17/05/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome o the Daily Politics. First, the good news. The

American car maker General Motors has announced an investment which

will secure the future of the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port,

saving 2,000 jobs. Now the bad news. The Prime Minister's warning of

perilous economic times ahead and says he needs to keep us safe from

the storm brewing over Greece and the eurozone. He had this to say

this morning. The eurozone is at a Crossroads. It

either has to make up or it is looking at a potential break-up.

No-one can pull in the crowds quite like the Queen. Jubilee fever hits

the country and we'll be asking what's she got that our elected

leaders don't. In the spirit of free speech, should we be hearing

more of this? You know, really you have the

charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank

clerk. Charming of course. Wouldn't hear that language here. All that

in the next hour. With us for the duration is Harvey Goldsmith, music

promoter. Welcome to the programme. He's organising one of the biggest

parties of the summer, the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations and

he's pretty well qualified. It is the Diamond Jubilee. Can't believe

I said the Golden Jubilee and I read it out. You are the man for

the job. Why, because you organised this. # All we need is radio Gaga...

We will remember that, some of us who are my age, I was there

actually, some time ago in 1985 as the grainy footage shows. Harvey,

are you ready for the next huge challenge then organising the

Diamond Jubilee party? I'm not doing all of it, I'm doing a facet

of it. We are organising a two-day major festival in Hyde Park which

is really for the family and then we are staying open to be the kind

of overflow for the concert that's taking place outside Buckingham

Palace because only a limited audience can go then. We are

expecting large crowds for that. What is it like? It must be hor

Roan dousely nerve-racking. I mean that was a long time ago. How do

you organise them -- horrendous? Organising the event is not

difficult when you do it for a living. Finding the right talent

sometimes has its challenging, but organising the event, we have a

checklist, a fantastic team of people work with me on these events.

So that gets done. With this particular event, because there are

so many different events going on at different places and there is

the concern about excess crowds which is how I got involved in it

in the first place, we are really there to soak up a lot of the

audiences that are coming in who won't be able to get down the mall

or won't find a place on the river to see the pageant. So we are

organising the day time family pageant. How many people are you

expecting? 50,000 for the concert. On the Tuesday for the final

procession and the balcony moment, if you like, we could have anything

from 50,000 to 150,000 people. Rather you than me. You have

organised major events and charitable performances. What do

you think going back to the Budget, this idea of capping tax relief on

charitable donations? Personally, I think it's insane. What we should

be doing is encouraging people to give to charities, support

charities, which they do anyway. We are a fantastic nation of

supporting causes and charities and awareness events and so on and

there are thousands of charities. But the idea, all the time the

Government has of using a sleedge hammer to crack a nut, is complete

madness and doesn't make sense. Thank you very much. Stay with us

for the rest of the show. Time for the daily quiz now. And the

question for today is: What is I am sure you have all of those

Harvey Goldsmith. At the end of the show, Harvey will give us the

answer. There's no doubting the seriousness of the problems facing

the eurozone. Questions about whether the euro can survive seem

to get louder every day. But one people of research by an economist

at JP Morgan Asset Management has taken a quirkier approach.

Comparing different groups of countries to see which might be the

best suited for a Single Currency by looking at which are the most

economically and politically convertiant. The research suggests

the strongest candidate for monetary union would be Latin

America. A combination of the UK and its English-speaking offshoots,

the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand would also work

pretty well. The countries that used to make up the Soviet Union

would do better than the eurozone, as would a reconstituted ot mon

empire, even the random group of all the countries in the world that

begin with M would make a more cohesive group than the euro area,

how bizarre. The euro countries are bottom of the pile. We are joined

by the BBC's Business Editor, Robert Peston who, tonight in a BBC

Two programme, entitled The Great Euro Crash, will be exploring

what's gone wrong. Should it never have happened, Robert? I mean

should the countries have never formed a monetary union? Well,

certainly from the stand point of where we are today you would have

to say that it was a very, very, very foolish decision to go ahead.

What one has to do is put one's self-into in a sense the minds of

the two leaders who made the crucial decisions, Mr Cole and Mr

Mitterrand more than 20 years ago now. What was on Francois

Mitterrand's mind at the time was that he wanted to use monetary

union to curb the grower power of the European Union. It was on the

verge of becoming a more powerful country, France wanted to bind them

in therefore to the EU in a rather more deeper way. Therefore, in

Mitterrand's view, this was always a political project. It was all

about effectively creating over time a United States of Europe. Had

they been able to create that federation, arguably actually there

would be much less of a crisis today. The problem that they've got

is that they are still run as sovereign states and therefore for

that reason Germany in particular is unwilling to provide the kind of

financial support to the weaker countries that would allow us to

get through this crisis without a complete calamity. It's the absence

of political union that's led us to this extraordinary mess. Now,

taking what you have just said with hindsight and that is a wonderful

thing, you wouldn't have put the northern and southern European

countries together. But when you look at what the immediate problems

are, it's not a currency problem in itself is it. It's a banking

problem, sovereign debt in that sense. That hasn't necessarily just

come out of the fact that there was monetary union, has it? Well, you

are absolutely right, that the borrowing, the fact that Italy,

Spain, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, they all borrowed more than we now

