04/07/2011 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to Daily Politics. Who will pay for you, who

will look after you when you get old? Plans for an overhaul of the

system in England have been unveiled by economist Andrew Dilnot.

We will be asking, will be awash with the Treasury?

Is the Government in a bit of a pickle about housing benefit? It is

said the reforms will hit some of the country's poorest and create

several thousand homeless families. God save America on at this a

fourth July. London has a new statue of Ronald Reagan. God save

the Gipper! Former mayor really Giuliani tells us why he mattered.

He was prepared to make compromises even when he couldn't get

everything you wanted. And Socrates has got hot under the

collar about it and so has Ruby Wax. We are talking about freedom of

speech. All that in the next half-hour on

this independent state, the day they signed the declaration of

independence in Philadelphia. -- this independent state. They

probably signed it on the third but things move slowly these days! On

this day, a man of many talents who knows all about these things.

Author and broadcaster. He was even a former MP. A Conservative MP.

Gyles Brandreth. It is lovely to be here. I'll always excited! I had to

see the statue in the flesh so we can bring you a first-hand report.

Did you see the unveiling? It is a fine piece of statute. Last week,

one was unveiled in Hungary. But when Mr the statue of Lady Thatcher.

We can work on that. -- but I missed it the statute. Can I ask

you, though, because there was a big story and we will turn our

attention to this story briefly. Housing benefit. At the weekend,

the coalition was defending its plans to put a cap on benefits of

�500 a week. It has emerged of SENIOR civil servant warned in

January that the reductions could make an extra 20,000 people

homeless. Last week, Grant Shapps said categorically that the most

vulnerable would not be made homeless. What is to become of

them? This is part of the game of modern politics or stop there has

to be a league because the discussion took place. Which one

knew about it, which one didn't? It is a complicated issue and the

intentions are good. There should be a limit and it may be that his

civil servant has said, there may be problems with this and problems

down the line. The background discussion is filtered out and then,

quite rightly, somebody like Liam Byrne jumps on the bandwagon and

says, look, the Government is in disarray. Some ministers know about

this, some don't. What is going on? There is confusion at the heart of

government. There is complexity at the heart of this issue. But if the

bottom line is, 40,000, not 20,000, could find themselves homeless, and

therefore, potentially, cost the Exchequer a lot more because of

course, they are going to have to be looked after in some way. Does

it not smack of cock-up? difficulty for politicians nowadays

is that if I answer your question by saying it is going to be 40,000

extra home us, we have to look again. And then you might say, U-

turn. If Grant Shapps says it is not going to turn out that way, he

might be right. But if it is, he might have to re-examine it. We

have to see everything in black and white terms now and it is actually

more fluid and dynamic than that. If I were a politician I would be

doing what Liam Byrne is saying, saying this is a mess. Others are

saying, what is the truth of the matter? If you were an active

Conservative politician or collision politician, would you be

saying, the reality is, we have to cut 20 billion from somewhere and

it is going to be tough? It is, but I was saying as a Conservative, one

of the reasons we are in the collision is that we would not be

achieved in any of these cuts without a united opposition if we

were not in a collision. What these cuts might turn out to be is a

slowing down of the increases. The slowing down of the growth of the

debt. They are not cuts in real terms. We're very pleased that you

are here, because we have his whole hat stand of hat. It is time for

our daily quiz and we will be talking about free speech. It is

all about free speech. Which of these is not protected by the First

We are going to find out a little later in the programme. Now, the

thorny issue of painful social care is back with us again, with a

report out this morning by the Economist Andrew Dilnot. He used to

be a member of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and he has been

tasked by the Government to look into how we look after the elderly

and disabled in care. That is for England. It became a hot political

potato during the campaign. But will the Government have the

campaign and resources to act? people are arguing that social care

is in dire need of reform in England. The number of 17-year-olds

is going to jump by 70% in the next 20 years. -- 70-year-olds. -- by

50%. A cap will be put off �35,000 and above that, the state will pay.

