-


path theyic to the views of a -- anti-pathetic to the views of the


British people. We thought it was right to put the views in the paper.


What do you mean by that, he hated Britain and had an evil legacy you


said. He was a man who served in the Navy, who couldn't serve fast


enough, who offered his life and raised his son here was evil? We


didn't say he was evil. You said an evil legacy? I'm sure his service


in the Navy was cred ditable, we have not attacked that. We stated


his views. What did he say that he hated Britain? He was not a brieft


individual, he was a public man, he was an academic, political activist


and author. His views were spread widely. His views on British


institutions from our schools to our Royal Family to our military,


to our universities, to the church, our great universities. He never


said he hated Christians? What he said was he felt that all of those


things were bad aspects, were unfortunate aspects of British life.


That meant he hated Britain? If you take those things together and you


combine them with his espousing of a Marxist ideology that, in our


view, represented someone who hated British values. In your view.


Analysing British politics is not hating your country, surely? We


felt and we think we produced evidence to support it that he


hated British values. And that his views on many areas were anti-


pathetic to British values. If you go beyond the views that he had put


forward in those writings that I have mentioned, there is no


question that his political point of view was...What Other values he


hated then? You can have disdain of view was...What Other values he


for a lot of things, you can question a lot of things, surely


that is the free speech that your paper so espouses? I wouldn't


dispute or argue with anyone's right to question things. What did


he hate then? If you take together his views as put forward on all of


those institutions, cumulatively they represented a substantial


dislike of those institutions and disapproval of them. Furthermore


his perspective politically was very much that of a Marxist, he was


a supporter of Marxist ideology, he was a supporter of the Marxist


ideology that was being used to run Governments in other parts of the


continent and other parts of Europe. Which was responsible for an awful


lot of terrible, terrible things, Which was responsible for an awful


including millions and millions of deaths. So was the point of this


article that your paper implies now that Ed Miliband hates Britain and


that he is a rabid Marxist or communist? It is certainly not the


point of our article to say that Ed Miliband hates Britain. The point


of the article was very straight forward, Ed Miliband seeks to be


Prime Minister of this country, he has made many speeches over the


three years since he became Labour leader, and in many of those


speeches he refers to the story of his parents, it is an important


part of understanding who Ed Miliband is, the back story of his


refugee and immigrant parents and the difficulties they had when they


came here and the values they stood for, and how those values shaped


him when he was a young man when he was growing up, just as they shaped


his brother. If you are to understand Ed Miliband, who has


told us he wants to bring back socialism to modern Britain then


you need to understand the values that shaped him. Parents are


important, I'm wondering if the current Viscount Rothermere who


owns your paper is tainted by the article his great grandfather wrote


in praise of British fascists? I don't think so. I don't think it is


relevant to bring up a piece from don't think so. I don't think it is


80 years ago that was written by a member of the family. Let's go to


Alastair Campbell who has joined us from Nottingham? Can you hear us?


Yes I can, I thought this was going to be a debate not a pathetic


ramble from John reading out the lines written for him by Paul Daker.


Can I say first of all you said the Mail is a formidable opponent. It


is not because it is run by a bully and a coward, and like most cowards


he's a hypocrite as well. Paul Daker hasn't the guts himself to


come on a programme to defend something I know John knows is not


defensible. When he talks about Rothemere and what his relatives


wrote about Hitler, the sole bit they relied upon for this piece is


something Ed Miliband's dad wrote in his diary when he was 17. What


you have to understand about the Daily Mail it is the worst of


British values posing as the best. When Ed Miliband went out today he


went out and demanded a right of reply and spoke as he did today, he


did that and I'm glad that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have


supported him in what he did. He did it because he actually believes


in genuine political debate and genuine freedom of speech. These


people do not believe in genuine debate. If you do not conform to


Paul Daker's narrow twisted view of the world, as all of his employees


like John has to do you get done in. I say to all the politicians in


Britain once you accept you are dealing with a bully and a coward


Britain once you accept you are you have absolutely nothing to fear


from them. You can start where you want, bully, coward with the worst


kind of values? You use those words quoting Alastair, "bully, coward".


I'm not a coward, where is Paul Daker and why have you been put up.


