11/07/2013 This Week

Westminster's Centre Court, as we try and get some of that Murray

feel-good factor. As our political leaders jump on the Wimbledon

bandwagon, the temperatures rose to near boiling point on the Common's

show court, as the top seeds clashed over party funding. Watching from

the refreshment tent, stand-up comedian and former Labour Party

worker Matt Forde. Ed Miliband and Len McCluskey have been thrashing it

out all week. But is it going to end love all?

As Andy Murray celebrates on the court, his off-court earnings could

double or treble. But what should we be paying our MPs? Broadcaster,

Matthew Wright, is soaking up the rays. The word on the beach is that

MPs are already creaming it and now they want to stick a flake in it.

And accusations of sexism at Wimbledon, as the Ladies' Champion

is described as not "a looker". Former model and entrepreneur

Myleene Klass, serves an ace. not be standing for any sexism on

tonight's show, Andrew. New balls, please.

Evenin' all. Welcome to This Week, the show that pays salty peanuts and

is still surprised when all it gets are cheeky monkeys in return. But

when it comes to under-performing public servants who consider

themselves undervalued, even though they're in a job that requires no

training, qualifications or experience, it's hard to compete

with your average Member of Parliament. Yet this week the wee

darlings were forced onto the defensive, following the proposal to

bump up their pay by almost 10%, with outraged MPs lining up to

denounce the increase, while throwing their hands up and claiming

they're powerless to prevent it reaching their bank accounts. Of

course, the logic for a pay rise is undeniable. First, we need to pay

them more or they'll start fiddling their expenses again. Second,

without better pay, the best and brightest will skedaddle to more

lucrative jobs in the better paid Japanese parliament! Third,

well-paid people are woefully under-represented in Parliament! We

clearly need more. And most important of all, paying well-paid

people even more money obviously means improved performance and

better results! After all, it worked for bankers, G4S executives and BBC

bosses. So why wouldn't it work for Gordon Brown? Speaking of those

whose attendance is patchy at best, I'm joined on the sofa by the former

London Mayor, and the present wardrobe nightmare of late-night

political chat. I speak, of course, of #newtlabour "Red" Ken

Livingstone, and #sadmanonatrain Michael "Choo Choo" Portillo. Your

moment of the week. It is good fun being chairman of the select

committee and Margaret Hodge milked it this week as chairman of the

Public accounts committee. She interviewed Lord Patten, chairman of

the trustees of the BBC. And it occurred to one, as the interview

went along, as to whether there was anything that had happened in the

BBC in recent years of which Lord Patten had any knowledge whatsoever,

or whether there was anything within the BBC for which he claimed any

responsibility. Now, if it is true that the trustees knew nothing and

had no cause to know anything about remuneration, then they cannot

possibly do their job and the system of trustees who know nothing and

cannot defend the licence payers interest is, cannot possibly go on.

But Mark Thomson has said, I told them everything. That is what he

said but I choose for the moment to believe Lord Patten. Just in case

one thinks this is a trivial amount, the amount they paid off is one

third of the annual budget of BBC Radio 4, and BBC Radio 4, I speak as

one who takes money from them, is a fine institution. They should have a

bigger budget, so you can buy more shirts. You do not need them on the

radio. They look good on the radio, unlike TV. Another privatisation.

High priest of capitalism, Adam Smith, wrote that you should never

allow a monopoly to be in private hands. It is easy to say it would

have been worse if we had not privatised it, but we know from

looking at America, where one American in eight look -- lives in a

city that did not privatised their energy, on average they pay 11%

less, year-on-year. We are going to be ripped off. They say, we will not

let them move away from the six-day delivery and five or ten years down

the road there are huge pressures. assume you are talking about the

Royal Mail? Absolutely right.Was there any privatisation you

favoured? British Airways was the only one. If services had got worse,

we would have switched. With the telephones, it was because the

Treasury would not allow them to borrow. Because the Treasury is

filled with mandarins who hate the idea of public ownership. Nothing

like the battles of the 1980s to get you going.