regard as sensible or affordable. They did it at exactly the same

time as the UK borrowed more than was affordable, as did the US. It

was an era of cheap interest rates. For those countries, the rates were

made even cheaper by the monetary union which is why they borrowed

wrecklessly, so it's not an accumulation of the debt, it's that

unlike the US and the UK, as part of the eurozone, these countries

don't have the tools to fix the job. We are able to get interest rates

down to a record level in both countries, the US and the UK, the

Central Bank's created tonnes of money to ease the period during

which we are trying to get our debt down. Our currencies have fallen in

value which makes life easier for our exporters. None of those

adjustment mechanisms are available within the eurozone. What does it

mean? It means that unfortunately for Greece, Portugal, Ireland,

Spain and Italy, in order to get their debts down, it imposes a

massively painful sequence of events on the people of those

countries. If you can't devalue, what has to happen? The wages of

people in those countries has to fall, perhaps by as much as 30% to

make the companies in those countries competitive with

Germany's. So what you get within the monetary union in the absence

of Germany helping out the other countries is frankly extraordinary

misery for the people of the weak countries, a misery that may well

go on for years. On that basis, can anything be done to prevent the

eurozone breaking up, or is it inef I believe the now? Gosh, I'll lose

my job if I answer that question, Jo -- inevitable. The pressure, the

forces pulling the euro apart are powerful. It's very difficult to

see how the eurozone sticks together unless, to get back to the

point I originally made, the Germans are prepared to use more of

their wealth to help the other countries. If Germany is prepared

to help, there is a chance they'd get through this. But in the

absence of that, it's very difficult to see why the citizens

of any of these countries are over a period potentially of years of

personal misery, why they would think at the end of the day they

want to persevere with this. That makes your programme essential

viewing. Remind us when it's on? Nine o'clock, BBC Two and I hope

that people get some sense of how we got into what is an

extraordinary mess. Thank you very much.

With us now is the chair of the Treasury Select Committee, Andrew

Tyrie. Let's pick up on some of those points. We've had a fairly

comprehensive explanation of the history of it, but in your view

could it have been done differently in the way Robert Peston described,

that monetary union between the southern and European countries to

have make it work? Yes, many of us argued at the start of this project,

even before the eurozone was created, that you needed a

mechanism to enable countries that couldn't cope to get out, and there

isn't one. No. That's the first point. The second point is, those

countries that joined needed to know that they had to make very

tough adjustments if they were going to stay in the eurozone for

the long-term. Those adjustments are now coming home all at once

like all the buses all arriving at the bus stop all at once. The third

foint make -- point to make, which is crucial, which is not fully

understood, is that it's not just a one-off check that will have to be

made by the northern tier countries if this area is to stay together.

Year after year, the southern tier countries are likely to perform

somewhat less well than the northern cheques and therefore

cheques will have to be written. sounds that you feel like Greece

should just exit now? It's more likely than not that Greece will go.

Do you think they should? Do you think they should pay now? It gets

more difficult the longer it's left. The best time for them to go would

have been as soon as the crisis broke. That's two years ago we have

been in this we have to bear in mind and the fact it's dragging on

so long is one of the reasons the British economy is struggling. It's

worth bearing in mind too that the Greeks cheated, the Greeks actually

lied in their submission to the European Commission. The French and

Germans flouted budgetary rules as well? About the state of their

public finances. It's true that everybody broke the rules, but it's

not true that everybody lied in accounting terms. One country did

lie and, in my view, action should have been considered at that point

which was quite early on. OK, but you are saying now would be better

than later to see Greece exit? at it from the Greeks' point of

view. Do we think the Greek economy will be able to recover from here,

a sustained recovery at current exchange rates? Maybe that's

possible, I think it's unlikely. If it doesn't happen, if I can finish

the answer to that point point, it means extensive and enduring checks

from the Germans to assist the Greeks -- cheques. Whatever is done

will involve a lot of pain. Greece leaving will be painful, for us as

well as Greece. Before we get to contagion, let's look at the

language from David Cameron and George Osborne. In that sense, why

aren't we hearing a case being made by British politicians? They may

not want to shout from the sidelines Greece should leave, it

would be better for the British economy, if that's what they feel

because David Cameron's entered into that territory. Was he right

to do so? It's problematic for David Cameron and George Osborne.

We are not members of the eurozone, but we are in the EU. It's not much

fun for the eurozone members getting that. They don't like

hearing lectures. David Cameron and the Chancellor don't want to get

involved in that. On the other hand, we are trying to protect British

interests and bring forward the point at which these decisions are

taken. We have been at this for two years now, that's part of the

problem, the fact that it's dragging on. If I can make a

further point. It may be that we will stagger our way to a solution

where eventually the cheques are written from the north to keep the

whole zone together or parts of the eurozone may fold or fall away at

the bottom, perhaps only Grease or others, I don't know. Whatever

happens there, we must get that decision taken quickly. That is why

I have favoured and been arguing for some time that the IMF come in,

not as a partner of the European Central Bank, but to tell the

European Central Bank what to do, to tell the European Commission

what to do, to act as they would with any other country in trouble

and give really tough unsentimental advice to the rest of the eurozone.