Where is he, is he on his 50,000 acre Scottish estate? The reality


Alastair is that Ed Miliband puts himself forward to be Prime


Minister of this country. He puts himself forward on a socialist


platform, he makes very clear that the values he grew up with were the


values of his parents. He said in his speech today his dad wouldn't


support his views, he said that in his speech the other day, he said


his dad wouldn't support some of his views today. There are many of


his views that his father would have supported and indeed as we


know from Damian McBride's book last week, his decision to stand


against his brother had much to do with following through in his


father's legacy. Do you believe, do you believe, not Paul Daker who has


told you what to say tonight. Do you believe that Ed Miliband's dad


hated Britain, and do you think it was justified to use a picture of


Ralph Miliband's grave in your coverage, answer the question, yes


or no, do you believe that? As I have said to you Alastair our piece


was based on an examination of Ralph Miliband...Do You support


that headline, did Ralph Miliband hate Britain, answer the question?


If you would allow me to finish. The two specific point, the


headline said the man who haitd Britain, and you had the picture of


a gravestone. On the headline it is a well established principle of all


journalism, which Alastair may remember from the distant days when


he was part of it that the headline and piece should be read in


conjunction with each other. If you read that headline in conjunction


with the piece which quotes extensively. You are not defending


the headline. I am completely. You are embarrassed by Daker and you


and your colleagues are embarred by him, Rothemere is looking for you


to be successor and you are wriggling now. It was justified and


appropriate for the piece. That is why we gave the right of reply. You


are being very reason, you hope you get the job when it comes up. You


asked about the gravestone, that did not appear on the paper. It was


on-line, do you defend the picture. It didn't appear in the paper. Did


you defend its use on-line? If you would let me get a word out. It is


a straight question, answer it. The picture on-line was a picture of a


tombstone and said "grave socialist". It appeared on the


website it may be that the publication of that on the website


was an error of judgment. When Ed Miliband made a complaint about


that on Saturday evening, in fact he spoke to me personally. I know


he did. I personally arranged for that picture to be removed. Why not


say to my question yes. I think it was error of judgment. Now back to


the headline, do you justify the headline, did Ralph Miliband hate


Britain? I think it is justified. Having fought for Britain in the


war did Ralph Miliband hate Britain? Ralph Miliband's values.


You don't support your editor you won't answer the question. You


don't support it. His views from anti-pathetic to many people's


views in this country. You spoke to Ed Miliband, did Paul Daker speak


to him? He as up on the estate hunting and shooting. I spoke to Ed


Miliband on Saturday. What did you say to him when he expressed his


disdain for the article? I listened to what he said, I didn't agree


with him but said we would consider his request for a right of replie.


And we granted that in Tuesday's paper. Did you speak about the


headline? It wasn't that kind of conversation. No is the answer to


that. You weren't listening in. I have a fair idea what went on. The


conversation was Ed Miliband raising his complaints, me


listening to them calmly and considering his request for right


of reply, discussing with colleagues and granting that.


Tomorrow you are publishing four pages of character assassination of


Ed Miliband because Daker, who you know is losing the plot and


Rothemere knows he's losing the plot can't bring himself to accept


that he has made a terrible mistake, that your newspaper readers, who


kind of go along with the very commercial success that you have


got actually now will begin to see what I have known for a very long


time that you are the worst of British values posing as the best.


And Paul Daker is a poison in our national life, I'm glad at last we


are debating him, I hope next time that he has the guts to come and


are debating him, I hope next time defend himself and not put you


there. First of all in relation to what we are publishing tomorrow,


there is no character assassination of anybody tomorrow, there is a


news story on what happened today. There is a selection of quotes from


people who have been speaking in the media today and there is a


background feature about what was happening under the Stalinist


regime in Russia during the 40s and 50s. That is factual reporting.


What about Hitler? I bow to nobody in my reference for your expertise


on the -- reverence of your expertise in spreading poison, you


have been doing that since the 1990s. This is the man from the


Mirror and knows about character assassination, you must know what


it is like to play politics with newspapers? No I have just been at


the Tory Party conference, you will find a lot of Tories up there who


will remember, I was a journalist on the Daily Mirror I respected


politics and politicians, when I worked for the Labour Government


and the Labour Party we had to put up with lies from people like this


day after day after day. One of the things I argued about with Tony


Blair is when we used to publish a daily rebuttal of smears called


Mail Watch and Tony was got at by ministers and stopped it. I hope Ed


Miliband goes back to it, the public needs to know the truth. The


real spin doctors are the journalist, the real poison comes


from people like Daker, a coward and bully, and doesn't have the


guts to defend himself against anybody, as soon as he is gone from


British public life the better. You are defending everything your paper


has published so far? I am defending it completely. You have


no idea what I believe. I know you are in line for the job, I hope you


get it, you are more reasonable than the sociopath. The idea that


you as Tony Blair's spin doctor respected politics is laughable.