Now, ever since their votes helped secure Ed Miliband's position, his

relationship with the trade unions has been a potential fault line for

the Labour leader. This week he called for a "big and historic"

change, which would see individual trade unionists given the choice to

join the Labour Party rather than be automatically affiliated via their

union. But is this really such a radical move? Has Miliband gone far

enough to take on the power of the unions? We turned to former stand up

comedian and former Labour party worker Matt Forde. This is his Take

unions go together like beer and sandwiches, which Harold Wilson used

to serve to the unions when they visited him in Downing Street. Much

has changed since then. Beer comes from fashionable breweries, and

sandwiches are no longer ham and cheese. One thing has not changed,

the trade union stranglehold over the Labour Party. I have been a

Labour Party supporter all of my life, and before I became a

comedian, I used to work for the Labour Party. One of my jobs was to

look after the selection process the Labour Party candidates. Take it

from me, the level of influence unions have over the Labour Party

goes deeper than most people think. You would be amazed at the power

they have behind closed doors. Ed Miliband was caught on the hop when

Unite tried to rig a selection process in Falkirk. He says he wants

to change the relationship with the unions but has not given any pledges

or a timescale. Not only is it all froth. Ed Miliband is not a strong

enough leader to deliver real change. You just know he is going to

The Labour Party is financially dependent on the unions. Tony Blair

was the only Labour leader to try to bypass that vested interest by

bringing in wealthy donors. As much as it pains me to say it, as a fan

of his, that did not end in glory either. Although no charges were

ever brought. I will take those two, please. All of the parties have had

problems with funding. The Tories cashing in from friends in high

places, labour with the unions, and the Lib Dems taking money from a man

who turned out to be a common law. Until we have the courage to take on

the issue of party funding, we will lurch from scandal to scandal, or in

the case of the Lib Dems, from sandal to sandal. Asking the

taxpayer to pick up the bill might leave a bitter taste in the mouth,

but it is vital if we are going to put people back in charge and

clean-up X. I will drink to that. Cheers! -- clean up politics.

And joining us here, Matt Ford. You are tough on Mr Miliband, but even

Tony Blair says that he is doing what he should have done when he was

leader of the Labour Party. It is a step in the right direction. For

those of us who have been Labour Party members for a long time, the

relationship with the unions has always been difficult. But there is

not a lot of detail and I do not have enough faith in him as a leader

to believe he will see it out. If he is doing it, he has to do it quick.

If this goes into conference week, he will have the Labour Party

conference we have not seen the like of since the 1980s. Dominated by

internal affairs when they should be speaking to the country. Is Mr

Miliband right to want to change the relationship between the unions and

the Labour Party? I think it is right... The tragedy of the Blair

years is that 60% of members left in disgust. Falkirk did not have more

than about 100 members. If you can get the trade unions to sign up

people and be involved, this will eat great. I have supported the

things he has said, as Len McCluskey has. The current relationship is not

particularly good because you do not get the real active involvement. I

want local trade unionist is coming into local Labour Party meetings. At

my local Labour Party meeting six months ago, there were only about

six people in the room. That is true of all parties. Cameron is making

the same mistake that Blair did, alienating the core members. When

Tony Blair first came in, membership rocketed, amongst ordinary people

who said, finally, a party leader who does not feel entrenched in the

old union or not down trees, Labour versus Tories. -- boundaries. That

is something we want to emulate. Cast the net wider. Try to get

everybody in. Tony Blair had that wonderful glow of popularity for a

short while. 60% of Labour Party members left under Tony Blair and

Gordon Brown. When I ran against Frank Dobson in 2000, there were

80,000 members in London. In 2010, we were down to 30,000. Even

Unite's internal polling shows that a big chunk of the union membership

does not vote Labour, but they vote Conservative, Lib Dem, UKIP, green

or whatever. Why do you think, if they have the choice of contributing

to the Labour Party, they will take it? Instead of taking that for

granted, Labour leaders and trade union leaders had to work and

interviews. Where I disagree with you, is that you pretty much guess

Ed Miliband. I have dealt with every Labour leader since Callaghan. With

the exception of John Smith, Ed Miliband is the strongest. I spent

hours with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. We will get back to you on

that. You never hear anything. Ed Miliband will say straight to your

face, that is wrong and we are not going to do that. There was a line

from Winston Churchill about Clement Attlee. An empty taxi arrived at

Westminster and Clement Attlee got out. Just because he is not addicted

to soundbites and this personality guff that dominated the Tony Blair

years, do not underestimate his determination to change written.

