13/12/2012 This Week

As the winter chill spreads across the UK and The Snowman returns to

our screens, This Week is walking live on air. Frosty scenes in the

House of Commons, as Cameron and Miliband clash over "shirkers",

"strivers" and and frozen benefits. Writer and journalist Owen Jones is

hiding behind the curtains. Government are trying to turn some

of the poorest people in society against each other, it is time

Labour took on these bitter divisions.

The Government warms to gay marriage, but bans it for the

Churches of England and Wales. Journalist and commentator Medhi

Hassan floats in a moonlit sky at night. All is not well in the Tory

universe. Liberal Dave can't back down. It is all he's got to show

for his compassionate Conservatism. And flying high and looking down on

those below - the census shows that the mixed race population is the

fastest growing in Britain. The magic of This Week returns.

Evenin' all. Welcome to This Week. We had a major power cut. But we

are going to do our best. An early Christmas present in the shape of

Culture Secretary Maria Miller, who the Daily Telegraph have ever so

thoughtfully gift wrapped and placed under the tree of the

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. For those unaware of

this yuletide story, an update. Mrs Miller, MP for Basingstoke, is

accused of claiming over �90,000 of taxpayers' money to fund the cost

of a "second home" in South London, which also happens to be the

primary residence of her parents. Despite a ruling that housing

politicians' mums and dads is "specifically prohibited", Maria

claims she's been given the all clear by an "independent" audit

conducted by the Conservative Party, no less! Yet questions remain. Were

the Fees Office ever aware that her parents were living in the attic?

And why did her claims suddenly stop just as the expenses scandal

broke? On this point, Maria is commendably clear: "Because I think,

er, there was a lot of concern about the rules and a lot of

concern about, you know, er, the whole issue. And it's something I

felt that I didn't want to be sort of, er, mixed up in, the fact that

I, er, I just made that decision." Sounds like her defence is pretty

watertight. Move along now, nothing to see here.

Speaking of those who struggle to get their story straight, I'm

joined on the sofa tonight by a romance with the shelf life of

Maria Miller's Cabinet career, the Harry Styles and Taylor Swift of

late night political chat. I speak, of course, of #manontheleft Alan

"AJ" Johnson. And #sadmanonatrain Michael "you can blow my whistle

anytime" Portillo. Your moment of the week, Michael. Maybe two

moments. HSBC was fined �$1.9 billion, which might seem like a

lot of money to be fined, but considering they had taken $7

million the Mexican banknotes, presumably from Mexican drug

dealers, who murder about 12,000 people a year, I thought that was,

I thought they got off quite lightly. Three traders were

arrested in this country over their possible involvement in the

possible LIBOR interbank interest rate fixing. As part of the reforms

of our banking system, we do need to see the full application of the

criminal law and a few bankers in I think only the Co-Op Bank is left

with a clean pair of hands. But you always ask me to be brief. I do.

was looking forward to debating all of that, the LIBOR scandal, during

the next general election. In 2010 it worked quite well, the leaders'

debates. This week I hear the start of an income bebt David Cameron

deciding that while he was in opposition he liked the idea of a

televised debate, but now he's not to keen on the idea. I was there

and what he said is something which is true, but it doesn't mean that

we should not have a debate. That the debates have sucked the life

out of the rest of the campaign that. For three or four days before

the debate there was a big build-up to the debate. After the debate for

three or four days it was the aftermath. And then you started it

again. That's probably the result of three debates, and you not being

involved. You need be the main question master. I like that man.

The cheque's in the post. Thank you. So, we've learnt a little more

about what kind of man Ed Miliband is this week. Apparently, he's no

longer irritated at being compared to geeky plasticine character

Wallace. He certainly won't be giving his wife sexy underwear or

perfume for Christmas. And he's prepared to vote against the

Government's 1% cap on benefits, all of which could cause him

trouble in the long term. But it's the battlelines being drawn over

so-called skivers and strivers that we're most interested in, so asked

writer and journalist Owen Jones to If you were to believe the

Chancellor, George Osborne, everybody on tax credits or benefit

is a lazy good for nothing shirker, sitting on their sofas all day with

their curtains closed, and watching Jeremy Kyle, with no intention of

getting off their bums and into work. George Osborne's shirkers are

the undeserving poor. I'm deeply disturbed by the

psychology of a politician who uses the livelihoods of millions of

working poor and unemployed people as a political football. That's

exactly what Osborne is doing with his 1% cap on benefits. It's a real

terms cut for the living standards of Britain's poorest.