You may laugh but the world will laugh at Mr Paul Daker. Back to


Jeremy in Manchester. Welcome back to Manchester.


Tomorrow afternoon when the Prime Minister finshes his speech here at


the Conservative conference it will end. Labour and the Lib Dems have


already headed home with their hangovers and party nick-nack, it


has been an oddly passionless conference season this year, maybe


it is partly the effect of fixed term parliaments. It is also


undeniable that these things are more and more of a minority pursuit,


fewer and fewer of husband want to belong to mainstream politic -- us


want to belong to mainstream political parties. The chairman of


the Conservative Party will explain it all away in a few minutes, but


first here is David Grossman explains.


"One day like this a year will see me right" the song goes, but the


Conservatives will need more than that to see them right. The cosy


tea shop OK co-s happier times in the 50s when millions of Britains


were active part members. These days perhaps another stand has the


better visual metaphor. Shock blaifrd -- delivered, provide chest


compressions and rescue breath. The British heart foundation is showing


how the latest equipment and a little training can make all the


difference. The question is are the parties now beyond resuscitation as


mass political movements. The fact is when you come to party


conferences like this one, the majority of people here aren't


party activists as all. They are lobbyists, exhibitors and yes,


journalists. Signing copies of his biography of Margaret Thatcher is


Charles Moore, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, he knows more


than most the mind of the Conservative supporter, but his


comments though apply, he says, to all the parties. It is about the


nature of the relationship between the party member and the people who


run it, which is now very dislocated. Now parties are run by


people who are a professional gang of politicians who don't have deep


roots in communities over the country. There is not much interest


for the members. It is not ticks off OK it is gay marriage and


Europe, what you need is a mass movement that comes up from the


base and emanates outwards. You see that in lots of other walks of life


because of the strength of the internet which allows those things


to grow. Political parties are so top-down in their attitudes they


don't know what to do with that. Just putting party politics


aside...And The Conservatives say that many of the volunteers who


help with call banks like this one aren't actually party members, just


supporters. It would be a bit odd, a senior minister told me, if we


demanded £25 subscription from one a senior minister told me, if we


before we would let them campaign for us. That points to another


problem, party finance, where they get their cash from? Each of the


parties has had its own funding scandals. As the mass membership


subscription has disappeared, they went rattling the tin in front of


rich donors, who, let's just say, some of them wanted something back


in return. The publicity and scrutiny led many donors to close


their chequebooks. Now the parties are struggling not only for members


but finance as well. They fear that come election time their candidates


could be easy pickings for single- ish epressure groups that are well-


funded and well-organised. The response from the coalition has to


be introduce legislation that ifed would severely restrict how much


non-party groups can spend come election time. The Countryside


Alliance is campaigning on rural broadband. It is one of a huge


array of pressure groups from all across the spectrum worried about


the new law. Do you think organisations like yours have


rather taken over from political parties? It is an interesting


question and not least, for instance our membership is 100,000,


I think the Conservatives are talking about a membership of


130,000 now, it is a probably thing that in the next few years we


willened up having more members than the Conservative Party. So I


think to a certain extent organisations like ourselves and


others who have even more support do have an awful lot of influence.


But of course none of us want to get involved in politics in the


day-to-day sense. The last thing we want to be doing is standing as


political candidates. The parties are now looking to do without


either mass memberships or rich donors by advocating more state


funding. According to Charles Moor, a better way forward is to accept a


looser kind of party affiliation. Suppose you had a sort of internet


party membership that only cost you a pound a year or something like


that. If you tried to build the membership you might get somewhere,


pretty much the opposite has happened. Therefore political


parties have become more like a sort of almost run by clever people


at the top, rather than emerging from the general wishes of hundreds


of thousands of people. That make them more cut off. The music hasn't


stopped for political parties, but they are all struggling with the


reality of fewer, older and less engaged members.