you sure this will lead to a reduction in the power of what we

used to call union barons? As I am the standard, the way it works is

that if you decide not to opt in, a chunk of the political levy does not

go to the Labour Party. But it does not go back to you. It stays with

the union, which gives them a bigger political fund. These are the

details which need to be fleshed out. What happens to the political

levy, and to the block vote at conference. How much power do unions

have? Ken Livingstone talked about meetings with only six people. That

is where the unions are most powerful because they have a couple

of affiliate members and they get the candidates they want that do not

reflect wider membership. The Tories are having a field day with this at

the moment but the fact is, as Ed Miliband pointed out that prime

ministers questions, financing of the Tory party is not a pretty

sight. I agree. I think you are right that this will end up with

state funding. White road do you think that would be right? I think,

like democracy, it is the best option out of all the others. The

public will not stand for big donors, and the fact that they get

titles and dominate Conservative party policy. We cannot do democracy

without parties, and the public has a responsibility. The other thing

the public has decided is not to join parties as members, so there is

no source of money from there. I am in favour of privatisation and

against nationalisation, so why would I be in favour of the

nationalisation of parties? I am not really. I predict two problems. One,

state funding will go to parties already established. And the second

thing is that parties, when they have state funding, would behave

like the BBC. The money will not be their own and so they will spend it

lavishly on salaries and severance payments. Every time you have a

change of mood, or a change of leadership and they will pay off the

old guard on public money. However, I think these scandals might be less

bad than the scandals we are suffering at the moment. Do you

think there is a group of people around Mr Miliband urging him to be

tough with the unions, so that it is a defining moment for them? We had

Lord Mandelson Ellison, David Blunkett. But they are not close to

him. I think the people close to him recognise that you've got to keep

that link but you need to reform it. I found that Ed Miliband is really

open to new ideas, and he is actually interested in that. But he

didn't intend to do this, Ken. He's rushed into this. Let's not forget

the mistake Neil Kinnock made. He spent his first term as leader

dealing with Arthur Scargill and then had no economic policy.

change then! We've got Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, moving in the right

direction on economic policy, which is why the trade unionists complain.

They complain they don't get the control they want over the Labour

Party, whereas what did we see? Hedge funds have given the Tory

Party �25 million. You are right, the hedge funds benefitted from that

tax break, for all asset fund management, including the old

Scottish one ones. What has to happen between now and 2015 and the

day of the election on this front? The one thing she right about is

opening up cross-party talks again. They need to come back into play and

all parties need to take the hit on it. I agree with Michael, it is

going to be a bit painful, the public at first will be against it

but you will get rid of cash for honours and the rest of it. You are

against that? Absolutely. Adverts in the papers on billboards, people

don't agree with a word of it any how. It is an important part of

democracy. The barriers go up. Mrs Thatcher won the argument about the

economy before the election in '79. People I think when you hit the four

weeks selection campaign disregard everything in the papers. It is not

just the election campaign. The parties have a -- the public have a

right to be informed. ? Advertising Standards Agency has no

control. Political advertising is exempt from their legislation.

as well. There wouldn't be any adverts, they would be all lies.

open primaries in London, are you going to stand again? No, I made it

clear. Due really want me to stand? I do. I'll raise the money. And I

will do the fundraising. Welcome to the Ken Livingstone mayoral bid.

Now, it's a little bit late, just like our pregnant producer's baby.