It is directing the resentment of low paid workers towards the

supposedly luxurious conditions of the unemployed neighbours. Has

there ever been such a deliberate attempt to turn people against each

other? Thatcher would blush. George Osborne considers himself a masser

strat gist, and attempted to set up a trap for Labour to walk into.

Putting the indolent skivers George Osborne has got this badly

wrong. Six out of ten of those who will suffer his cuts are in work.

And the vast majority of those out of work are desperately trying to

find it. Osborne claims these measures will help make work play,

but given that the majority of people in poverty in Britain are in

working house holds, this is Courage, defying the Blair ate old

and defending the interests of the battered poor by saying they will

vote against Osborne's cap. People shouldn't be punished because their

employers pay them bad wages or they are unemployed and there is

simply isn't the work out there. The problem for Miliband is that

there was a Government and media- fuelled pandemic of hatred against

scroungers and the opposition need to challenge it.

Osborne has exposed the inhumanity of the Tory Party determined to

make the poorest pay for the economic calamity it has unleashed.

Owen Jones in his little flat in London. Welcome back to the

programme. Labour suggests this, Ed Miliband is walking into a trap set

by the Chancellor, but he knows that and he's prepared to take the

Chancellor on. Agree or disagree? Agree, he's going to take him on,

but I don't think it's a trafplt there is a MORI poll which shows

that the majority of people believe benefit shouldn't be cut. What he

is talking about here is something which wasn't done in the recession

of the '80s or the '90s. I find it distasteful that you are trying to

divide people in the way that Owen suggests. But you are saying to

somebody who has just lost his job at Comet, average page �480. 4% in

2016. You are saying to this person you are going get a �4.71 rise. You

are now going on jobseeker's allowance, that's �17 a week. You

are going to get a 71p rise. It just zrpbgts it is not fair on any

basis. So by how much should benefits go up? I think benefits

should go up in line with inflation. I would listen to an argument that

says that because we are in these times inflation should be averaged,

something like that, but to say crudely that because there's a 1%

cap on public sector pay, and incidentally if you are in work you

might do a few extra hours overtime. You might go on night shift and get

night allowance. There's ways to earn more money when you are in

work, even with a cap on pay. And that has to apply to some of the

most valuable people in society. Forget the 60% in work. I don't

take this issue about all the people out of work are shirkers.

Unemployment is 12.2% in my constituency. Comet have just lost

jobs. BAE. Seven. Seas moving abroad because of the economy.

These are private sector jobs. These people shouldn't be treated

in this way or demonised. Alan says it is not even a trap. That's one

bit I do possibly agree with. It has now emerged that quite a lot of

the people who are going to get the 1% rise are in work. However, I do

think that the situation is more complicated than Alan says. The

public sector workers have had their pay frozen for a period of

time and now it is rising by 1%. Last year there was no freeze to

benefits. Benefits went up by quite a generous amount. I think the

Chancellor has made a case for moving tax thresh holds up by less

than the rate of inflation. Benefit rates along with it. Yes, I do

think at the margins the fact that the Chancellor is trying to make it

no more attractive to be out of work than it is already, I think

that does play. In the past five years, benefit have gone up by 20%.