You may have forgotten about the bread that we mentioned a little


earlier in the programme. It is here. A jolly fine loaf it looks


too. Why you might wonder? The answer, because the Prime Minister


this morning admitted he doesn't know the price of a loaf of bread


because he prefers to bake his own. Specifically with Cotswold malted


crunch flour. This was too good a metaphor for a desperate producer


to ignore, we baked a loaf and brought it here along with some


more humble examples from a nearby supermarket. Our question, which of


these loaves better represents the modern Conservative Party. Take


this metaphor of loaves and let us know. Which ones will I choose from.


The cheap or posh bread? I think the truth about party membership is


that the world has changed and people don't join political parties


in quite the same way. If I was in your shoes and chairman of a party


and you lost 100,000 members in eight years I would be a bit


depressed? Let me correct the facts. It is worth on record I would love


the membership to be higher, of course I would. Secondly the


comparison membership, based on the same measures everyone else looks


at memberships it gives us 174,000 members. By fiddling the figures


you get more? 174,000 is the audited figure I published. I'm a


making the point it is comparative to other parties. The point Charles


Moore he was making at the end that people should support in different


ways is increase league important. Just this week we have set up if


you text the word "support" to 8100 you give a pound. That is a good


way people are engaging. Why are you give a pound. That is a good


people going? I think the world has changed a lot nowadays. A simple


example, in my last election I got a large, the largest majority that


has been seen in that particular political seat for any party. We


are probably the smallest membership that has been seen and


we have no branches and traditional struck stuer. Things have


we have no branches and traditional but it doesn't mean -- structure.


Things have changed but it doesn't mean members aren't engaged. What


is the average age of your members? Younger now. And the party


generally. It is said to be 68? The Bow Group wouldn't have access to


those numbers and I don't know the answer to myself. Shouldn't you?


Let me get one answer at the time, specifically you are doing an


Alastair Campbell. That is a low blow. I know, I know. But look the


Alastair Campbell. That is a low truth is that people ep gauge with


the party in lots of different -- engage with the party in lots of


different ways. Going back ten years. Let me get the one answer


out. Wouldn't have engaged with us, 200,000 people for example by


Facebook. And yet every day people do that. We have hundreds of


thousand of people requested and we, mail them on our e-mail list. That


is contact we would never have been before. And tens of thousands of


people donating via text and other methods, the world has changed. How


many people have left the party here? Why did you leave? I felt the


Conservative Party had become out- of-touch with me, my family and


those people in the community in of their policies the people and their


politics. Specifically? Education, I was a great believer, I was born


and grew up in Moss Side, not far from here. I went to a Grammar


School, effectively, and the Conservative Party don't support


that. Let's have another view or two about why you left? I left


because of tax actually, I'm a local councillor, I was elected as


a Conservative and my fellow Conservatives we all stood on a


platform of not raising tax. The first thing they did as soon as the


cuts came down from Government was raise tax. I felt I could no longer


support a party that didn't really put into action what it stood for.


One more before you reply, anyone else, you want to have a go with


the beard, good thing too? Thank you for standing up for beard-


lovers. Mine was more of a long- term drift. I fell out of love with


the party, even whilst I was a member in 2007/09 and campaigning


as I was on a regular basis and seeing how the Shadow Cabinet


weren't really as passionate as members were. They weren't fully


engaged until the very last mip. It was a good campaign when -- minute.


It was a good campaign in 2010 but it was too late, they all had other


jobs. When it came to constituencies we were campaigning


on they never shared our passion. All the points are relevant but


really there is a disconnect. Charles Moore made a point there is


a disconnect between the party elite and membership. Deal with


that? You get a lot of single issue campaigns, it doesn't matter if it


is the countryside or a specific issue people are passionate about.


People like to follow that on their own. What happens now is we will


set up a micro cam pain, we are concerned about the way that there


is easy access for internet for the children, it is difficult for


parents and people know how to regulate. It is something the


Conservative Party is concerned about it, we were able to set up a


campaign specifically on that issue. We had a lot of parents, mums dads


join that campaign who would probably never join a political


party so a political party has to change and campaign on the issues


that actually matter to people and often they are one-off things. Is


there anyone who has just recently joined the party? You tell us why


you joined? I joined because it was the party that represents my values


and I believe what grant was -- Grant was saying about the


membership changing is true. I'm chair of Hertfordshire's County and


we have a great Conservative future membership, of the 134,000 figure


18thois are under 40, future Conservative members. How come you


know that, or the chairman doesn't? Those figures are within the


know that, or the chairman doesn't? 174,000 figure that you didn't want


me to talk about. You sir in the second row? I'm not a recent joiner


in fact, but I would like to let my CF colleague I will represent them.


