27/06/2011 Daily Politics

Good morning, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. As strikes loom,

the Government starts to talk tough with the unions. Are we headed for

a destructive showdown? The Government announces the biggest

defence shake-up for a generation. But cannot help close the black

hole at the MoD? And remember this? A former Cabinet colleague well. We

will discuss the legacy of Margaret Thatcher's handbag, which goes on

With us for the duration, format army colonel, now Conservative MP,

Bob Stewart. Welcome back. Let's kick off this morning with news

that the Chinese Prime Minister... Premiere, rather, Wen Jiabao, is on

his second day of a visit to the UK. He was greeted at Number Ten

earlier this morning. He has just arrived at a Foreign Office, where

he is signing an agreement which gives British government --

companies access to markets in regional Chinese cities. The deal

could potentially be worth more than �10 billion to the UK economy.

In a moment he will be talking to the Prime Minister in a press

conference, as well as trade, the sticky issue of China's a human

rights record is likely to be raised. Bob Stewart, how sensible

is it for us now to but East when it comes to trade? Absolutely. That

is the Bigg Market. Asia is the Bigg Market, and perhaps South

America. It's great if we go beyond Shanghai, that kind of area, going

to the hinterland. China has stacks of money and we wouldn't mind

having our fair share of that in trade. They import too much to us,

we want to balance that up. Fine, the figures make sense. But I

wonder how you, as someone who came to prominence sitting on that tank

and shouting at people about human rights in the Balkans, how does it

sit with you that it would mean doing deals with a country that

does not value human rights as we do in this country? It's sad. But,

as you said, it will be on the agenda the whole time. I hope that

eventually China will come round. We have dealt with regimes, I have

personally dealt with regimes that don't have much respect of human

rights. I'm afraid that is the real world. I would love it to be

Utopian, I would love it not to be a factor. But it is and we have to

deal with it. Nobody is asking for Utopia, but is it not hypocritical

to pursue action against Colonel Gaddafi because he is anti-

democratic, a dictator, because he suppresses opposition. But many of

those things could be talked about when it comes to the Chinese, but

we are falling over ourselves to plug a financial hole with them.

Actually, we're taking action against Colonel Gaddafi because he

threatened to kill hundreds of people in Benghazi. Under the

Security Council resolution, that is what... But there is some debate

about whether we overstep that line. There is debate. It would be good

for him to go. But that is not part of the Security Council resolution.

But you take my Point Barrow, there are some values that we hold

sacrosanct. There are regimes that don't. Some we choose to be friends

with, others which used take action against. You are right, I'm afraid

that is right. We will not get that perfect. Sometimes you have to dine

with a long spoon. Maybe we are dining with a long spoon in China's

case. Or chopsticks! Thousands of schools and colleges in England and

Wales are predicted to close on Thursday. Civil servants will also

walkout over reductions in pension benefits. There is little prospect

of a settlement before Thursday. Over the last few days, the

rhetoric has ratcheted up, as it usually does at this stage in a

dispute. As you say, this week we are going

to see the biggest public sector strikes for years. It could become

a pretty drawn-out battle between the unions and the Government.

Teachers, lecturers and civil servants are striking on Thursday

in protests against reforms to their pensions. But other unions

have warned that they are prepared to take action as well. Dick

Prentice, the general secretary of Unison, says it will not just be

short stoppages but long-term industrial action through all of

our public services. Talks between the unions and government are

ongoing. To be honest, there's not much sign of compromise on either

side. Three weeks ago, the Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable

warned that increased industrial action could cause pressure for

tougher union laws. Education Secretary Michael Gove said that

strike laws should be kept under review. One option would be to

impose a turnout threshold on union ballots. He also wants schools to

stay open on Thursday, despite the strikes, possibly with the help of

parents. Let's look to Francis Maude, because he said that the

Government should stop paying for full-time union officials in

Whitehall. All of these things are contentious to union ears. Both

sides say they want to avoid disruption to the public, but it

now looks inevitable. We are joined by Sally Hunt,

general secretary of the university and college union. It is one of the

unions that are going to strike on Thursday. You want the Government

to back down on increasing the retirement age, not to change the

pension Index to a tougher index. Not to go to a career average

scheme for pensions. You and I know that the Government is not going to

give way on any of these things. Well, you make us sound

unbelievably unreasonable. No, I don't... What we want the

Government to do is talk. It is talking. What they are doing his

soundbites and they been doing it for a couple of weeks. If you want

to have credible negotiation, you want to make sure that the clear

red lines on either side are ones that people have to explore and

talk about. Are you wrong in saying that you want the Government to

move on these areas? We want them to move, but we want to have a

proper negotiation, as we have before. On what, sorry?