Wages have gone up by 10%. So isn't it time to redress that balance a

bit? I don't accept the logic which this Government has embraced with a

passion, which is. This you've been mugged and therefore your neighbour

should be mugged as well. There is a real problem predating the crisis

with people's real wages declining. Four years before Lehman Brothers

came crashing down, the bottom half of pay stagnated, but the bottom

third it started to decline. The issue we have in this country over

the next ten years according to the Resolution Foundation, if you are

in the bottom 10%, your income is set to decline by 15% overall. What

we are seeing with this particular possible, it's the first time since

1931 where the real income of the poorest is set to fall as a

deliberate act of Government policy. That's unprecedented. No, it is not

unprecedented. It was precedented in 1931. It was precedented in 1931

by a Labour Government, because it was a very difficult time. I don't

think Alan has smelt the coffee either. What happened in 1931? This

is why Labour thankfully learnt from their past mistakes. In 1931 a

Labour Government was toppled after attempting to impose those cuts and

the Prime Minister ended up in coalition where the Conservatives.

What we learnt from the early 1930s, I hoped, as a left, if you like

sshes that you don't suck demand out of the economy and you don't

make the poorest pay for an economic crisis they had nothing to

Why should benefits rise more than wages? The issue is again, this

divide and rule tactic where you say, look, the unemployed are doing

better than you, which isn't true and if you compare benefits here to

other countries, they are comparatively lower, the issue we

have to argue for is to take on declining wages not least because

Tax Credits, which are included in the benefits cap. The foint make

there are, Tax Credits are a lifeline for millions, but they are

a subsidy for pay because businesses aren't paying their

workers properly. We have to tackle low pay as well and fight for

better wages, not least because the taxpayer picks up the bill for low

wages. Is it the case that you would find the savings somewhere

else or is your case the Government should borrow more? You think the

Government could borrow more? want to bring down spending, and

there are different ways of doing it. Housing Benefit - the taxpayers

are angry and right to be about the amount wasted on Housing Benefit.

That's a subsidy for landlords charging extortionate rates. We

should be arguing for a... This is the thing the Government have tried

to do something about. They have tried to cap Housing Benefit which

kicks the tenant. We need to build houses which would stimulate the

economy and bring down the Housing Bill. That is not being proposed by

this Government. We are seeing a cap which would end up with

thousands of people driven out of their homes. Are you sure this

isn't a trap, Alan? The New Labour experiment always tried to be much

more broad-based than the traditional Labour tribe and it did

so by being on the side of aspiration. Although it never

really delivereded, it had the rhetoric of welfare reform and

staying at home and doing nothing is not an alternative if there is a

job available? We introduced the minimum wage, Tax Credits, dragged

2.6 million pensioners out of abject poverty and children out of

poverty. It was always our aim to look at the disadvantaged and make

sure that you didn't leave them floundering. So of course he meant

it as a trap but this is the great strategist who convinced Cameron to

appoint Andy Coulson the great strategist who thought you could

put a tax on pasties and caravans. I don't care what focus groups are

saying, it's wrong, I feel it there, it's wrong. I sense that's what Mr

Miliband will be saying too. I wonder if Mr Osborne calculated Mr

Miliband would waeck walk into his "Trap". -- walk into his "Trap".

What Mr Osborne thought was that at the east Mr Miliband would be in a

dilemma and that's exactly what he's been in, as I understand it.

It's taken him a week to decide what his policy is. On the first

day it was perfectly clear that 60% of the people affected were those

in work. But on the day, he and Ed Balls devised these form lay about

we can't tell yet, we'll have to see what's on the bill. Absolute

rubbish, it's taken the Labour Party a week to come up with a

decision which I think at the very least is going to weaken their

opposition because the Government can always say to them that they

didn't have a very clear position to begin with. By the way, the

argument somewhat depends on pinning this on a really evil

wicked Conservative Government. Of course these are not the facts of

the matter at all. We have a coalition Government and an

opposition that's taken a week to decide that it's the wrong thing to

do. I accept that and certain figures within the Shadow Cabinet

oppose this decision. They wanted to end up supporting the cap and I

wonder why such people end up in the Labour Party but there we have

it. I ask you this, Michael, are you not uncomfortable, not least

given the One Nation tradition of the Conservative Party, at the

rhetoric which is dividing the non- disabled people against disabled

people and private sector workers against public sector workers.

uncomfortable with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in

the Autumn Statement, no. What he said about the cur trains drawn?