He has also said the means-tested threshold should be increased to

�100,000. His report also argues that all of those who enter

adulthood with their care and support needs should be eligible

for free state support and that should be immediate. The Dilnot

Commission estimates the cost will be around �1.7 billion, and that is

based on a care cost cap of �35,000. This could rise as more people into

retirement. We are going to hear what Government thinks a little

later this afternoon. We will now hear from Norman lamb, Nick Clegg's

chief of staff, and the Conservative MP Matthew Hancock.

Welcome to the programme. We are already hearing this morning that

this report is going to be kicked into the long grass because the

Treasury doesn't think we can afford it. What do you say? I am

quite positive about it, and Diane also positive that all three

parties have said there need to be cross-party talks and consensus...

That is certainly a way of kicking it into the long grass? Actually,

contact has already been made, so there is progress there, so let's

not be so sceptical. The consensus has to include how it is paid as

well as the positive sides. Is it realistic to find another �1.7

billion, which is the initial cost that Andrew Dilnot has put on the

cost of the scheme? And that is in a climate where we are trying to

cut government deficit at every turn. That is one of the massive

challenges and it has to be subject to discussion across the parties.

And across the public sector and how you would raise that money if

you decided to do it. I think I agree with what Matthew says, which

is that we have to use this as an opportunity to secure reform. It is

long overdue and we have had a crisis in this sector too Blanc.

Too many old people do not get the care they need. The scandals have

got to stop. Any civilised society would want to make sure old people

are looked after in this day and age. This is big politics, and I am

interested in this phrase, kicking it into the long grass, because the

brief specifically said, we are kicking this into the middle grass.

What they are going to try and do is say, this is a serious issue and

as for the next generation. The middle grass means it might be two

or three years before we can take this into primary legislation. We

have to get everybody on board and get an agreement. Meanwhile, we

have a crisis of care at the moment. We have older people not getting

the level of care they need? younger people as well. The

Panorama programme demonstrated that. We have seen rising charges

and reduced or tightened criteria for eligibility, so all the people

are not getting the help they need at all. As Gyles says, issues come

up where it is too big and important for party political stuff.

Can you give a realistic timetable? I presume the report has all the

numbers and figures and is the basis for a discussion. You want

all-party consensus, because this is a generational change and will

go beyond the life of any government. Timetable? It is a

question of bringing people together and building a consensus.

It is not just about the three parties, but also rig consensus

within the industry. -- also a consensus. You have got to put the

blocks into place. So far, it has taken a decade to get nowhere, and

then the courage and asked Andrew Dilnot to do is report. Instead of

rushing it am being pushed into a timetable, let's get everybody

onside, because this have -- has not been tackled. I think 2013.

is talk of consensus, which, in the abstract, politicians love to do.

But you have got the scars, like Tony Blair, on public sector reform.

You could not even get consensus with your now coalition partners?

tried to establish a process before the election, and having to be

blunt, the run-up to the election campaign was too hot. I think now

is the chance. Labour has been constructed in its initial reaction.

They have suggested they want to talk. That is welcomed. We have got

to grab this opportunity and I think, let's use this Parliament to

get all of the elements to it. This is just one element of it, this

report. We have to win sure the quality is there. And also, health

and social care have got to be integrated together so that people

have real choice. This idea of personalised care, where you are in

charge of your own care, these are concepts that go beyond the Dilnot

Report. I assume the consensus does not include Labour's plan for what

you stigmatise as a death tax? Is that part of your discussions?

is very important that we get consensus not only on how to spend

the money and the quality issues, but also on the difficult bits on

how to pay for it. What happened before the last election is an

example of why we need consensus, because if the Government comes up

with plans, including once the opposition cannot stomach, then you

will not get that consensus. what is the answer to my question?