I'm going through the election process at the moment for local


authority candidacy in 2015, I believe it is young people, I have


said to the association chair on Saturday that it would be CF that


would be coming out for me largely. What would be coming out for you?


Conservative Future. I see. I have interests in LGBT Tory as well, but


that is a different issue. To come back we have an organisation which


I support which is LGBT Tory which is single issue LGBT equality. We


were great supporters when the same-sex marriage act was passed, I


think it is things like that. We will come to that in a moment or


think it is things like that. We two. What does he get for his £25?


I made the point, it was me disclosed cabinet minister who said


that comment to David Grossman earlier. I think the days when a


political party says to you, we won't accept your support until you


give us £25 are long since gone. I will give you one simple answer.


What do they get for £25? This is what you get, you get to vote for


the leader when the leadership comes up. You get to vote for who


becomes your. That is about every ten years you get a vote. Sure, I'm


not arguing against that. You get to vote for the selection of your


member, that could be a long time. That might be every 20 years? You


get to vote for a selection of councils that happens regularly. If


people want to get involved there are other ways to get involved


other than give £25. I have set up Team 2015, today we celebrated our


3,000th member. These are people who campaign in places that really


matter. And they pay £25? They don't, if they want to pay they can.


We don't ask for their money but their help. Their blood, sweat and


toil, people can join up at Conservatives.com by the way. There


are some members you are glad you have lost? No. Not every one? I


don't know every one personal low, I don't want to lose members of the


party. Every Party Chairman would want that. Not even the swivel-eyed


loans. You have -- loons. No. You have never met them? No. Supposed


you were to come across a swivel- eyed loon, you might well conclude


that it was a God thing that David Cameron didn't listen to the party?


I'm a Party Chairman and I want to see the membership grow, I'm


confident by the next election that 174,000 and 134 if you let me


include the 18,000 young people. That figure will grow and we have


taken an important step for the party, which is to be completely


open and transparent about membership and publish it, and it


allows competition between the different areas of the party to


increase it. For hard working people out there, who believe the


future of this country is greater, we are sitting in this incredible


Manchester Town Hall, a confident age when it was built, we believe


there is a confident future for this country. If you are out there


and watching you belong in the Conservative Party. Go to


Conservatives.com and join. The depth of the Conservative identity


Conservatives.com and join. The crisis be can be measured over the


confusion in the party over unquestionables. If they stood for


everything, they are surely the party of the family. Whilst there


may be a family in Britain that may not be dysfuntional, there are


certainly no two ideale ka. What constitutes a sensible family


policy in 2015 is a source of friction in the party. This is what


David Cameron said this week. Marriage is a great institution and


helps to build a good and strong society. It is right to back


marriage properly in the income tax system. Most other advanced


industrial countries do it and we should do it too. I'm proud to be


delivering on a promise I made in our manifesto. Critics would say


you are not helping the people who need to be helped though, they


might be single parents because the partner has left or died, why are


you helping those people who are in a stable marriage? We are helping


all families. We have cut taxes for 25 million working people. We have


put in place measures so you don't pay tax on your first £10,000 of


income. We are helping people with the costs of childcare. Marriage is


a good institution, other countries recognise marriage properly in the


a good institution, other countries tax system, that is what we are


doing too. Now we have been joined by two


further guests, Laura Perrin is from Mothers At Home Matter, and a


critic of the policy, and Joe an from Mothers At Home Matter, and a


Cash was a candidate at the election and also part of a


feminist Campaign Group. Do you feel that this Government


represents you? No I don't. And I have been deeply disappointed with


them. I think a classic policy that those how out-of-touch this


Government is, is when a cabinet, some of whom is full of


millionaires come and take child benefit from middle income earners


on £60,000 and replace it with a childcare allowance worth £1200 to


some families earning up to £300,000, then they bring in the


transferable tax allowance worth £200 to families on £40,000. They


make those changes with deeply insulting language, implying that


single earner families are not hard working or aspirational, and if you


choose to care for your child at home that is a lifestyle choice.