Yes, what he said is true of a certain section of the population,

I don't know how tiny or large, it doesn't apply to the entire

argument because we are talking about people who're taking in-work

benefits. You would be making a mistake if you don't think many

British voters agree with what the Chancellor said. They will have

evidence in their neighbourhoods that this is the case. This poll

showed 69% of people either supported increasing above

inflation. You can always be generous with taxpayers' money and

both of you have been this evening. Most people are desperately

striving for work, if you like. When we talk about the tiny

proportion of people, this idea in the Daily Mail you get of people

made of wide-screen TVs watching Jeremy Kyle, you... The welfare

state has produced an effect that beverage feared but discounted

which is that it's discouraged certain people from working and

that's an important issue, one that is recognised by the Liberal

Democrats, Conservatives and the Labour Party. An interesting thing.

You have now got the kind of dividing line you like. Labour is

taking what might be described as your left-wing position on this, so

the Tories will stick with what they are doing. This is a test of

your view of what the Labour Party should stand, if you can't carry

the public on this, your hard left view of where Labour should be can

crumble? It's standing up for people in society. Never mind the

language, what is the answer to the question, this is a test? It is and

it shouldn't be put to the Labour Party only, we need a grass roots

argument. We need political space. At the moment, the debate on

welfare's so toxic. Unless we have an afement to challenge that debate

that, toxicity, this tuitions between people, tling be very

difficult for the Labour Leadership to make the case and I accept that

-- it will be very difficult. Come back and see it when it's

worked out. Thank you. According to the latest this week

census, viewers from a mixed drinks background are our fastest minority

growing group. In honour of the Blue Nun melting pot, waiting in

the wings with one she made earlier, Konnie Huq is here to talk about

the changing face of the nation. For those of you still coming to

terms with change and with drink, you can always bang on about the

good old days on the Twitter, the Facebook and the last century

interweb. Tonight I said we had problems, there was a power cut in

our part of Westminster in this particular Millbank studio. We put

a lot of effort into trying to put things up again, the Director

General came round, he put the shilling in the metre, that helped

us, though he was surprised to find it took more than a shilling. There

is a piece we wanted to get out of the computer but we couldn't get it

out. We were supposed to be covering gay marriage, the argument

about drugs, Europe and also about the career prospects of Marie

Miller who I mentioned at the start of the programme, the Culture

Secretary. We can show you a bit of some of that. Gay marriage hit the

headlines today, a huge argument not just about should it be

legalised but whether or not churches should be legally banned

from doing it all together. This is what Mary had to say on gay

marriage. The legislation will exples sitly

state that it will be illegal for the churches of England and Wales

to marry same-sex couples. If there's any church, synagogue or

mosque that doesn't want to conduct a gai marriage, it will absolutely

not be forced to hold it -- gay marriage. These proposals are an

outrage. Might be better to leave the institutions to manage their

own. This commands widespread support in the country.

That was some clips from Parliament on the gay marriage debate. Prime

Minister's Questions was pretty lively this week. We covered it

live on the Daily Politics. It concentrated on frontbench

exchanges between what we were just having a debate about here, about

the uprating of benefits by only 1% and Labour's decision to oppose

that. Here is a flavour of the exchanges at Prime Minister's

Questions. I want to ask him about the people

who're doing the right thing and finding work. Now, last week, in

his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor decided to cut Tax

Credits and benefits. He said it was the shirkers, the people with

the curtains drawn who'd be affected. Can the Prime Minister

tell us how many of those hit are actually in work?

The fact is this, that welfare - I will answer - welfare needs to be

controlled and everyone, everyone who is on Tax Credits will be

affected by the changes because we have to get on top of the welfare

Bill. That is why we are restricting the increase on out of

work benefits and it's also the reason why we are restricting in-

work benefits, but what we've also done is increase the personal

allowance because on this side of the house we believe in cutting

people's taxes when they are in work.