I think it is highly unlikely but, you know, let's look. So a

relatively narrow consensus. What happens next? We have to engage

with the organisations in the care sector. We have to get their

reaction and we have to measure the Dilnot proposals against a number

of tests. How much public money do we want to be spending on securing

that cap on the catastrophic costs, about 10% of the population, who

suffer. 10% of our elderly people and up with care costs of over 100

-- �100,000. I fear that you will be back. We might turn up the

flames! Now, get out your flags. We pay for

these props! It is the Fourth of July, and you know what we are like

on Daily Politics. Any excuse to raid the Music Archive and dabbled

in the expenses account of the programme and buy flags. A statue

of the late President Ronald Reagan has been unveiled outside the

American embassy in Grosvenor Square. We sent our reporter along

to see what he made of the latest piece of bronze to graze London's

streets. Just what Londoners were calling

out for. Another statue of an American President. But today,

that's what they got, as a 10 ft Ronald Reagan in bronze was

unveiled outside the American Embassy. This statue of Ronald

Reagan is quite clearly a memorial and a commemoration of a glorious

past. But more importantly, it is a call to an even more glorious

future. Thank you very much. It is the end of a series of events to

mark 100 years since Reagan's birth. He was like a mountain. If you

stand on the mountain, it doesn't look so impressive. But if you

travel a wear from the mountain, 20 miles away, you can see how that

mountain changed the landscape. That is what is going on now with

Reagan. Missing from the audience, Reagan's political soulmate

Baroness Thatcher. She had hoped to attend but could not because of

ill-health. There were plenty of other Conservative right wingers.

Why do they love him so? I was such an admirer of Reagan when I was a

very, very young Conservative. I went to America and are witnessed

him winning the election against Jimmy Carter and I think he is an

inspiration to anybody on the right side of politics. It is not just

Marine Corps bans and Stars and Stripes. Everybody can enjoy hot

dogs, candy floss and, what's that And we heard Eric Pickles. Earlier,

I spoke to the former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, about

what he thinks of Ronald Reagan, and why he's now copying some of

his ideas. I have tremendous and admiration

for Ronald Reagan. 1998 I gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library

where I said, of reviewing the 20th century, the two most consequential

presidents were franked when Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. He had

to concede that those two President had the biggest impact on America.

In both cases, they led to the liberation of large portions of

Europe, their actions did. They had a profound impact on our economy,

much more so than the other presidents. So, Ronald Reagan will

maintain that role as one of the two most consequential President's

whether you like what he did or not. He wasn't a popular figure with the

American Left. Has the liberal left come to terms with Ronald Reagan

now? A little bit. The anger and the notion that he was dumb or an

actor and did not know what he was doing, bumbling, that has passed

away, particularly with the release of his letters. Particularly his

love letters to his wife. Because, it demonstrates that Ronald Reagan

who was supposed to be not too bright, was a terrific writer. He

had wonderful command of the English language, not only speaking

it but writing it. If you take some time to readers' letters, you come

away with an insight into Ronald Reagan that was given to me by the

Attorney General, who was my boss and one of his closest friends,

that the key to his career was constantly being under estimated

cost dock explain this paradox. understand that Mr Regan, widely

revered by today's per Republicans, a wonder if he could win your

party's nomination today? He believed in deficits, the Tea Party

movement does not. He was prepared to spend when it was required.

Could he really when a primary today? A heck of a good question. A

very astute question. What it gets at is the real Ronald Reagan and

the mythical one of Reagan everyone crates to fit their own set of

political views. Remember, Ronald Reagan was the governor of

California who signed the law that made abortion legal. He

subsequently changed his mind about that. But that alone would have

been a major obstacle for him today. It wasn't an obstacle for him in

1980, that he signed the abortion of law. He also raised spending in

California and raised taxes, although he also lowered taxes. His

approach to taxes was not this religious incantation, you must

always lower taxes. It was, let's make the best tax deal possible.