teachers' pension scheme. The difficulty we have got is that we

want to resolve the situation and, as on many occasions, we've had to

review pension schemes because we accept we are getting old and in

many cases we are having a healthier old age. That means we

have to have the flexibility to explore how. What the Government

has done over the last few weeks is, rather than say, we recognise there

are issues around accrual rates, around 80 of retirement and

contribution levels, rather than saying, can we explore that, set

against what Hutton said, what the National Audit Office has said,

they are saying, this is what it is going to be and that is it.

negotiations are still going on? hope so, we are going into

negotiations will stop so why are you going on strike when things are

still going on? The strength of feeling has been to such an extent

that we have some members now, every poorly paid, who do not

believe that the Government is negotiating in good faith. So why

it do you not break off the negotiations? That is not what our

members would want. What is the point of a one-day strike? I hope

it will make sure that the Government understands the strength

of feeling and that we will get into a discussion that allows us to

say, OK, now we are doing something sensible. I hope we don't have to

strike on Thursday. Assuming none of these hopes come true, the

Government say, well, they went on strike for one day, nobody noticed,

what do you do next? We sit with our sister unions, we explore what

is going to happen with the other unions moving towards industrial

action. It seems to me that we could be moving to an autumn of a

lot of tension. We don't want that. This Thursday's strike is just a

token strike, whatever happens. It is a shot across the bows of the

Government. You are running into the summer, when there is no point

go on strike because none of your members will be working. If there's

going to be a clash, it will be in the autumn? I think the clash is

happening now. But you are only going on strike for one day. Having

the Civil Service affected, schools closed down, having universities

not able to teach... Not many people will notice. I disagree. If

you live where I do, if you have children, as I do, you are having

discussions right the way to the last week with parents that know

that it is a real issue for them. Those parents, friendly, are not

saying that the teachers and lecturers are wrong, they are

saying, what Tanit is going on that we have a government that is not

discussing this credibly but doing this? The Poles don't suggest there

is much sympathy for you. But we will see when the strikes take

place. -- polls. Why should harder and tax money be used to keep union

officials and a job? -- hard-earned tax money. If we go beyond that

emotive discussion... What's the answer to the question? �80 million

of taxpayers' money is used to pay workers, not to do work, but to be

full-time union officials. Why? make sure, in many cases, that we

have a good industrial relations, to make sure that people at work

are represented, to make sure that you have a good and well working

workplace. What is happening most of the time, if I might say so, is

that people that represent people and trade unions are doing it in

their own time. They are not generally doing his... Some are

getting bigger salaries, �80 million a year is a lot of money.

Some across the public sector are given support by employers. A lot.

They recognise that it makes sense to have people who are experienced

and know what they're doing. The majority of people that give their

time give it of their own free will and do it because they care about

making sure that people in their work are looked after and are safe.

That's something I'm not going to be defensive about. We can bring

the colonel in. You get the impression that the Government has

made up its mind what it wants to do. To call what it is doing at the

moment negotiation is really not the proper meaning of that word. At

the very most, it's prepared to tinker at the margins. That's not

negotiation. I think it's trying to negotiate. I very much hope that we

will not have a strike. But you are, treat our viewers seriously, there

will be a strike on Thursday. not convinced of that. Do you want

to put a tenner on it? Actually, no pulled that yes, because you know

there is going to be one. What the unions want to know is how much

flexibility is their on these issues on the table? Or is the

Government going through the notions of negotiation for form's

sake? I don't think it is going through the motions. It does

actually want to get a decent compromise. It also wants to make

sure that teachers at all levels get treated properly. Where should

it compromise? I don't know the details of where it is going to

compromise. I know damn well that negotiations should continue, even

though there is a striker. And I agree, negotiations should continue.