Good luck, Charlotte! Don't forget the gas and air, and the Blue Nun!

We're also expecting our own bundle of joy here in the studio, because

Myleene Klass is here to talk about "everyday sexism" and why we still

put up with it. Which reminds me - you can find all kinds of

knuckle-dragging attitudes on The Twitter, The Fleecebook, and the

as the mercury rises, we Brits do what we do best, turn an attractive

shade of lobster. And Westminster's been dealing with some heat of its

own. Call-me-Dave, Not-so-red Ed and Wee Eck, a.k.a. Alex Salmond, spent

most of the week basking in the reflected glory of Andy Murray's

Wimbledon victory. Whilst the Commons saw some seriously heated

exchanges too. So, where to go? Matthew Wright donned his shorts and

shades and headed to the beach. This is his round-up of the political

beach? I will give you three guesses where I am. Come on, hurry up. No,

the it is not Barbados. No, it is not the Copacabana, it is not own

Blackpool Pleasure Beach. I will tell you where I am - right here in

the middle of London, on the banks of the river Thames, summer is well

and truly here. We've got sun. We've got sand - kind of. We've got the

sea - it's a river. The only thing missing this week is a Brit losing

in the final rounds of Wimbledon. The waiting is over! Andy Murray is

the Wimbledon champion. fashionistas have a lot of advice

about not what to wear this summer. Short shorts, strapless dresses,

socks and sandals. This is what you should be wearing, although there's

not much fashion advice about ahead wear I find. -- about head wear I

find. There was a bit of fuss over whether Andy should have been

wearing a cap during his first set. Should he or shouldn't he? In the

end, Murray survived scorching temperatures on the Centre Court to

become the first British man to win Wimbledon in almost 80 years. And

almost before you could say first Championship point, he had the PM,

the First Minister of Scotland and hordes of other politicians all

trying to be his friend. Who would have thought it? He lifted the

spirits of the whole country. We were wondering yesterday morning do

we dare to dream that this is possible? And he proved absolutely

that it was. Just a stone's through from here David Cameron loomed

behind our hero on the steps of Number Ten. There's even talk of a

claiming to be making all the political weather over party funding

it was left to Ed Miliband to raise the temperature and strike back

hotly on Labour's relationship with the unions Let me be clear, I do not

want any destroyed be paying money to the Labour Party in affiliation

fees unless they have deliberately chosen to do so. Even Len McCluskey

and Tony Blair agree on this. Odd that. But while the controversy in

Falkirk may have started all of this, Ed's handling of the unions

may turn out to be his Clause IV moment. Is some of that Blairesque

perma tan starting to rub off on him? Ah, as our MPs dream of yet

another long holiday, it didn't take long for the feel-good factor

sweeping the country to run out in the Commons. If you thought it was

hot during Wimbledon, would have needed something stronger than sun

cream to withstand the heat generated across the dispatch box

during PMQs. Sometimes, children behave badly in the sun. It's the

heat. It gets to their little brains. I want party funding reform,

he doesn't. I am proud that we have links with ordinary working people.

He is bankrolled by a few millionaires. The party of the

people, the party of privilege. the unions still have the biggest

vote at the conference? Yes. Will they still be able to determine the

party's policy? Yes. Will they still have the decisive vote in voting for

the Labour leader? Yes, that's the fact. They own it, lock, stock and

bloc vote. But are they talking about this beyond the Westminster

bubble? Only, I haven't heard anyone discussing it on my beach. I will

tell you what they are talking about down the pub though, and that's the

obscene payouts to ex-BBC bosses. Why did you not put your foot down?

You're head of HR there. You are head of HR. I think the overwhelming

focus was to get numbers out of the door as quickly as possible. It is a

licence fee, it is the licence fee payers' money. It is not your money.