In terms of what the leadership is saying, do you want to hear more

from David Cameron saying make that decision, break up if you are not

prepared to stand by the currency or get the ECB to prop up, daupt to

Maybe he can leave it to me fr. His point of view, when he comes to the

heads of state meeting, he doesn't want to give a long lecture. I'm in

a different position. I can argue that the Greece position is

perilous. To some extent it's a no- win. It appears that a large chunk

of the Greek population don't want to be in the eurozone because of

the adjustments they're having to make to deal with the pressures

they're putting on them. It appears that a ton of money's been

literally wasted that's already been given to Greece which is

aplauing. -- pauling. If either Greece, are they going to be pushed

or did they jump. We're not sure which way round. We're getting

complete uncertainty from the litres and we're not getting

certainty from our own leader. And what's the knock-on effect? I take

your position, that if you don't cut the wound off soon, that wound

is going to fester and spread everywhere, which is perilous to

start with. The risk of contagion as Vince Cable set out clearly, is

frightening. Is that not worse, the risk that you see Greece default

messily or not and then depositors start taking money out of Spanish

and Italian banks. Then British banks look more vulnerable to debt

there. That would be, wouldn't that be far more frightening than

actually trying to keep up propping up Greece? Correct. A disorderly

break up of the eurozone would be catastrophic for anybody near the

eurozone at the time that happens. Can we find a way of making these

adjustments, either in the eurozone or with these countries leaving

with the key country at moment leaving, Greece? To some extent, it

would be a plus, if I just... If I jump in. Obviously the money

that would have gone to Greece can be spread around the other

countries if they so need it. want to complete the point I wanted

to make. A said a second ago that I think we need to be involving the

IMF in all this. Are the Europeans, is the eurozone planning a

contingency operation for Greek withdrawal? I don't see enough

evidence of that. I don't see the work being done. You don't? Surely

it is going on behind the scenes. very much hope. So the people best

place to guide it are the IMFment empower them. Three quarters of

their shareholders are not in the eurozone and it's on their behalf,

that's us, America, Japan, China, India, it's on behalf of the rest

of the world that we need them to do that. You're going to be here

for the next discussion as well. What did David Cameron have to say

about the domestic economy this morning? Here's a flavour of his

speech. Let me be clear, we are moving in the right direction, not

rushing the task, but judging it carefully. And that is why we must

resist dangerous voices calling on us to retreat. Yes, we are doing

everything we can to return this country to strong, stable economic

growth. But, no, we will not do that by returning to the something

for nothing economics that got us into this economic mess in the

first place. We cannot blow the budget on more spending and more

debt. It would be to squander all the progress that we've made in the

last two tough years. It would actually mean tough decisions

lasting even longer. It would risk our future. It is not an

alternative policy, it is a coppout. The Prime Minister speaking there

about the economy. Andrew Tyrie, I mean the Bank of England has cut

its growth forecast. Mervyn King's warned that the squeeze on

household incomes will persist. Inflation stays high till next year.

Mortgages are going up. Are you still confident the Government's

policies are working? It's tough. I don't see an alternative to the

strategy we've got. But it's not working. I notice that the Prime

Minister has a purple tie on today and that... Matching. Matching the

set here. If they're not working... He's been giving a pretty robust,

if not to say gloomy speech, when you say it's not working... We're

in recession. What's the alternative? The alternative

strategy that the Prime Minister goes on about now, is we need to

look at growth. He doesn't want to spend any more money. If you're

looking at plan that the Government said was going to work in two years

there would be growth, it hasn't worked. There isn't growth.

Shouldn't they be looking at an alternative. There are two parts of

that. The first is to say, have we got the right level of demand in

the economy. Are we taking too much out of the economy, are we, are the

spending cuts going through too vigorously? If you ask the people

calling for that, I expect they'll be in your studio on and off for

months to come, ask them by how much do they want to reduce that?

Is it �2 billion, �5 billion, �8 billion? Bear in mind we've just

done �300 billion worth of squeezing. The odd few billion here

on fiscal policy is not going to make a great difference. What we

need to be addressing is a longer term question which is reform of

the way the economy operates, the labour market, tax system. I'm glad

you use the term, I thought I'd try to avoid it. But do you think that

will transform the economic landscape? It did in the 1980s. We

were a basket case in the '70s. We had supply side reform and it

worked. It's what the Germans are talking about and what the European

Community, European Union is talking about with a respect to the

Lisbon agenda, which was never implemented. It's one of the

reasons why the eurozone is so inflexible and why the Greeks and

Spanish and Portuguese are in a more difficult situation than they

would be. You do accept that the plan has failed to do what the

Government set out to do, which was as George Osborne said by having a

rigorous deficit reduction programme there would be growth.

There isn't growth. They blamed the eurozone. Don't they? Rather than

saying any of it is down to policies here. Is that really

enough to blame the eurozone for all of those factors I've listed?

think the eurozone as the Governor of the Bank of England pointed out

in evidence to the Treasury committee said, is responsible for

the bulk of it. At the time the decisions were taken two years ago,

the eurozone was doing better than it is now, substantially better.