I hope it doesn't come. I would almost put my tenner. You are on an

army pension, I'd keep your money if I were you. We are beating the

Government this afternoon. It seems that you haven't got much hope that

there will be any movement. Were they to talk, if they will look at

the age of retirement, if they will look at the 3% tax they have put on

our members, if it will look at the accrual rates, if they will say,

actually, Danny Alexander in his press statement was not doing the

negotiation, but we are and that is not where we are. Unfortunately,

Listening to all of these ifs, I think we'll see you on the picket

line. I'm glad you're going to join us! We will just be there as

journalists. Cup of tea? Even a copy, if you are nightspots of more

than I get here! They are going to need to find more

than a tenner, it's been called the bigger shake-up of the armed forces

for a generation, Liam Fox is going to tell the House of Commons about

plans to slim down the command structure. Mr Fox has said that he

wants to put an end to the infighting between the army, navy

and air force and bring costs under control. With continued commitments

in Libya and Afghanistan, semi in the military are complaining that

ministers are already stretching resources beyond their limits. --

some in the military. Return from Afghanistan and a

jumble of the motions for everyone. Joy, pride and perhaps sheer relief

that they are home, for now. We have heard a lot of talk in recent

weeks from politicians and retired top brass about overstretched, the

idea that we are asking our armed forces to do too much with too

little. If it does exist, what is the effect on the people at the

sharp end, our service personnel and their families? People like

Nina and Ryan Gillette. Right and left the Army in January after two

tours of Afghanistan. He accepts that politicians are trying to help,

but there are still problems. Sometimes they might over-expect

what the army is able to do. What I saw in terms of overstretch was the

fact that the regiments were not big enough to cope with the

operational requirements. A big thing for the guys is that when

they do a six-month tour they do want to come back and spent time

with their families. commitments are causing concern and

tension at the highest level. Plans to streamline the very top of the

armed forces, in an attempt to improve their efficiency, will be

announced today. But will they actually relieve the pressure?

terms of families that talk to us, there is evidence of overstretch.

With the redundancies facing all three services, they are doing the

same amount of work with less people. The Army families

Federation has also discovered evidence of a problem with leave.

More than 60% of those who took part in an informal survey said

that they or their partners had struggled to take all of their time

off, something that Ryan and Nina experienced. None of our friends

could come to our wedding because they can get the time off. These

are the things, there's not much time to get your annual leave. The

minute you go back, you've got your post opera leave, then you are

straight into training again. So, it becomes a problem. While no one

doubts that ministers meanwhile, they may need to take bold

Ministers need to look at the decisions that were made and re-

examine some of them, perhaps even reverse them. People can still see

us doing the same amount of work, but with less people. No one joins

the armed forces for an easy life, and that includes the families. But

they do expect a fair deal. Colonel Bob Stewart is still with

us. We also joined by Dan Jarvis, a former Army officer. How will get

of Reading nearly all of the military representation on the

Defence board improve decision- taking? The Chief of Defence Staff

is meant to represent all three, and all three are meant to work to

him. I can see a slimming down being quite a good thing, and have

always thought that, ever since I worked as a major in the Ministry

of Defence. There were too many generals. And there are too many

admirals and too many Air Commodores. Why not get rid of this

top-heavy top brass? That is what the plan is, isn't it? No, it is

simply not to let them sit on the Defence board. It is a slimming

down as well. We have more admirals than we have ship's! And probably

more generals than there are regiments, you're absolutely right.

And more civil servants and the MoD than soldiers in uniform! Some of

those 60,000 are people who do guarding of bases and release

soldiers. It is not quite as easy as that. I agree that slimming down

the top ranks in the armed forces, but the Chiefs of Staff will decide

exactly who goes as I understand. Why is our defence procurement so

useless? I have no idea. I remember in the early 1980s, when I was a

major, watching Michael Heseltine come in and saying, I'm going to

sort out procurement with lean look and sharp sword, but with the

Ministry of Defence, the problem is, it is like you put a huge great

ball of party at the end of a corridor and run at it really hard,

and you get off and say, look, I have made a big impression. But you

turn around, and it has gone back. But we have got to drive. That is

certainly true. But the assets that this government has at the moment

that it inherited from the previous government, obviously, they haven't

had time to make many changes. I wonder, as a tax payer, but we are

paying �36 billion in defence, the Defence Secretary reminded us this

morning that even after these cuts, we will be the fourth-biggest

defence budget in the world, and we seem to be struggling to keep a

couple of tornadoes of Eurofighter has over the skies of Libya. It is

essential to do what we can to achieve the best value for the

taxpayer. What is more important is that our service people who serve

on a frontline get the right kit been the right places. From my

experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, I had the right kit. It wasn't true

from the start, though. That is right. This is precisely why the

Government should do the right thing and had a new chapter. There

are currently making significant decisions about resources based on

how the world was in October 2010, and not have it is today. But isn't

there a better hypocrisy in that? Your government didn't have a

defence spending review in 10 years. Remember what happened to John

Nott's defence review? They then invaded the Falklands. You didn't

do one for 10 years. I think the parallel is 9/11. There was then a

new chapter, which sat on top of the SIDS are from 1998. The Prime

Minister fundamentally misunderstood my question the other

day. Nobody is saying that we need a second review, we need a new

chapter to sit on the board. But it doesn't mean that you don't

Revisited. So will there be a new chapter? There will be a continual

vision of what has happened, and that is sensible. It is normal

merge to practise. Given the experience of what has happened, as

Mr Jarvis has points out since the review came out, what differences

would you like to see made now? can tell you what I would like!