It is our money. I understand that, madam chairman, and I accept that,

the BBC has accepted many of the criticisms that were in the report,

and too often we were too generous. Hm, and once they've licked that, my

guess is the talk down the pub will switch to the inflation-busting pay

rise that could be coming to MPs. �6,000 extra? Are you kidding? I

will tell you something, it's hot work on this political weather

malarkey. Time for me to do a spot more chillaxing. Andrew, Michael,

Ken, wish you were here, guys. That was Matthew Wright topping up

his tan on the Sandy beaches of the South Bank Centre in London. Our

Miranda is with us. MPs' pay. One MP described that IPSA, the regulatory

proposals, is completely crackers. Yes, it is interesting this isn't

it, because the set of proposals, particularly cutting back on the

golden goodbyes, ending the free dinners, much of the stuff that

would regularise how MPs are paid are investigate good ideas, but as a

package with an 8% plus pay rise is unrealistic in the current climate.

The fact that the rise has been postponed until after the election

makes it worse. It will make it an issue in the election. There's never

a good time to raise MPs' pay, that's obvious, but I would suggest

that probably just about the worst time is when you've frozen public

sector pay everywhere else. Yes, although as Miranda says, it is a

package, not just a pay rise. It is reductions in some of these

allowances. Ken and I were discussing this before we came on.

He and I for instance don't remember this �15 for dinner that. Didn't

exist in those days, so some extraordinary new additions have

been made. It was 2001. After that election, they had this big increase

in the expenses. Obviously that's when they brought in meals allowance

in. When you and I were an MP you could just about afford to employ

one-and-a-half people, and it went to four. I have MPs trying to

persuade me that they are hard done by. I'm quite prepared to take over

the Chancellor's job or the Prime Minister's job tomorrow for the

basic state pension. That couldn't cure the deficit. I want to change

things. If you came into politics to make money, you have made the wrong

choice. They were paid less than chief Superintendents and the Mayor

of London, so the comparators published today favour the MPs

getting more. If they are not going to get more, I've always argued if

some MPs are skillful they should be paid more, allow them to make money

outside Parliament. What I think is very dangerous is what Ed Miliband

is proposing, a cap, hinge he is saying of 15%, on what people can

make outside Parliament. As an example, an MP who is also a

journalist, can make a multiple of his MP's salary for a very few

hours' work a week, so it doesn't distract him from doing his MP's

job. Is it part of the argument over MPs' pay, is it part of a process

that's making politics less attractive for people to go into?

think the problem is that at the moment there's this vast gulf

between the world of politics and the general public. Almost every

story that comes up makes it wider, and that is one of them. Even those

politicians who have been rushing to take a sort of virtuous position and

say, I couldn't possibly take a penny of it, they are still talking

about themselves. It is endlessly dull to the general public and they

don't like it. They know that average earnings are �26,000.

are in the top 5% of earners. Absolutely. It may not be enough,

but... The issue of an MP taking a couple of hours once a week to write

a newspaper column, that isn't going to undermine what you do. But I was

really shocked to discover this. David Blunkett is now employed by

Rupert Murdoch on �90,000 a year. Wow! He pops up with the same lines

as in the papers. We saw William Hague get upset when somebody put

out... There is no doubt Mr Blunkett if he was here would say he can

think for himself. If Ed Miliband's policy were to be pursued, nobody

could be paid more than 15% of an MP's salary to be a Minister. A

senior Minister of a Prime Minister. People on the whole don't say we

can't have MPs being Prime Minister. Supposing there wasn't the

constraint of public opinion or the current age of austerity, in your

view what would a decent salary for an MP be? We appointed an

independent committee to decide this, and the answer is, �6,000 more

than they are getting now. It is one of the most amazing job is. I would

have done it for half the money. You are embedded in the constituency,

which I really enjoyed. You did not take half the money, did you?

is the danger, at the next election we will get a Dutch auction of

people saying, I will only take half the salary. That is very dangerous.

Is Lord Patten is watching tonight, I am not doing this for half the

money. I can tell you that three of us would not get out of bed for what

an MP gets now. I think you have hit on an important point. For a lot of

MPs, their peer group that they were at university with, they go into the

media, into law, into the city, and they see their peer group make a

tonne of money. A fairer tax system would deal with that, but I don't

think you want to go down there. your campaign manager, we will go

down that road together. We had a row the Prime Minister 's questions.