The remainder is accounted for the fact we have higher commodity

prices. The British economy, bearing in mind the pressure on it,

has been showing flexibility. We saw that in the labour market

statistics which have come out. Unemployment is not as bad as

people feared, it is very bad, but not as bad as feared. This is a

huge crisis, the biggest crisis that the country has faced since

the 1930s, certainly since the 1980s. In my view they have

broughtly the bright -- broadly the bright strategy on fiscal policies.

The sort of labour supply side reforms you would like to see?

have started to articulate that agenda. I've been pushing for that

for 18 months. I've been arguing that they need to have this higher

up the agenda. They do now, they are movering it up the agenda,

implementing it at a very, very tough job. Now they need to get on

with it. Thank you. Ed Miliband had this to say this morning on the

economy: Extraordinary, you see figures showing that the eurozone

as a whole has not been in recession, but Britain is in

recession. Now what's got to happen is that we have to have a proper

plan for growth in Britain. We've got to have that proper plan for

growth and jobs. We've got to see crucially the eurozone sort out its

problems. Sometimes listening to the Prime Minister he's like a man

watching events. He's the Prime Minister. He should be getting in

there and getting it sorted out with Europe's leaders and sorting

it out means not just sorting out the eurozone's problems but getting

that proper plan for growth we need in Europe, just like we need a plan

for growth in Britain. The Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury is

with me now. I will pick up on what Andrew Tyrie said, let's hear how

much you would spend in a stimulus. If the, as you say, the

Government's policies are wrong, we are in recession. Growth isn't

happening. How much would the Government need to spend to

kickstart the economy? What we're saying is that there should be a

slower pace of deficit reduction. I'm sorry to interrupt you, the

slower pace of deficit reduction, how much slower would it have to be.

The Government is cutting 13 a year, Labour wouldn't have cut as much, -

- 1prs a year, Labour wouldn't have cut as much. -- 1%. This Government

set out to eliminate the deficit in this Parliament. They're not going

it achieve that because they're borrowing �150 billion more because

of higher unemployment and the economy is back into recession.

What about the cuts made so far, you wouldn't have made any fewer

cuts really or not a lot less than have been made so far in terms of

expenditure? If you look at the police, the Government are cutting

by 20%, we said 12%. I'm looking at the overall expenditure. Overall

you wouldn't have been cutting a lot less. Our plan was to go at

half the speed, to halve the deficit during the course of this

Parliament. Remember, because the Government have failed to get the

economy back on track and because unemployment is higher, they are

now borrowing more than the plan Alistair Darling set out, �150

billion more because their decision to cut too far too far, choked off

the economic recovery. You don't have the tax receipts coming in.

accept when you say over the course of the Parliament. What I'm trying

to establish is that over the last two -- two years, in terms of what

Labour would have done, they haven't cut much faster than Labour

would have done at this point. And we are still in recession. Are you

saying that the policies that Labour would have undertaken,

cutting a little slower, would have resulted in let's say 2% to 3%

growth. Is that where we would be? If you look at the United States of

America, which has a different pace of deficit reduction, their economy

is growing strongly... With a massive stimulus. With a stimulus,

but they're reducing the deficit. They're deficit is coming down at a

faster rate than ours. You would have liked to see a stimulus into

the British economy, more spending? What you're seeing in the United

States is their deficit is coming down because they have more people

in work paying taxes and fewer people out of work receiving

benefits. The two go together. You have to have those policies for

jobs and growth to get the economy moving, but also to get the deficit

down as well. The Government have failed in all three tests. The

economy's in a double-dip recession. Unemployment is far too high. Also,

they're borrowing much more because their plan has failed. Would you

like to see more spending on things like infrastructure, that perhaps,

would have prevented unemployment rates, though they've come down in

the last set of figures, but would have prevented unemployment rates

going up so much? London is in the middle of infrastructure at the

moment. Just getting about London is an absolute nightmare. There's

so much work going on and so many people employed. The notion of

having capital infrastructure projects which will only happen at

certain times is the reason why we have the Olympic Games coming to

London, for example. To encourage more, that is the prime reason why

people decided to have the Olympics to push for it, is because those

prodge etc -- projects would never have taken place. They're happening

any way. What this good. Or the coalition is pointing out and I

think which is becoming quite obvious, you can't spend what you

don't have. We've been spending what we don't have for too long and

trying to make that up is never going to work. On that point, it's

been put to Labour many times, briefly, should you be saying

Greece needs to leave the euro? Greece leaves the euro then I think

that could have disastrous consequences for the UK and the

rest of Europe. So I want to see the governments in Europe,

including David Cameron and our Government, doing all that can be

done to try and support the eurozone economy. That means having

a policy for jobs and growth. Have you more and more people out of

work in Europe. Unless people go back to work, you can't get the

economy back on track. How will that help Greece? None of that

helps at the moment? Looking at Greece, they've been in recession

for four years now, one of the reasons why they're struggling so

much with the deficit and debt is that their economy is shrinking.