Now, I notice he wants to get away from what the Chancellor of the

Exchequer said last week. We know what the Chancellor was trying to

do, he was trying to play divide and rule. This is what he said. He

said his changes "Were all about people living a life on benefits,

still asleep while their neighbours go out to work." but, Mr Speaker,

it turned out it just wasn't true. It is a tax on strives. Will the

Prime Minister now admit the Chancellor got it wrong and the

majority of people hit are working people? I'm surprised the Shadow

Chancellor is shouting again. I'm surprised he's shouting again this

week. Because we learnt last week, like bullies all over the world, he

can dish it out but he can't take I've heard everything when the boy

from the Bullingdon club lectures people on bullying! Absolutely

extraordinary. Have you wrecked a restaurant recently?!

Prime Minister's Questions had everything about it. You wonder

what the rest of the world thinks if they were watching.

David Cameron's I'm sure never wrecked a restaurant. Miranda Green

is with us. I never have, I never would. Oh, really?! We'll see about

that. Gay marriage. Or equal marriage. Are the Lib Dems proud to

be part of a coalition that is doing something or disappointed

that it's not doing enough? No, I think genuinely proud. I also think

on this issue actually that there are a couple of interesting things

going on. I think it's a massive mistake to search for pure motives.

Well, in life generally actually. Some of the criticism being hurled

at David Cameron that he's only doing this because it's part of his

detoxification strategy, if we get progress on a major issue of

equality, let's take it or pocket it, don't question why. Where are

you on this, Alan? Are you disappointed that there are these

opt-outs for the Church of England? Disappointed but I suppose there's

an issue there going by the consultation that they wanted to

make sure that nobody could claim that it was an equalities issue

here and they couldn't be dragged through the courts. I thought over

the weekend that actually the Government were getting their act

together. We have seen so many policies we believed in but didn't

seem to have the energy to go out and support. Over the weekend when

Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and then John Major, it looked like

there was a coordinated action here to get this through. The Church of

England stuff kind of I think diminished that a little bit. That

was a surprise at the end but we'll vote for it and it will go through

I'm sure. I think there is a majority in Parliament. Putting

aside the substance, Michael, is the Prime Minister right to make so

much of this, because he does seem to be leading from the front on

this, which is not necessarily that popular either with a lot of his

backbenchers, or with the grass roots of this party. At a time when

he's not that popular either because his economic policy isn't

working? One misconception is the idea that David Cameron has chosen

to pick up a subject for which there was no clamour, no vested

interest that was lobbying for it. Whilst in a limited way that was

true, what is clear is that same- sex marriage is sweeping the

western world, and the idea that you could have had a vote in

Washington state, a referendum to legalise single sex marriage and

that the issue wouldn't have been raised here is absurd. So David

Cameron had a choice. He could either be enthuse castic or he

could try to block it or he could be hostile -- enthusiastic. The

last two options seem not to have been open about it. He had to be

enthusiastic. The Republicans in the United States have demonstrated

to us that if you spend all your time appealing to your grass roots,

you will not win the general election. On the social issues?

There are vastly more gay people out there and an even broader group

of people who're proponents of gay rights. And these people who

haven't voted Conservative for the last 40 years, they are far more

numerous than members of Conservative Party. As an election

strategy, it makes a lot of sense and it's a Neon sign that you put

up that says the Conservative Party has changed and then people see

this and say, that is interesting, I wonder what else is new about the

A Royal Commission looking at drugs will be a total waste of time and

money. Agree or disagree. Disagree strongly. If you look at what's

happening globally, if you look at the drug wars in Mexico. Tens of

thousands of people being murdered, both in the exporter countries of

drugs and in the consumer countries like ourselves and the US.

Something has to change, because this idea that we are fighting a

worldwide war against this enemy, well, we're losing it. We have to

reconsider for the good of the supplier nation it is and our own

crime problems and health problems. You don't seem to be as reformist

on drugs in power as it was in opposition. This is one of those

issues where you have to be several decades ahead. The Royal

Commission... And then when you get in power, you don't do anything.

Jeremy Browne is a really good egg. He's been on television this week

non-stop saying they are not going to have a Royal Commission. Harold

Wilson always had a Royal Commission on everything, and it

gave it a bad name, because it was a good way of kicking things into

touch. Alan, a good or a bad thing. If you look at the statistics, the

use of drugs is coming down. This report was suggesting the opposite.