That is why there are many statistic at home moms and their


families deeply disillusioned with the party. Do you get this? I


understand that people have different perspectives on things. I


think there has come a time when we need to work more collaberatively


together. As a society as well as political parties. There is a lot


of disenchantment out there isn't there? Certainly our members, on my


Facebook group at home and they just feel that there is nobody in


their corner. We respect each choice that a family make, but the


Conservative Party should be about personal responsibility and liberty,


and to be leaving it to the families to decide how they care


for their child, either at home, or by both parties going out to work


or a mixture of the two. What current coalition policy does is


dictate to families how they should care for their children. They don't


view single-earner families as hard working families. They have never


referred to them as hard-working families. It is deeply insulting to


imply that caring for children at home isn't a job worthy of respect.


There are different perspectives on this. Some families don't have


choices, they don't have the luxury of choices. It is those families


that I would be particularly concerned to speak for. Which is


why I lobby for the Fawcett Society on behalf of all women for a fairer


society that benefits men, women and families. I think it is


understandable when people find themselves in a situation where


they feel their choices are being judged. But they have the luxury of


making choices, some people don't. It is those people we need to work


towards. There has been allowance given towards childcare...How Does


the party of family value get itself into this pickle? Grant will


have to answer that he's the Party Chairman. It is a fascinating


discussion, I don't agree it is a pickle at all. Very simply and not


mentioned, we have just this week said we will have transferable tax


allowance for married couples, in other words recognise marriage in


the tax system, that is something that would help somebody who was


potentionally at home. Has anyone here exercised by the Conservative


Party and family values? I actually resigned from the Conservative


Party because I believe that they were actually going back on the


coronation oath in doing their same-sex marriage business. The


coronation oath said that all laws same-sex marriage business. The


in this country made by the Queen and parliament should be in


accordance with the teaching of the Christian faith. Same-sex marriage


is not in accordance of the Christian faith. Who else is


concerned about gay marriage? I have been a member of the


Conservative Party for 50 years, and as Grant said, I have given


blood, sweat and toil, but I resigned in February because of the


same-sex marriage. Is anyone else concerned about it? It wasn't even


part of the manifesto, this is what is galling. It was just introduced


at the last minute. It was a free vote in parliament, every MP is


able to make up their minds on it and vote independently, by the way


there was absolutely no pressure on it. We know how your leadership


felt about it? People were allowed their views on it, I don't think


any of it is incompatible with having values and strong family


values. The tax break being able to transfer tax allowances between


husband and wife and married couple applies to any marriage. Is anyone


in favour of gay marriage? I happen to be the national chairman of


Conservative Future the aforementioned youth wing of the


party. A huge amount of our members believe that love and commitment


doesn't believe it matters whether a man and a man or woman and a


woman love each other, and it should be expressed in the tax


system. The church expressed a concern about being involved and it


has been he can cemented. Does it - - He can cemented. Does it bother


you? We were neutral. It does frustrate when you hear a


Government talking about equality and unfairness and they treat


others who want to care for children at home in a deeply unfair


manner. You don't have a policy children at home in a deeply unfair


towards single income families, what you said earlier is exactly


why people are so exercised about how you treat -- exorsised about


how you treat stay at home moms, as if it is a luxury. A lot of our


members make serious sacrifices to care for their children at home.


They are not people healthy in any way. And as I said they are making


serious sacrifices to care for those children, they are not taking


foreign holidays. You have other people like George Osborne coming


along and telling you it is a lifestyle choice, or indeed people


like yourself saying it is a luxury. It is not. I don't think that is


what I was saying. I think. You did suggest it was a choice? I said


there are people who don't have that choice. By implication there


are many people who do? Many people can't chose to be at home with


their children because they can't make ends meet and they have to


work. I'm not talking about the luxury of any kind when I talk


about those people. Those people I would like to see this Government,


this coalition Government doing a lot more to support single mothers


who have to go out to work. Families who cannot make ends meet.


who have to go out to work. Let's by all means let's gesture


towards commitment and show we believe in stable families and


units in all shapes and sizes and do more to help people who can't


make ends meet. This is not just about a group of mums who stay at


home to work. Stay at home to look after their children, of whom I am


one, by the way. It is also about the families who don't have the


opportunity to make that choice. I'm going to have to cut you off.