Nothing will save Greece at this point unless the European Central

Bank or money is put in. There are things that can be done as you've

just said. That's if the ECB does its job as a lender of last resort

and if the austerity is also met with a proper growth package that

could save the euro, but also, We often talk about the backbench

1922 committee on this programme, every other day it seems. Why

should today be any different? It's influential and has been through

years of thorn in the side of Conservative leaders. Last night it

had fresh elections. To tell us who is in and out, let's cross to James

Landale, a keen follower of these things. Who won and who lost, if

that's the way to characterise it? I won't go through the names, but

largely the new generation, those MPs elected in 2010, a lot more

have been elected on to this body. Some old guards, so-called awkward

squad, they've been kicked off this committee. As a committee, it will

be driven a lot more by the views of the new intake and all their

agendas. I think the Government will be happier with that because

largely they will be more in line with where the Government is

heading at the moment. However, I think that the problem for the

Government is that the process of this election was testy, scratchy,

devisive factional and I think that will add to the Government's

discipline problems in the long run. Thank you very much.

Well, I'm joined now by the chairman of the 1922 committee

Graham Brady who was re-elected unopposed. Listening to that, at

the moment, it's been testy, bad tempered, is that how you see it?

think the campaign was too factional and occasionally bad

tempered. I think sometimes colleague didn't show respect for

each other that I would like the see and I hope now we have had an

election which was very well conducted yesterday and good

humours on the day and is in a - has resulted in a very good

spectrum, I hope it will be more civilised and we'll treat each

other with more respect. Was this a perge by loyalists loyal to the

leadership? -- purge? It's exactly as it should be... Tell me how that

is? You survived as perhaps one of the traditionalists, but a lot of

loyalists have got on to the executive, 11 out of 12, that

sounds like a purge? I don't think the division between loyalists and

traditionalists is ar accurate. are loll loyal to the leadership?

try to be, and to the party. The committee is a channel of

communication to the backbenches and the party, principally to the

leader of the Conservative Party. That is something we do well. We

generally, contrary to popular opinion, the executive does it

discreetly, very rarely leaks and we should maintain that. Can you be

an effective conduit to the leadership from backbenchers who, I

mean I had Dan on earlier who said many of the intake think the 1922's

become almost irrelevant and the old guard doesn't really represent

our views? Well, I don't know whether Dan thinks I'm old guard or

not, I hope he doesn't. You are in the sense that you are not part of

the 2010 intake? But the Conservative Party... I take that

point, but what do you say to the criticism? I think the 192

committee is frequently misunderstood by some of its

members. It doesn't take a corporate view, it's a channel of

communication, the way in which Conservative backbenchers

communicate with the leadership of the party. The way they need to do

that is to engage, be present, involve themselves and their voice

will be heard. Do you accept the leadership is worried about that,

because they wouldn't have been backing a slate of candidates put

forward by a particular group, the 301 group of essentially new MPs?

That's something for historians to... What is your view? If the

leadership has to get that involved? I don't think David

Cameron was involved. George Osborne entertained a lot of those

people trying to get on to the committee? George Osborne, David

Cameron preconstituent I have have drinks parties for Conservative

Members of Parliament, I think that's a good thing, ebgts pected

thing, natural for David Cameron and George Osborne to come to the

committee -- expected. Do you think it would be too disloyal? You are

there as a critical voice or friend or whatever, but do you accept the

leadership was worried it was becoming too critical, that people

were voicing their unhappiness with what the Government was doing?

think it's important to bear in mind. People who happen to be on

the executive of the 1922 commission or in the offices are

Members of Parliament as well. They don't necessarily speak in their

capacity as officers of the 1922 committee. I tend to have a fairly

strict self-denying audience. I'm not plastered across the media

making public meant because it's more effective to make the comments

privately to David Cameron and others in the Government. Do you

think Mark Pritchard, Christopher Chote, Peter Bone, these are MPs

who've caused problems or said things and it's thought they spoke

out of turn? I just expect honesty and courtesy and respect. People

have to make their own judgments. How does Nadine Dorries and her

comments about two posh boys fit into that? That was not showing the

personal respect that should be shown to all colleagues. So those

comments - I mean where's the line - if you want people to express

their unhappy views, such as Lord's reform, should that have been in

the Queen's speech? It's for the Government to decide that. But you

are representing backbenchers. entirely proper for backbenchers to

give their views and to communicate their advice and views to the

Government. That is I think a necessary part of the process. We

are elected to Parliament to do is something, not just to sit, wait

and hear what the Government tells us. Do you think the Tory party is

changing this new intake of MPs that are coming through? In some

ways, they are actually very independent even if some are saying

they want to be loyal to David Cameron. What is your view?