Not just about legislation and criminalisation. It is about

education. It is about health, it is about offenders going on a drugs

rehabilitation programme as part of their sentence. It is about even

prick heroin to drug easers. You give them smaller amounts, for

people who cannot get off drugs in any other way. And the report says

we are losing the war on drugs. Sorry? Even among young people drug

use was less.. But legal highs among young people is a massive

problem. That's because they are legal. This report says make them

all legal. Where are you on this Michael? I think a Royal Commission

would be a complete waste of time. This is an area where politicians

decide what they think they can do. They obviously take a very

conservative view of what they think the public is going to wear.

Time and again politicians have rejected advice given to them by

experts. If David Cameron could dismiss Leveson in fiver minutes,

he could dismiss a Royal Commission in even less time, so no point in

having a Royal Commission. He has a point. He does. It seems to me, I

hear what Alan says and I think there's some sense to it. On the

other hand I find it difficult to believe that on the whole marijuana

is much more damaging to people than alcohol. I myself enjoy

alcohol very much and therefore feel hypocritical telling my

friends. But part of the marijuana you may have heard about at

University is a lot more tough. I want to move on to Europe. This

speech the Prime Minister is supposed to be giving is a long

time coming. This speech I was at in the Commons to the press gallery,

he compared it to tantric sex, that it was a long time coming but it

would be better when it would. is a wag. He is struggling, is he

not, to find out exactly what he should say. In a way all that

matters to many people in this party is whether he will either

lead them out of Europe or give them a referendum on in and out. If

we had a referendum on in and out I think the public would certainly

vote for out. Therefore if you have a referendum you would be

effectively saying Britain was leaving the European Union. The

Conservative Party is moved bay tremendous distance in the Euro-

sceptic dimension. Whereas 20 years ago John Major had problems with

his party because they thought he was going to take them further into

the single currency, today David Cameron has enormous problems

because he isn't saying he is going to lead them out of the European

Union. It is difficult for me to think what he will at a to buy off

his opponents. I don't think he will buy them off, but I think he

is going to kick into it the long grass. What he is going say, I

understand, if he wins the next election, by that I mean an overall

majority, he will go to Europe and attempt to renegotiate a lot of

things back. If he does he will have a referendum which will be

accept this renegotiation or leave. Which the Lib Dems won't like but

it doesn't affect you during this coalition. No, but it is about

buying off UKIP isn't it really? And the internal shift that's

happened in the Conservative Party that Michael describes. I've said

this before and I will say it again. We must not let British policy on

such an important area, on which jobs depend, on which economic

growth depends, be affected in a disastrous way by the Conservative

Party's fear of UKIP. Which may or may not be to do with the death of

Conservative England. I was waiting for someone to make the case, a

Government Minister, 20 years ago when you were in Cabinet Michael a

whole host of people would have been making the case for Europe.

Damian Green is the Policing Minister, made a really interesting

speech saying it would be fantastic to be in the EU with all thes

advantages of free trade et cetera. None of that damaged by pulling out

of the EU. It would be fantastic, because it's a fantasy. I want to

see that from more Ministers. the young MP for this district said

the same point on the Daily Politics. Why would Europe say you

can still be in the club but with none of the responsible tis? Sorry

to interrupt you but we have to move on. There is nothing like a

good census to get new the mood for Christmas. We've already got the

Virgin Mary and the little donkey on the sofa. You decide which is

which. This week we are putting the cens news the spotlight.

-- census in the spotlight. What a difference a decade makes.