For example, he would lower three taxes and raised two, but if the

result was lower taxation, he would be pleased. He was a practical

thinker. He was guided by an ideology and he was practical

enough to make compromises when he couldn't get anything he wanted.

think you have been to New Hampshire seven times this year.

You are going again next month. I assume you're not just going for

the scenery? I am going there to get a sense of whether I have a

good chance of winning that primary, and the nomination, because there

is no point entering this unless you have a good chance winning. I

have had the excitement when I ran for an entire year. I would do it

over again. I would probably make a few changes. But now this will be a

second time and I want to make sure I have a really good chance of

winning. I understand you will tell us whether you are going to run,

around laboured day? If you do decide to run, it sounds to me from

what you have been saying you would like to run with the Ronald Reagan

mantra, your republicanism seems to be similar but for the 20th

century? In my case, it is deliberate, I copied Ronald Reagan.

I worked for him, I became mayor of New York City and then literally

copied what Ronald Reagan did, as best I could as mayor of New York.

A you can see a longer version of my interview with Rudy on our

website. But now we're joined by a Ruby! The American comedian and

actress, Ruby Wax, is with us. has better teeth than I do! It is

interesting the difference history makes. I was a Washington

correspondent when Ronald Reagan was President, he was excoriated by

the American Left. He is still disliked by a lot, but he

transcends political boundaries now. It is unbelievable. Compared to

Sarah Palin and what we have got now, it is like Jesus compared to a

dachshund. You saw the transition. I didn't realise how clever he was.

I didn't know. The US networks who had never been his best friends,

they treated his death like a royal funeral. The potency of presidency

is very great. Somehow you assume something very special. That

reminded me how like Mrs Thatcher he was being a pragmatist. People

think Mrs Thatcher was the iron lady from the beginning but her

early years were full of compromise. But she wasn't in cowboy films,

that was her downfall! Let's get And the answer is: C. The Right to

Vote. Freedom of speech, which occurs to many people when they

talk about rights and freedoms in America. We have gone through soul-

searching in this country about what should be allowed. You have

been the victim of tabloid coverage. Should there be a line? Should

anything be OK in a country that enshrines freedom of speech? Free-

speech his own name out of the be holder. When you are defending the

tired and the poor and the huddled masses, but when you are making

money out of going into somebody's of rubbish bin and finding their

dirty laundry, a can we separate, one is a free speech, one is making

a living. Out of somebody's reputation. So where do you draw

the line? If it is just a pecuniary advantage. What about on the

internet, bloggers are not making money. Our society thrives on

gossip. I do not know, but this question about what the public

needs to know is dubious. Because really, we used to just have the

picket fence and church for gossip. There are the secret conversations,

Cabinet briefings, leaks from civil servants. When I published my

political diaries, I formed the review what people did in their

private lives was not the business of the public. But the previously

secret workings of the Chief whips office, that was after the event

something for the public domain because it was government service,

paid for by the tax payer, part of the machinery of government. Most

of these things you can choose. One can make a decision. Where we get

into difficult territory, where the leak makes the management of

government very difficult indeed. Having a normal conversation with

somebody as an active politician becomes difficult. Just by being a

politician, it is our business. I think a footballer, just play

football. Let Clinton get on with his business. But can I say, I

thank the tabloids for exposing me. In a way, it is a twist on anything,

a long time ago I saw my face on the front of the Daily Mail saying

I had a mental illness. I was in Barbados, and felt embarrassed.

Years later I have written a play about mental illness, because

otherwise we hide. They have done a lot of good in my case. Going back

to those days, if you had known about the super injunction, would

you have gone down that path? Probably. It was too shameful.

You'll do anything. But, now I think, why should we have been

ashamed of something that that? attitude is so different now, JFK

and his indiscretions, the press kept largely quite. What has

changed in your country? We didn't have access like that. It is all

about money. All took wrong kite's advice is still very good, he said,

if you are going to be a politician, never do anything that you would

not be prepared to read about on the front of the New York Times. --