appears as if the party is changing. Obviously, from a lay point of view

from being on the outside, all we are seeing is the condemn, you know,

the coalition. Whether it's Con /kDem or not, we can't see the wood

for the trues. I thought the committee was there to point out

which was the wood and which was the trees. It's natural the

committee will want to pull a coalition Government in the

Conservative direction and make sure the coalition is properly

balanced. So for instance, Lord's reform, needn't have been in the

Queen's speech as far as your 1922 committee and backbenchers are

concerned? We don't take a corporate view, we do however tray

to reflect the spectrum and strength of opinion. As is well

known, we did have a meeting to discuss House of Lords reform. It

was I think quite an important meeting and I think it helped to

inform the government's thinking on the subject. Gay marriage - that

dropped even though there's been the consultation. Was that the

right thing to do? It's not been dropped... But it wasn't in

legislating on in the Queen's speech? As with many things, as a

spectrum of opinion in the party on it, what I think is a broad held

view is that it shouldn't be stpral to what the Government is doing --

central. The things David Cameron's been talking about this morning I

think are very much at the core both of what the Government needs

to be doing, what the country needs and the thing that the coalition's

come together to achieve. Do you think you will still be in that

position next year? Well, I quite like democracy and it's a good

thing for people to have elections and to be able to vote and make

their own choices. Thank you very much. From the old guard, well,

perhaps not quite so old guard, to what must be the new guard, joining

us from College Green outside the House of Commons is Graham Evans,

he was elected to the 1922 committee for the first time last

night and had the backing of the 301 group of modernising MPs. Well,

congratulations on your victory. Do you see it as a victory for the

2010 intake and the 301 group? I don't see it as a victory. The

2010 intake was full of a huge amount of talented new MPs from

extremely diverse backgrounds, more representative of society, from the

north of England from working class backgrounds. So I think the 1922

committee is representative of the party as a whole. Why did you have

to run a slate of candidates then? Why did it have to be that

organised with what looked like backing from the leadership?

wasn't contacted by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor. I was

going to stand anyway. I'm a member of the 2010 intake, so although

much play's been made on the slate, we are a bunch of individuals from

the 2010 intake and happen to have got ourselves elected. What is

wrong with the old guard, do you like Graham Brady? I have a huge

amount of respect for him, as a fellow north-west Conservative,

Graham's done a fantastic job in Manchester, a lone voice of sense

in the I woulderness years in the 90s, so a huge amount of respect

for Graham, he's a very good chairman -- wilderness. Yes. Is the

Government going to get an easier ride from you and your colleagues.

Do you think it's not wise to be disrespectful and speak out in such

a way that would damage the Government? We should be respectful

critical friends. The message here is that the Conservative Party is

united taking the fight to Labour for leaving our country in such a

mess. All right. Thank you very much. Sorry I stopped you abruptly,

but thank you very much. And thank you to you, Graham Brady.

Get your bunting out, pack a few cucumber sandwiches and start

waving the flags because Jubilee fever is upon us. In two-and-a-half

weeks' time, thousands of street parties will be held all over the

country, millions are expected to line the mall and cheer Her Majesty.

According to the Kennel Club, Diamond Jubilee fever's seen a

surge in demand for corgis, the Queen's favourite dog. Why do we

love Her Majesty so much? Here is saw Sanaa.

- Susanna. The flags, the crowds, the bunting. Only one person could

be in town. After 60 years on the throne, the

Queen is still pulling many the crowds. But what is it that makes

people come and stand out here for hours on end, just to catch a

glimpse of her? I think the fact she's been doing

the same job for 60 years without putting a foot wrong. She's been on

the throne for a long time and has done a good job. She's faced so

many challenges. Because of her stamina. She never gives up. What

about the rest of the Royals, do you like them? Not the hangers on,

but yes, Will and Harry. Not the hangers on. Who are they? Well...

Oh, dear, are we allowed to say. Andrew. They haven't all been as

plash as the Queen who's now into her third Jubilee celebrations.

This was the silver one where the street parties ran into the night.

She became Queen many the early '50s and it's the history she

represents which we love, according to one historian. She is the 20th

century. She was born into the depression, the 50s and 60s and

came through really tough times. Her popularity was at a massive low

point after the death of Diana and she's come through it. We partly do

love her because we did once hate her. After Diana's death, public

anger was directed at the Queen, the monarchy had to modernise, it

was argued. So why not let a Queen guitarist on

the roof? The godge celebrations mixed the traditional with the

modern -- the Golden Jubilee. And last year's Royal Wedding proved

that the monarchy can still fill the mall. The young Royals have

become very popular and having the Royal Wedding last year was a

master stroke. I mean, it gathered all the incredible popularity and

ever since then, the Royal Family have been riding high on it. There

was a lot of talk that the Golden Jubilee would have been a come

plait damp squib. I don't think anyone thinks that about the

Diamond Jubilee, even if it's going to rain. If the Queen wants to know

what the weather will be like, here is someone who can give her a

forecast. The potential for a few flurries over barrel moral, who the

hell wrote this script... Prince Charles is next in line for the

throne, but in Bromley, supporters don't seem as keen on him. Maybe

ten years ago maybe, but now I think William. Not quite sure if

he'd make a good King, to be honest. I think William and Kate, we see

them as the next ones. William. Those discussions will come, but

the Queen's Diamond Jubilee is sure to have all the pomp and pageantry

of Jubilees past. Our guest of the day, Harry Goldsmith is in charge

of the Jubilee family festival and we are also joined by the

Conservative MP Robert Buckland, a member of the All Party Group on

the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and from the republican camp we are

joined by Graham Smith from Republic. Welcome to both of you.