The findings of the 2011 census pit a very different picture of England

and Wales to society ten years ago. Immigration played a big part, with

13% of the population now foreign born. And people identifying

themselves as mixed race has doubled. With Olympic poster girl

Jessica Ennis declared the face of the census as well as the Games. In

London, white British people were no longer the majority. For the

very first time. And as if on cue a Sikh soldier guarding the Queen at

Buckingham Palace wearing a turban instead of a bear skin. But are we

also becoming more God snls Christianity has falling numbers,

while those with no belief rose sharply. The census threw up some

more unusual facts. You are most likely to be single in Islington

and divorced in Blackpool. And does anyone know where you are most

likely to be a miner? Kensington and Chelsea of course. It is where

the gold diggers live. Konnie Huq joins us. Welcome to

theefpblgt now, this business about mixed -- welcome to This Week. This

business about mixed race down until ten years, can we conclude

that for most people in society interracial marriage is not a taboo

any more? I think the figures dropped from 40% of people in the

last census did not approve of interrational marriage compared to

15% now. That's a hefty drop. Whereas 50 or 60 years ago people,

"Guess who is coming to dinner?". Yes, but I think more or less a lot

of what we found from this census was quite predictable. We saw it

coming. If you think that now second generation Asians and Afro-

Caribbean people are marrying, and everyone is going to prolive ate

and absorb. It is just what we would have expected isn't it?

census shows a huge change particularly for England and Wales,

and particularly in London, because of the high immigration over the

past ten years. Both the size and the speed of this immigration. Some

people are still concerned about that. Well, with all the EU members

from 2004 I don't think people anticipated how many migrants would

come into the UK. If you think about, say, Spain and Portugal.

When they joined, we didn't have the influx that we've had. I think

Polish migrants have gone up ninefold. A huge increase in

Eastern Europeans in jet. But the statistics that were predicted were

aoff. But this is what has happened throughout the ages. People will

move. The past ten years are unique in British history in the scale of

the immigration. Was that intentional by Labour? No. That's

claptrap about an open door policy is just that - claptrap. We did

agree in 2004, wait as a different world. We had 600,000 vacancy sis,

an we also felt if we lowed Polish and I think it it was Czech

Republic as well, Polish in particular it would form a liaison

with them for things we wanted to do in Europe. White have happened

anyway, within three or four years, but in hindsight the numbers were

much bigger. It did cause problems in communities. It did cause a

shock. Did you lose control over it? Don't think we ever lost

control. If you look at net migration, it was coming down. The

hate gone up in the two years since this Government has been in. If you

look at France, Germany... migration was 50,000 a year when

you came in and when you left it was 200,000. It was 13,000.

migration was 50,000 in 1997. Earth was 200,000 and more when you left

power. Whether you lost control of it is not a matter, but it's a huge

increase. That's not right. It was 163,000. 200,000 was the high point.

From 50,000? No, it was 50,000 way back. If you look at what the UN

section populations are moving around, globalisation in terms of

population movement, affected all countries. It affected Germany and

France more than us. It has affected London more than any other

place in brifpbt it may be the badge of an international city

state that people who regard themselves as white British are now

a minority in the capital. Is that because London tpwhrongs the world

now? What the census can't record is the change the attitude. I sense

there's been a big change in attitude over the 20 years. The

Brixton riot in 1981. Then the mixed race element of London had a

certain edgyness to it. People were quite tense about it. Today there

is an almost universal celebration of London's diversity. It's a very

big change. In terms of attitudes to immigration, to mixed race

marriage, attitudes to the diversity now, you must have

noticed a huge change. This country has changed its attitude. Yes, but

ten years from the last census to now, it is neerbl a generational

gap. You look at -- nearly a generational gap. You look at

children's TV for example, that's where I hail from. Havingeth mix

minorities on most programmes these days, it becomes a norm. It is par

for the course. But it was unusual when you started, was it not?

remember when I got my job, the headline was first British Asian

Blue Peter presenter. Now it is neither here nor there really.

yesterday we had the first Sikh turban-wearing guards man. We've

run out of time. That's your lot for tonight, folks. But not for us,

because with gay marriage all the rage, it's "Westminster Village

People" night at Annabel's tonight. Hank the Cowboy, and Brad the

Leatherman will be joined onstage by Alan the Postman and Michael the

Train Driver for a heartfelt rendition of YMCA. These must be

the scary "unintended consequences" Baroness Warsi warned us about. But