We are getting to the talk here this week and for the last couple


of weeks at other political this week and for the last couple


gatherings about what Governments ought to do rings rather hollow


when you look across the Atlantic and see what has happened to much


of the Government there. No-one blinked last night in the stare


down between Democrat and Republican legislator, result? Much


of the machinery of Government simply shut down today. Here is


what President Obama had to say. The shutdown is not about deficits


or budgets, this shutdown is about rolling back our efforts to provide


health insurance to folks who don't have it. It is all about rolling


back the Affordable Care Act. This more than anything else seems to be


what the Republican Party stands for these days. I know it is


strange that one party would make keeping people uninsured the centre


piece of their agenda. But that apparently is what it is. And of


course what is stranger still is that shutting down our Government


doesn't accomplish their stated goal. We have a speechwriter for


Geroge Bush but now a critic of the direction the Republican Party


seems to be headed. What has gone wrong with the system when a


Government can't operate? What has gone wrong here is a strategic


mistake. Republicans are opposed to the Obamacare proposal, I am, the


sway you repeal it is by having an alternative and winning elections


and having a platform. Because Republicans aren't successful the


party is frustrated and you have this intense passionate gesture but


it is one that will be almost impossible for Republicans to win.


Very likely, it is like that scene in Animal House when it is said


"there comes a time in everyone's in Animal House when it is said


life when for a futile gesture" that is where we are now. I want to


explore the way the right is breaking up here and in the states


in a moment or two. How can you think this will be resolved? Your


right is doing great, I don't know what you are talking about. Say


that to some of these guys who have left the party? In Britain the


that to some of these guys who have Conservatives are preparing to, are


not shutting down the Government, they are preparing to have a second


term in Government. That is the way it should be, they are developing


policies and winning peculiarities, and maybe a bigger one next --


plurality and maybe more in the next time the Republican Party


aren't winning these gestures and they have these policies that don't


work politically. How will it be resolved? With Republicans blinking


some time over the next week. We have a much more important deadline


coming up in the middle of October, around 17th of October, the debt


ceiling, what is not well understood outside the United


States is there are two different event. The shutdown of the


Government as annoying and irritating and silly as it is, it


has happened 17-times over the past 20 years it is the Government


running past its budget debt line, it is the debt ceiling which is the


end of the world scenario that comes in a couple of weeks. Will


there be an end to the world? Everyone understands, they are


playing with live ammunition at the moment, then they are playing with


live nuclear bombs, people don't do that. The legislators getting paid?


That is under the constitution, yes, and juplgs are paid. About 800,000


people are if you are lowed, and many are in -- furlowed, and many


of those are in Virginia, there is a governor's race there, neck and


neck between Democrats and Republican, part of the price will


neck between Democrats and be the loss of governorship in the


important purple state will be lost to the Republican candidate. You


are over here to see the Conservatives? I'm a big fan. This


part has not only lost a lot of members, it has also got a


political challenge in the shape of UKIP. What do you make of the


nature of the right? When the parties lost memberships, you are


dealing with disaffiliation from all institutions, the boy Scouts


have lost members, the Roman Catholic Church has lost members,


clubs and societies of every kind. We are not a joining generation in


clubs and societies of every kind. the way that the post-war gin


rations were. That is just a general -- generations were. That


is just a general phenomenon of post-industrial societies. My


advice on UKIP is the conditions are concerned about the loss of


votes to the right, don't trade one vote to the right for three votes


to the sent. Would you explain that I would say the Conservatives need


to deal with the issues. Ukip is dealing with important issues on


Europe and the economic crisis, it is important to address those


issues, don't be distracted by intensifying your base which is


widening the coalition. The tea party is an example what not to do.


The experience in Canada is an experience of what to do. The


Conservatives widened their base in canned gau practised a politics of


inclusion that made the Conservatives in Canada a truly


multiethnic party. That is the future, not chasing culturally


conservative elements. We leave you with the work of medical engineers


from the rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, who say they have


created the world's first prosthetic leg whose movement can


be controlled directly from the brain like a normal limb.


# Daily walking # Close to thee


# Just a closer walk with you # Let it be


# Dear Lord # Let it be


Download Subtitles