Can I start with you, Robert, why do you think the Queen's appeal is

so enduring? She embodies public service. She made that promise to

us when she was a Princess years ago and has embodied that through

her long reign. The amount of work and engagements she does, the

amount of public involvement that she undertakes is extraordinary and

I think paying tribute to that in the Jubilee is very much part of

the celebration. But it hasn't been consistent in terms of support and

popularity, not her public service, because as we showed at the time of

Princess Diana's death, there was a real slump in support for the

monarchy, particularly for the Queen. So do you think these things

just go through phases and that actually the attachment isn't that

deep? I think the attachment is deep to the institution of monarchy,

but I accept your point about popularity going through phases. If

you take the long view, Queen Victoria went through a long phase

of unpopularity because she withdrew from public life. That

changed and taking the long view is a very important part of how the

Queen views her role as Monarch. The enduring support is for the

institution, if not necessarily for the personality or for the person

The reason why the monarchy has survived is largely because we've

had one monarch on the throne for 60 years. The reason why, it's

mathematics, she was given a job for life at the age of 25 and she's

stayed alive. That's why she's been on the throne for 60 years. Why do

you want to get rid of it? institution, three main reasons,

the hereditary principle is not in keeping with democratic values.

They willfully exploit their position for, in terms of finances,

in terms of lobbying Government in secret, and there are serious

constitutional issues. We're not a very democratic society and our

power is in the centre. It's offensive, the institution from a

hereditary point of view is offensive to democratic principles

in this country? I don't buy that at all. Technically, all the things

you're saying may be correct, but as far as the UK is concerned, as

far as the public is concerned, that sense of magic, I think is a

bit like sparkle dust at the top, we have a monarchy that, round the

world, has the most incredible amount of respect. I mean I go

backwards and forwards to America, I'm off in a couple of hours to New

York, and every time I go to America, I see more sense of pride

of having our Queen involved than anything else. Consequently, if the

public want it and demand it, then I think this Royal Family have done

a good job on supporting it. It's a myth that people around the world

are fascinated with it It's not a myth. It is. There's far fewer

monarchies around the world than there have been. And two more are

on the ropes in Sweden and Spain. This is why we're protesting on

June 3 at the pageant. There will be the largest protest there's been

in modern times for the simple reason that we take democratic

values very seriously. We're supposed to be equal citizens.

There's no such thing as equal citizens as you know. That's a myth.

That's as mythical as having a monarchy. OK, but it's a better

myth than the monarchy. No, it's not. The idea is that you and I

have the same political rights, not the same wealth or skills, but the

same rights. In this country that's not the case. What about the case

of magic dust, the fact that she is welcomed wherever she goes around

the country. You can't put a value on that, can you? Let's be clear

about the level of support. The crowds are smaller than they were

30 years ago. The Jubilee is less than it was 35 years ago. The

interest in the wedding was smaller than it was 30 years prior to that.

People are not as interested. don't find that at all.

disagree what the crowds were smaller? I don't see that at all in

society. You can say, there may be less street parties, that's about

the nature of society and the way it's changing. That's not a

reflection on the popularity of the monarchy. The Royal Family remains

an indelible part of public life. They perform a huge ceremonial and

emotional focus for the country. It's about continuity. It's such a

colourless, drab alternative that we're being offered. I'll give you

two words: President Blair. No-one has argued for President Blair. How

he's going to win an election I have no idea. It is not colourless

and drab. It's quite exciting and a matter of national and civic pride

to be able to elect our own President. Ireland has done it

successfully last year. People are turning off. They're not as excited

about the monarchy as they were before. An emotional, national

focus is a sport. It's football, it's the Olympics. People are more

interested in the Olympics than in the Jubilee. Are you saying there's

a lack of emotional attachment? There's some, of course. I'm not

pretending everybody's switched off. There will be maybe half a million

people at the pageant as at the wedding last year. That's smaller

crowds. London Gay Pride gets more people than you had at the wedding

last year, so does Notting Hill Carnival. It's expected between 50

and 150... That's not correct. As far as our planning and the work

we're doing with the Government on, with DCMS and Cabinet Office and

the royal parks etc, we're expecting huge crowds. One of the

limitations we v, I mentioned earlier, of course, is the state of

London at the moment with all its road works and whatever, which is

an impediment to get to events. people would come? The numbers and

health and so on which physically limit. In terms of demand, the

demand is as big now as it's ever been. We've been talking to the

Metropolitan Police about our protest near Tower Bridge on the

day and they've been telling us half a million is the figure they

got last year and the figure they're expecting this year.

Smaller than before. We'll end the competition on the big crowds.

Thank you to both of you. Now you bunch of (BLEEP) bleep, bet

you wonder what I was saying. Let's talk about insults. Free speech

campaignerers calling on the Government to change a law which

bans insulting words and behaviour. They say the Public Order Act is

overused and question why police and judges have the right to rule

what is insulting. Here's our totally uselss reporter, Adam

Fleming. Don't you hate it when people come up to you and insult

you? You useless twit. Get a life. Campaigners against section five of

the Public Order Act say it's part and parcel of free speech. They say

this 25-year-old law is having a chilling effect. Get your hair cut.

It allows insults to be criminalised without the person

being insulted, having to prove that they were insulted. I don't

think in this multicultural society it's appropriate to criminalise

something as trivial as insult. It's important for people to be

able to say truth to power. They point to examples of a teenager who

called a police horse "gay" and spend a night in the cells as a

result. Another teenager who was fined for shouting "woof" at a dog

in the street. The Home Office have held a consultation on all this.