Does it play outside the bubble that we are on? Does it cut through to

the public? As PMQ 's was about to start, I was talking to a group of

secondary school children about politics and why they should care,

and how it was relevant to their lives and important for them to get

involved. I encouraged them to watch, and then I left and I

watched, and I was horrified at what I had exposed them to. But it was

about recovering them around the leader of the opposition who took a

pasting in the previous week and I suspect it did help him. We saw the

first ripped winning a major Wimbledon title since Virginia Wade.

-- the first Briton. It was a great thing to see Andy Murray do it,

Scottish and British, as he has made clear. But is there not something

that at the way the politicians try to hang on to his shorts? I got

invited to go to Wimbledon when I was mayor, but I did not want to sit

in the blazing heat for five or six hours, when I can watch at home with

a nice glass of wine. And not a glass of wine? Miranda, we have two

leave it there. Thank you. Now, John Inverdale's comments about new

Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli not being a looker got me thinking

this week. I'm told Michael was told the very same as a young lad by his

mum, but it didn't hold him back and today he's the nation's leading

trainspotter. So just you carry on, Marion, inspired by Michael's

example. Anyway, tonight we put casual everyday sexism in this

controversy this week and the BBC found itself apologising after his

remark that Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli was not a looker. It

resulted in a volley of criticism. wonder if her dad said to her when

she was 12, 13, 14, you are never going to be a lookalike Sharapova,

you are never going to be five foot 11 with long legs is, so to

compensate for that, you have to be the most determined fighter. There

may be parity in money at Wimbledon, but the glory is not shared so

equally. After the Prime Minister ignored Virginia Wade's

achievements, while revelling in Andy Murray's Centre Court Vic

three. To become the first British player to win Wimbledon for 77 years

will write the go down in our history books. Mr Speaker, let me

join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Andy Murray for his

fantastic entry, following Virginia Wade's big tree in 1977. Boris

Johnson was always -- also pulled up for suggesting women go to

university to get a husband. And William Hague was accused of calling

an MPA stupid woman. So, is society still prepared to put up with

casual, everyday sexism? Tell me, to what extent is there still a problem

with what is referred to as everyday sexism? I think the key word, as we

were looking at the footage, is the word casual. There has been so much

confusion, if you have been on the receiving end, you cannot take a

joke. When people are judged, is it because of their sex or because they

are useless at the job they have given? At the same time, we do not

do ourselves any favours. You only have two log onto a social network

to see a huge circle drawn around a woman's bottom or her belly, and the

question, is she good enough to do her job? I do not see anybody

drawing circles around you and questioning your capability.

circles are not big enough. Have you been a victim of casual sexism?

would not save victim, but I have been on the receiving end. Possibly

because people wonder if I have the capability to do the job that I do.

Maybe the expectation is low because they think I have come from a pop

band, and surprise is high if I can play a piano Concerto. I must appear

to be some kind of dichotomy, one minute in a bikini and the next

minute at a piano. But I am fortunate. I got the opportunity to

go to university, not to find a husband, but to give myself the

freedom of choice, to be able to give myself the tools to make those

choices as to where I would like to go in business. Given your

confidence and your achievements, when you are faced with casual

sexism, what is the proper reaction? Is it to ignore it? Definitely not.