That is what I asked. I would like to have an aircraft carrier back.

But we haven't got that. And if you do that, what are you going to cut?

As Dan said, the world has moved on. But I do slightly disagree. The

Libyan operation, the one we are talking about, we wouldn't do it

differently. We probably wouldn't use Harriers. We want to see the

restoration of three infantry battalions cut by Labour as soon as

possible. We will never be able to really improve the welfare of our

forces unless we look at expanding army. The first was Dr Liam Cox,

the third was the now Prime Minister. -- Dr Liam Fox. What

happened to that? We haven't got the money. If you actually want to

run a defence budget, you still have to do it within limits. The

world has changed. We haven't got the money to do everything we want.

Labour's job is to do a critique of government defence policy. But

Labour leaving behind this �38 billion black hole kind of

undermines things, doesn't it? don't accept the detail about �38

billion. Everybody else does. don't think they do. The point

about resources is that we need to be spending money based on how the

world this today, and that is why we need, in light of the Arab

Spring, to really look at the S D S R, a new chapter. To make sure that

the billions of pounds that we are spending is spent in accordance

with the world today and not the world prior to the Arab Spring.

We have to leave it there, although I make prediction that in 10 years

somebody will be sitting in this chair asking some other MP why it

the procurement is so useless! It really is just as well that

Andrew has been a good boy this morning. Because I have got my bag.

I have brought it into the studio. Are you leaving home?

Know, that is a handbag. I carry it around every day. The handbag was

Lady Thatcher's weapon of choice. Mine is a satchel, very old, heavy

and dangerous. Margaret Thatcher and her use of the hand -- fashion

accessory even gave rise to the term handbagging. Her handbag is to

go on sale at Christie's today. Here is a reminder of some of its

moments. # We are living in a material world,

# Living in a material world, We all have our own recollections

of that terrifying handbag. With us now we have the fashion expert

Caryn Franklin. It was almost like a suit of armour. It was, but it

was also ultimately the symbolic of a woman in a job where she was

among us, the rest of the team were men. It became something that said,

this is a woman. And it was fashion's act of logistics, her

life went in there. She was organised, she was and jangling

change in her pockets, not knowing where her keys are. It came to

represent somebody who was authoritative, very organised. And

it would go on the table. It is interesting that you think it

feminised her, because for many it was felt that she might take a

swing at them! Were they very expensive? It is gaining mythology,

this handbagged! It was just a handbag. I think that is the point,

because something can be just a jacket are just a pair of shoes,

but this was more than that. served a purpose. There is nothing

sire -- stylish about any item unless it serves a function. But it

was a prop. You can look at various politicians, Winston Churchill and

his cigar, for instance. Harold Wilson's unsmoked pipe. And then

behind closed doors it turned into a cigar and the beer tent to brandy.

He was saying, I am a man of the people. But other women might want

to relate to this, but if a man had a bag... I will defend any female

politician's right to have a bag! We had time on our hands, so here

is what we think David Cameron would look like with a man back.

This is what Andrew Neil would look Hold it properly! If you think,

�100,000, the value of that, would anything that you had to be worth

that? Is that how much it might raise? Her last Salvatore Ferragamo

We are looking at a woman's handbag, and she was a rare woman in a man's

world. If you look at Nelson Mandela, he weaves together to

heritages, an African style of design on his shirt but a very

Western shirt. Another man who wears a sharp suit and a novelty

tie today. Tell me about the handbag. In 1982, my company, the

company in Cheshire, -- a company abroad, was blown up, and Margaret

Thatcher came out to Ireland, and I went around the hospital with

Margaret Thatcher. I have to say, she was astonishingly kind. She

went round the bends, and one-bed, she was visibly moved to tears. The

end result, she sat down and cuddled a man. People say she's

terribly good personally. And then she went out and gave the press