We're waiting to hear what they say. If they decide the law has to be

changed, then it means I can go back to the Daily Politics office

and with impunity called Andrew Neil a (BLEEP) and Gyles he's a

(BLEEP), (BLEEP). Our producer couldn't (BLEEP)... Then there's

David Thompson he's a (BLEEP). And Susanna (BLEEP). Do you get the

impression that Adam enjoyed doing that a little too much! And we're

joined now by the human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, and

from Southampton by Will Riches of the Police Federation. On a serious

point, how can you criminalise insults? Let's talk first of all,

this is not about limiting public freedom of speech at all. Isn't it?

There was a particularly interesting piece there in relation

to it. Well, OK. But in a sense, it is still criminalising what is

insulting behaviour to one person and less so to another. Let's talk

about, it talks about a person of reasonable firmness. This is not a

shrirchinging violet. We're members of the public too going about their

business and having to endure other people's behaviour which affects

their quality of life as well. suppose people might say in terms

of protecting the police can't they put up with a certain amount of

abuse. You're the people protecting the public, is it worth spending

the time using the law to protect yourselves against what is

insulting behaviour? That's true. The police are the public. The

public are the police. We are members of society and yes, we do

have to look at the way in which people behave. We're there to

enforce the law and make sure everybody has a right to go about

their business and feel safe in doing so. You have campaigned to

protect minority groups, famous for doing so, why do you want to take

away this protection? This section five of the Public Order Act was

used in 2009, 18,000 times. It's not a rare occurrence. Morover, it

has been used against people who in my opinion have not insulted anyone.

For example, there have been a series of street preachers who have

said they believe homosexuality is wrong or immoral. They have been

convicted under this law. Now, they weren't being aggressive on

threating. They were just expressing their point of view. I

disagree with it. I would protest against their point of view, but I

don't think they should be criminalised. Surely, that is the

fact that we champion free speech in this country, unless someone is

under threat from physical violence, why can't people say what they want

to say? Of course, there should be freedom of speech. It is for the

Government to decide at what level the threshold is set. Why was it

used 18,000 times this section five? I'm sorry, I didn't get that?

Why was it used 18,000 times. Peter Tatchell said it was used 18,000

times in... 2009. That's a large number. That's historic data. I

don't have that in front of me. Clearly, if it's gone through the

system, then we're doing our jobs as police officers and making sure

that people are being held to account for their actions.

thing is it's a difficult line to draw, because what is the

difference between saying some of the things you said on religious

marches and inciting hatred? Well, if we removed the clause against

insults from section five, it would still leave the clauses

criminalising abusive and threatening behaviour. And there's

the other public order laws and the laws against harassment. They would

rightly protect people. What we're concerned about is the chilling

effect that this clause on insults has against people who are merely

expressing an opinion. Of course, in a free society we have to put up

sometimes with opinions we find offensive and insulting. Do you

think Peter Tatchell is right, we do have to put up with that and

that is the price for free speech? I do tend to agree with Peter's

views. I think it's a question of balance. I think under the basis of

what seems to be on the table, what Nadine Dorries said about her

leaders, she should be in jail by now, based on that. It doesn't make

any sense. We have too often, as I said earlier with the charity issue,

we have too often where Government uses a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

This is a balance, it's a difficult balance, particularly with whose

interpretation of what an insult is and how devastating that is in

effect. The problem that the police have got to do, of course, they

have to do the interpretation of it and decide whether this really is,

and it puts them in an inindividualious situation. Even a

very expert and experienced person like Lord McDonald, the former

director of public prosecutions, gave a legal opinion that we do not

need the insult clause in section five, that if it was removed it

would not diminish the powers of the police because there are so

many laws they can use against behaviour that is threatening,

abusive and causes harm to people. Thank you very much.

When it comes to insults, we've seen some corkers, among the cut

and thrust of blil debate, in a moment we'll chat about the thorny

issue of unParliamentary language. First are some of the our

favourites. I know he's keen on summing up policy in six words. How

about this: You are the weakest link, goodbye.

Mr Speaker, the House has noticed the Prime Minister's remarkable

transformation in the last few weeks from starling to Mr Bean.

You're a miserable pip squeak of a mad dog. Then the survivors of

World War II started to look pretty old as well, as my noble friend the

Baroness reminded me, claiming to be one of the only survivor I think

in this House of the, those who gave great service to their nation.

You know really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the

appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the question that I want

to ask... The question that I want to ask that we're all going to ask,

is who are you? I'd never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever

heard of you. So, proud of our Parliamentary democracy and what

can and can't be said? I think you know, MPs give it. I think they

should not be criminalising the rest of the public. It's

interesting that more than half of MPs do believe that the insult

clause should be removed from section five. A quick few words

that can't be said, hooligan, rat, swine, stool pigeon and traitor.

Are they unParliamentary? They're being kind. What would you say?, no,

don't actually tell us what you might say. One of my favourites,

although it's very unkind, Dennis heely once said of Lord Howe it's

like being savaged by a dead sheep. That's all for today. David

Cameron's favourite album Pink Floyd. Dark Side Of The Moon, it is.

Aapparently. Thanks to our guests. The one o'clock news is starting