John Inverdale's comments are completely unacceptable, and that is

evidently sexism in play. You cannot say those comments because you are

questioning if she can do a job that she does not look a certain way. The

comment from Boris, that is a better example of casual sexism at play,

because we do bat it off as a joke. Women are very good at taking those

jokes, and sometimes we are a bit nervous about appearing unable to

take the joke. I like Boris, on the whole. I like him as a buffoon, but

at the same time, you cannot make a sweeping statement, especially when

you are on a trip as an ambassador. In this day, when the majority of

students are female, and the majority of officers of student

unions are female, it was a bizarre comment. It was not bizarre, it was

downright rude and ill informed. That is a snapshot that the people

of Malaysia will see of our country and our leaders. It is rude. Also,

it does not show him supporting women. Women, especially in

developing countries, go to get education to give them that freedom

and opportunities they do not get the chance to have. When people in

power show that level of disrespect for what women are trying to go

through, it is no surprise that the inequality is there. That respect

has to be shown by male leaders. I could ask what school you MPs go to

to find your mistresses. Good question. Sadly, we have no MPs here

tonight or else I would ask that question. Some people have been

tweeting about this. Twitter is not always the best place for sensible

opinion. But are we making too much of it? We are not. This has been one

of our best subjects and I agree with everything you have said.

about MPs and mistresses? The John Inverdale on the Boris Johnson

comment, the William Hague comment and even to some extent David

Cameron. Going back to David Cameron saying, calm down, to a woman member

of Parliament, these are extraordinary examples. These people

are on their toes stay and night to say the right thing, trained to give

100 interviews and not make a slip. If they are slipping into casual

sexism, it shows that the problem is pretty deep. When we were in the

House of Commons it was much worse. There was a smaller number of women

and generally to rocketry comments when women got up on either side.

Getting more women in is really going to help. They have to be able

to do the job. We do not just get them in because we want to have a

positive discrimination. I want women to be able to do the job, and

they can do the job. We get many more men applying for a

Parliamentary seat than women. Part of the reason is the scenes that you

see, week after week people shouting at each other. I hated it. This is

an extraordinary discussion 34 years after Britain produced a woman Prime

Minister. We used to have casual racism in this country. That has

substantially reduced. And rightly so. So why do we still have this

kind of casual sexism? There is a huge lack of respect for what women

bring to the table. There is Page 3, and so much of the depiction of

women in the media. I have to disagree on that level. I am a

feminist and many people misunderstand what feminism stands

for. Those images are everywhere, whether you are in a bikini, whether

you are walking down the street. You see those images yourself. But I

think that women have to be shown in a positive light, in their

universities, in their choices to be a stay at home mum, in their choices

to not go to work and not be berated for how they choose childcare. All

of the onus lands on them. They are decision-makers within the home.

However, that respect is not given back to those women. One answer to

the question is that the law has been brought to bear in the case of

homophobia and racism, but not in the realm of sexism. John Inverdale

was on TV the next day still commenting. Had he been racist, or

even ageist, we would have been up in arms. It is a different country.

In the 80s, when you were coming to national prominence, a big part of

your agenda was race and gender, and you won most of the arguments.

have moved an incredible way. In 87, the Tory party was pushing a bill

through parliament saying you could not discuss homosexuality in

schools. Now you have a Tory Prime Minister almost making it

compulsory. But we have not made as much progress with women. But it has

been failed. Why can't she take a joke? I just said she had a big

farm. It is not accept the ball. also have the media, which likes to

build up celebrities. It is easy to blame the media, but who are they

trying to do it for? You only have to read comments where women are

commenting on other women. We do not help ourselves, often, but it is

easy to point the finger and say, it was the press that did it. The

appetite is there. You only have to stand in the women's toilets and

this in two women bringing down other women. She does not deserve

the job, she married her husband for the money, different comments about

other women. What do you do about that? Women have to support each

other. They have to have confidence in themselves, and not feel that

until they find another half, or fine job satisfaction, they are half

a person. I am raising two little girls, and I want to raise two

little civilians who will feel confident that whether they become a

baker or a banker they have the capability and the choice to do it,

and that somebody, a man or a woman in a position of power will not ring

their choices down, especially when they pay into a tax system that pays

for their everything. I think they are going to be all right. Thank you

very much. That's your lot for tonight, folks.

But not for us, because with a report claiming half of us fall in

love on a first date, Ken is now on a promise with Barbie Portillo. I'm

feeling left out. Myleene's feeling physically sick. But we leave you

tonight with news of a brand new political grouping. They've even had